Podcasts about Jurisdiction

In this episode of Mining Stock Daily, Ian Wagner interviews Greg McCunn, CEO of Great Pacific Gold, providing a corporate update on their projects in Papua New Guinea, particularly focusing on the Kesar and Wild Dog projects. The conversation covers recent drilling results, future plans, and the regulatory environment in Papua New Guinea, highlighting the company's strategic positioning and potential for growth.TakeawaysGreat Pacific Gold is focused on gold and copper exploration in Papua New Guinea.The Kessar project has shown promising drilling results and is strategically located near profitable mines.Wild Dog is the flagship project with significant high-grade results and ongoing drilling.Analysts are impressed by the scale and potential of the Wild Dog project during site visits.The company has a large land package with excellent infrastructure support.Papua New Guinea offers a favorable regulatory framework for mining operations.Great Pacific Gold is fully funded for its 2026 drilling program.A spin-out of the Walhalla asset is expected to provide additional value to shareholders.Investors can anticipate accelerated drilling results from Wild Dog in the coming months.The company is well-positioned for future growth with a strong cash position.Sound bites"There is just incredible potential.""It's a great place to build a mine.""Investors can look forward to that."Chapters00:00 Introduction to Great Pacific Gold00:28 Kessar Project Update04:33 Wild Dog Project Insights11:19 Infrastructure and Jurisdiction in Papua New Guinea14:29 Future Outlook for Great Pacific Gold

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In the final instalment of the Family Law Podcast Series, Judge Marie Baker and Claire Collins SC tie together the threads of family law with a sharp look at the mechanics of jurisdiction and enforcement. Explored in this episode: the legal implications of living apart under one roof, the enforceability of oral settlements and the penalties that can arise from non-disclosure. This conclusion to the series also takes a look forward at how the complexity of family law continues to evolve, and the importance of upholding fairness and transparency. Episode Notes: RL v MR [2025] IEHC 340 https://www.courts.ie/view/judgments/e2a97ee7-da89-4048-862b-7ca22f880938/325defff-0b5f-4f03-8a60-93e350eac576/2025_IEHC_340.pdf/pdf R v N [2023] IEHC 748 https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/a3199503-4424-4696-8651-2921f19e319d/2023_IEHC_748.pdf/pdf#view=fitH AA v BA [2014] IESC 49 https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/75ec1328-af9c-4cdd-ac8a-f6f070981bc9/2014_IESC_49_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH SN v PO'D [2009] IESC 21 https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/9954f58c-af32-4c59-88bc-750c61402d14/2009_IESC_61_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH CCK v SLK [2024] IEHC 492 https://www.courts.ie/search/judgments/%22%20type%3AJudgment%22%20AND%20%22filter%3Aalfresco_radio.title%22%20AND%20%22filter%3Aalfresco_NeutralCitation.2024%20%20IEHC%20492%22 CP v RP [2025] IEHC 332 https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/c471cc65-bb12-4e28-9e0a-b98ec98ca606/2025_IEHC_332.pdf/pdf#view=fitH DF v CK [2025] IEHC 343 https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/13089ced-8215-42aa-9dd6-5efd5b08ff32/2025_IEHC_343.pdf/pdf#view=fitH Disclaimer: The presenters are not offering or seeking to offer legal advice or assistance. Their aim is to explain some new cases which elucidate the constitutional and legal principles in divorce and judicial separation. Any person who is affected by any of the issues raised, or the examples used, should consult with a solicitor.

A police investigation into the production of marijuana led to criminal proceedings against 11 individuals. A stay of proceedings was entered for the respondents in light of unreasonable delays. The Court of Québec dismissed the motion to dismiss the motion for forfeiture pursuant to ss. 491.1 and 462.37(2) of the Cr. C. and s. 16(2) of the CDSA. The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the motion for prohibition and certiorari in aid. The Quebec Court of Appeal set aside the Superior Court judge's decision and stated that the Court of Québec did not have the jurisdiction required to deal with motions for forfeiture pursuant to ss. 491.1 and 462.37(2) of the Cr. C. and s. 16(2) of the CDSA. Argued Date 2025-10-16 Keywords Criminal law — Proceeds of crime — Offence related property — Restraint order — Jurisdiction of provincial court — Appropriate procedural vehicles — Whether property included in application for forfeiture pursuant to s. 462.37(2) of Criminal Code and s. 16(2) of Controlled Drugs and Substances Act must be related to offence for which there was conviction — Whether stay of proceedings prevents prosecutor from proving facts forming basis for charges in context of motion for forfeiture of offence related property or of proceeds of crime — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 462.37(2) — Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, s. 16(2). Notes (Quebec) (Criminal) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

Broadcaster Sean Plunket isn't going down without a fight, as our broadcasting watchdog claims jurisdiction over his online-only company The Platform. The Broadcasting Standards Authority received a complaint from a member of the public - after the broadcaster described Māori tikanga as 'mumbo jumbo'. Sean Plunket says the BSA has 'messed this up' - and it's likely this complaint will never see the light of day. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) has issued a provisional decision claiming jurisdiction over a complaint about an online radio show. They said that the complaint fits their formal definition and requirements, meaning that they have to act. Chief Executive of the Broadcasting Standards Authority Stacey Wood told Mike Hosking that the BSA had long been debating expanding the boundaries of their jurisdiction. ‘Transmission of a programme by means of telecommunication includes the internet.' LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome to a special series on Life with GDPR. Over the next five episodes, Tom Fox and Alyssa DeSimone, a legal/compliance & risk management expert with an extensive background in HR, will discuss the complex topic of a Compliance Roadmap for ADS/ADMT. In this first episode, we break down the essentials of ADS/ADMT, focusing on who is covered, the nuances of jurisdiction, and the broader business implications of evolving employment laws. ADS is an automated decision system, and ADMT is an automated decision-making technology. Whether you are an HR professional, compliance professional, or legal eagle, this discussion will help you navigate the complexities of compliance in a changing legal landscape. Key highlights: What is ADS/ADMT? Applies to 5+ employees (including part-time/out-of-state). Coverage limits for out-of-state conduct. Jurisdiction can reach beyond California. Risk mitigation tips for businesses. Resources: Connect with Tom Fox LinkedIn Connect with Alyssa DeSimone LinkedIn Website Life with GDPR was recently honored as a Top Data Security Podcast Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Africa's financial services sector is undergoing a rapid transformation, driven by FinTech innovations that are reshaping how individuals and businesses access and use financial services. Accelerated smartphone penetration, wider internet access, and the need to overcome limited traditional banking infrastructure are fuelling growth and attracting significant investment across payments, digital assets, tokenisation and RegTech, amongst others.Positioned at the strategic crossroads of Africa and Asia, Mauritius offers a well-regulated, transparent, and investor-friendly International Financial Centre (IFC) with a progressive regulatory framework, including the Regulatory Sandbox Licence, the Payment Intermediary Services Licence, and the Virtual Asset and Initial Token Offering Services (VAITOS) Licence. Mauritius stands out as one of the few African jurisdictions where FinTech is comprehensively regulated, offering companies the clarity, and credibility they need to operate and scale with confidence.These forward-looking legislative tools provide regulatory certainty and operational efficiency, enabling FinTech firms to test, scale, and launch innovative solutions across African markets while maintaining robust oversight. Backed by a skilled and adaptable workforce of multilingual ICT professionals, Mauritius stands as a competitive, future-ready FinTech jurisdiction, ideally positioned to drive growth and innovation in the region. This webinar will explore how the Mauritius IFC connects Africa to the global FinTech ecosystem, providing unmatched opportunities for scaling and market entry.Participants will gain:Understanding of Africa's FinTech growth drivers, including technology adoption trends, and investment flows.Insights into Mauritius's progressive FinTech regulatory ecosystem, including the Regulatory Sandbox Licence, Payment Intermediary Services Licence, and VAITOS Licence.Practical guidance on how Mauritius can serve as a launchpad for FinTech expansion into African markets, offering market access and operational efficiency

Divorcing across borders can feel daunting - especially when the choice of country could shape the outcome especically with regards to the financial settlement. In this episode, David Allison and Isabelle Rein-Lescaterreyes compare the approaches in England & Wales and in France, highlighting the key differences couples should be aware of before deciding where to issue divorce proceedings. Their conversation covers: Jurisdiction for divorce in light of the EU system Issues with sole domicile and The Hague Convention Financial remedy relief in the context of the Matrimonial Property Regime (France) Financial remedy relief under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (England) Pre-Nuptial Agreements  Cultural differences in relation to the concept of “needs” Maintenance provision Costs and privacy Jurisdiction races Overseas financial relief in light of Part 3 proceedings About the speakers: David Allison, Family Solicitor, Family Law in Partnership David Allison is a director at Family Law in Partnership and a leading family lawyer with particular expertise in international divorce and financial claims. He represents business owners, entrepreneurs, bankers, lawyers, and their partners, often in high-value cases involving complex jurisdictional disputes and overseas assets. David has extensive experience securing recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and advising clients on financial relief following overseas divorces. https://www.flip.co.uk/profiles/david-allison/ Isabelle Rein-Lescastereyres, Family Solicitor, BWG Isabelle is a partner at BWG. She is bilingual and has many years of experience in complex international situations, in particular with neighbouring French-speaking and English-speaking countries. Isabelle favours “a realistic and constructive approach in order to maximise chances for a rapid conflict resolution”. With her HEC (Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales) training, Isabelle advises individuals, families and trusts and represents them in all aspects of divorce and family law, particularly in dealing with complex patrimonial and financial issues. In particular, she assists French expatriates and foreigners residing in France on family and patrimonial issues relating to their international mobility. https://bwg.law/en/avocat/isabelle-rein-lescastereyres/ Both Isabelle and David are members of the International Academy of Family Lawyers (IAFL).  

Radhika Das, IFN Journalist, interviews Adam Knight and Nancy Chien from Bedell Cristin, on the Jersey jurisdiction's Shariah compliant structuring appeal, its role in Sukuk and SPV innovation and rising demand from Islamic private wealth clients

Send us your feedback In this episode, Financial Services Partner Jeremy Muir speaks with Litigation Senior Associate Oliver Sutton about the legal complexities of cryptocurrency enforcement, offering their insights on how legal institutions are responding to the unique challenges posed by decentralised digital assets.[01:18] Jeremy and Oliver begin by addressing the jurisdictional “million-dollar question” of which laws govern cryptocurrency disputes. They note that traditional principles, such as lex situs, are difficult to apply to de-centralised digital assets, and discuss recent decisions from New Zealand and the United Kingdom that illustrate how case law is beginning to navigate this challenge.[04:10] Jeremy queries the available remedies and enforceability of freezing orders across borders. Oliver explains that their practical application depends on whether the orders target account holders or exchanges, highlighting the jurisdictional challenges involved in enforcement.[05:20] They discuss how New Zealand's existing legal framework safeguards cryptocurrency consumers, noting that crypto assets generally do not fall within the definition of “financial products” under the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013.[06:00] Oliver explains that general consumer protection laws, such as the Fair Trading Act 1986 and the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993, will apply, particularly in cases of misrepresentation, highlighting a high-profile Commerce Commission prosecution last year involving a crypto-based pyramid scheme. He cautions, however, that as crypto remains largely unregulated in New Zealand, investors should exercise caution or seek expert advice, as funds lost in scams can be difficult to recover.[07:24] Jeremy discusses recent developments in crypto tax regulation, noting New Zealand's commitment to the OECD's new Crypto Asset Reporting Framework, which will impose reporting requirements for certain crypto transactions from April 2026, marking a step toward greater international alignment.[08:20] Building on an earlier Tech Suite episode with Nicolas Turnbull, they explore the challenges of enforcing remedies in crypto scams and exchange failures from a legal standpoint. Oliver highlights three key scenarios; scams and pyramid schemes, poorly structured exchanges and hard-to-trace funds, explaining how courts are adapting and using traditional tools like freezing and debt orders in this unique digital context.[09:38] Oliver lastly highlights an innovative enforcement development, explaining how courts in the United Kingdom, New York, and Ontario have approved service of legal documents directly to crypto wallets via Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs), offering a transparent and trackable way to notify an unknown defendant. Information in this episode is accurate as at the date of recording, 23 September 2025. Please contact Jeremy Muir, Oliver Sutton or our Financial Services team if you need legal advice and guidance on any of the topics discussed in the episode.Please get in touch to receive an episode transcript and don't forget to rate, review or follow MinterEllisonRuddWatts wherever you get your podcasts. You can also email us directly at For show notes and additional resources visit minterellison.co.nz/podcasts

Send us fan responses! Discover the hidden commercial framework behind our legal system and how understanding this structure can transform your approach to court proceedings. This eye-opening conversation reveals strategies used by entities like Disney, who leveraged the "Royal Lives Clause" to challenge tax obligations, and how similar approaches might be applied to personal legal matters.The speakers dive deep into court jurisdiction challenges, explaining the critical difference between appearing "pro se" versus "sui juris" and why this distinction matters. They outline practical steps for responding to court summons, including filing affidavits rather than motions, demanding delegation of authority from judges, and properly handling court communications. The conversation illuminates how judgments become securities that are bundled and sold as bonds, revealing the financial instruments generated through court cases.Perhaps most valuable is their breakdown of how to establish oneself as "foreign" to a jurisdiction by declaring state nationality and registering one's name as a business entity. This approach creates separation between the individual and what they describe as the "corporate fiction" that courts attempt to address. The speakers share specific documents to file, including letters of rogatory, certificates of identity, and fee schedules, all designed to establish that courts must prove their jurisdiction before proceedings can continue.Whether you're facing legal challenges or simply want to understand the commercial foundations of our court systems, this conversation provides rare insights into navigating legal proceedings from a position of knowledge rather than fear. Take control of your legal standing by learning how to properly challenge jurisdiction, respond to identification questions, and understand the true nature of what's happening when you enter a courtroom.https://donkilam.com FOLLOW THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD - DON KILAMGO GET HIS BOOK ON AMAZON NOW! https://www.amazon.com/Cant-Touch-This-Diplomatic-Immunity/dp/B09X1FXMNQ https://open.spotify.com/track/5QOUWyNahqcWvQ4WQAvwjj?autoplay=trueSupport the showhttps://donkilam.com

We're joined by Brien Lundin, editor of Gold Newsletter and host of the upcoming New Orleans Investment Conference (Nov 2–5). Shad and I will both be attending, and we hope to see many of you there as well. Brien shares his insights on the remarkable run in precious metals equities and where opportunities still remain, from development-stage “optionality plays” to the surge in exploration success stories. Key discussion points: Optionality plays: Once trading at $10/oz in the ground, many have rerated to $30–$50/oz. But history shows they've commanded $100-$300/oz in prior cycles. M&A may drive the next leg higher. Exploration upside: A wave of strong drill results, including standout discoveries like Prospector Metals in the Yukon, fueled by years of careful groundwork during leaner times. Financing boom: Juniors raising capital at unprecedented levels, often without warrants - creating both opportunity and caution around free-trading share overhangs. Strategic investments: Producers like Centerra Gold are increasingly backing juniors, bringing capital, technical expertise, and long-term support. Jurisdiction focus: Safe, established regions (Canada, Nevada, Yukon) are attracting the most capital and generating the most discoveries. Stocks & themes discussed: Prospector Metals (TSX.V:PPP - OTCQB:PMUSP), Centerra Gold (TSX:CG - NYSE:CGAU).   Click here to learn more about the New Orleans Investment Conference on November 2-5. ----------- For more market commentary & interview summaries, subscribe to our Substacks: https://kereport.substack.com/ https://excelsiorprosperity.substack.com/ Investment disclaimer: This content is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice, an offer, or a solicitation to buy or sell any security. Investing in equities and commodities involves risk, including the possible loss of principal. Do your own research and consult a licensed financial advisor before making any investment decisions. Guests and hosts may own shares in companies mentioned.

Constitutional Deep Dive: Article 3 - Section 2 - Part 3: Federal Jurisdiction Conversations centered around the American Experiment and our Constitution and Bill of Rights! Our goal is to provide different perspectives - give historical context - model how to talk with those whom we may disagree with - tie foundational principals to today's headlines - PLUS, have some fun along the way. Please leave us a review and share with your friends! (A PODCAST PROVIDED AND OWNED BY DURING THE BREAK PODCASTS) Brought to you by Eric Buchanan and Associates: www.buchanandisability.com This podcast is hosted by ZenCast.fm

Constitutional Deep Dive: Article 3 - Section 2 - Jurisdiction Over Federal Issues! Conversations centered around the American Experiment and our Constitution and Bill of Rights! Our goal is to provide different perspectives - give historical context - model how to talk with those whom we may disagree with - tie foundational principals to today's headlines - PLUS, have some fun along the way. Please leave us a review and share with your friends! (A PODCAST PROVIDED AND OWNED BY DURING THE BREAK PODCASTS) Brought to you by Eric Buchanan and Associates: www.buchanandisability.com This podcast is hosted by ZenCast.fm

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Isabelle Sourbès-Verger: CommentCommentPanel 1: Sovereignty, Jurisdiction and Property in Outer SpaceColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Alex Mills: Private International Law and the Possibility of Extraterrestrial Property: "Finders, Keepers" or "the Province of All Mankind"?Private International Law and the Possibility of Extraterrestrial Property: "Finders, Keepers" or "the Province of All Mankind"?Panel 1: Sovereignty, Jurisdiction and Property in Outer SpaceColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Katrina M. Wyman: Early Legal Visions of Space: Does Myres McDougal's Work Hold Lessons for Today?Early Legal Visions of Space: Does Myres McDougal's Work Hold Lessons for Today?Panel 1: Sovereignty, Jurisdiction and Property in Outer SpaceColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Anna Stilz: Sovereignty and Property in Celestial ResourcesSovereignty and Property in Celestial ResourcesPanel 1: Sovereignty, Jurisdiction and Property in Outer SpaceColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Stephan Hobe: Sovereignty, Territorial Jurisdiction and Property: an Inextricable Triangle in Space LawSovereignty, Territorial Jurisdiction and Property: an Inextricable Triangle in Space LawPanel 1: Sovereignty, Jurisdiction and Property in Outer SpaceColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Joel sits down with respected political Journalists Maayan Schechter and Jeff Collins to discuss their backgrounds in South Carolina, how they got into journalism, trends they see in political reporting, and to cover a wide range of HOT South Carolina political updates - including the death penalty, the gubernatorial race, ports authority, an in-depth breakdown of what to expect in the coming years of elections and policy, and more! Hear insiders whose full-time job is to track South Carolina politics give a deep dive into how our State's most contested races are looking to unfold. Join Senators Sheheen and Lourie in this week's episode where they take a deeper look at upcoming legislation and lawmakers' actions in S.C.  Support the showKeep up to Date with BITBR: Twitter.com/BITBRpodcastFacebook.com/BITBRpodcasthttps://bourboninthebackroom.buzzsprout.com

September 19, 2025Liana Garcia, Director of Government Affairs for the Arizona Supreme CourtHon. Charles Adornetto, Wickenburg Town MagistrateMaterials: https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AF3leE2px5b4PfE&id=9CE85FB54FDEDE40%2191340&cid=9CE85FB54FDEDE40Youtube:https://youtu.be/uKSss9uCPzA

The conflict playing out at Northern Cheyenne Tribal Headquarters began months ago, when President Gene Small attempted to get the tribal council to initiate a financial audit of more than $90 million it was awarded by the federal government through […] The post Funding, Jurisdiction, Transparency at Heart of No. Cheyenne Conflict first appeared on Voices of Montana.

This conversation provides a comprehensive overview of civil procedure, focusing on the critical concepts of jurisdiction, including personal and subject matter jurisdiction, venue, and the implications of landmark cases like Ford v. Montana. It emphasizes the importance of understanding procedural rules for effective legal practice and exam success, while also exploring the roles of due process, jurisdictional discovery, long arm statutes, and the nuances of removal jurisdiction and forum non-convenience.Imagine you're in a courtroom, the air thick with anticipation. The judge is about to make a ruling that could change lives. But what guides this process? The answer lies in the fundamentals of civil procedure and jurisdiction, the backbone of our legal system.The Role of Civil Procedure: Civil procedure is the framework that governs how civil cases are processed in court. It ensures fairness and consistency, providing a structured path from the initial filing to the final verdict. As legal expert Jane Doe states, "Civil procedure is the rulebook that ensures justice is served efficiently and equitably."Understanding Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction refers to a court's authority to hear a case. It determines which court will preside over a matter, based on factors like location and subject matter. John Smith, a seasoned attorney, explains, "Jurisdiction is crucial because it sets the stage for where and how a case will be heard."The fundamentals of civil procedure and jurisdiction are essential for maintaining order and fairness in the legal system. They ensure that every case is handled with the same level of scrutiny and justice. Understanding these concepts is key for anyone navigating the legal landscape.Subscribe Now: Stay informed about the intricacies of the legal world. Subscribe now for more insights and updates.TakeawaysUnderstanding where to sue is fundamental to legal cases.Civil procedure is the operating manual for courts.Personal jurisdiction is rooted in the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause.Due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard.Jurisdictional discovery is crucial for establishing personal jurisdiction.Federal courts have limited jurisdiction defined by the Constitution.Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity and an amount in controversy over $75,000.Supplemental jurisdiction allows related claims to be heard in federal court.Removal jurisdiction allows defendants to move cases from state to federal court.Forum non-convenience can lead to dismissal if a more appropriate forum exists.civil procedure, jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, venue, due process, Ford v. Montana, jurisdictional discovery, long arm statutes, removal jurisdiction, forum non-convenience

This conversation delves into the complexities of conflict of laws, focusing on jurisdiction, choice of law, and the recognition and enforcement of judgments across borders. It highlights the importance of understanding these principles for future legal professionals, especially in an increasingly interconnected world. The discussion contrasts the legal frameworks of the US and EU, explores the nuances of jurisdiction, and emphasizes the practical implications of enforcing judgments internationally.Imagine a scenario where a business dispute arises between parties located in different countries. The question of which country's laws apply and which court has the authority to hear the case becomes crucial. This is where the field of Conflict of Laws steps in, providing a framework to address these complex issues.Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear a case. In cross-border disputes, determining jurisdiction can be challenging. Courts often consider factors such as the location of the parties, the place where the contract was executed, and the nature of the dispute. As legal scholar John Doe notes, "Jurisdiction is the cornerstone of any legal proceeding, especially in international cases."Choice of Law: Once jurisdiction is established, the next step is to determine which country's laws will govern the dispute. This is known as the choice of law. Courts may apply various principles, such as the law of the place where the contract was made or the law of the place where the harm occurred. Jane Smith, a renowned legal expert, emphasizes, "The choice of law can significantly impact the outcome of a case, making it a critical consideration in international disputes."Recognition of Judgments: After a court renders a judgment, the question arises as to whether other jurisdictions will recognize and enforce it. The recognition of judgments is essential for ensuring that legal decisions have practical effects across borders. International treaties and agreements, such as the Hague Convention, play a vital role in facilitating the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.Conclusion: Conflict of Laws is a complex and dynamic field that addresses the challenges of cross-border legal disputes. By understanding the principles of jurisdiction, choice of law, and recognition of judgments, parties can navigate the intricacies of international litigation more effectively. As global interactions continue to increase, the importance of Conflict of Laws will only grow.Subscribe Now: Stay informed about the latest developments in international law by subscribing. Don't miss out on expert insights and analysis!TakeawaysUnderstanding conflict of laws is fundamental for legal professionals.Jurisdiction is the first question a court must answer.Choice of law determines which country's laws apply to a case.Recognition and enforcement of judgments are crucial for justice.The US and EU have different approaches to jurisdiction.Public policy can limit the application of foreign law.Renvoy is a complex but rare concept in English law.Domicile is key in family law matters.The Brussels and Lugano Conventions streamline jurisdiction in Europe.Practical issues like currency and costs affect enforcement.conflict of laws, jurisdiction, choice of law, recognition of judgments, international law, legal principles, US law, EU law, family law, enforcement

Vincent and Joel sit down with guest - Executive Director of the SC Lottery - and discuss how the lottery works, how it benefits the state, and the Dolly's background in the State of South Carolina. Hear Bourbon Briefs to get your latest political update where the Senators discuss the newest developments in the gubernatorial race, new candidates in the upstate, guaranteed paid parental leave, the race for SC Supreme Court seats, and more!Join Senators Sheheen and Lourie in this week's episode where they take a deeper look at upcoming legislation and lawmakers' actions in S.C.  Support the showKeep up to Date with BITBR: Twitter.com/BITBRpodcastFacebook.com/BITBRpodcasthttps://bourboninthebackroom.buzzsprout.com

Welcome back for the conclusion of my interview with Marine, FBI Special Agent, and HRT Operator Rob D’Amico. Rob D’Amico has over thirty-six years of federal government service—ten years in the United States Marine Corps and nearly twenty-seven with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He is the founder and principal consultant for Sierra One Consulting.  Rob began a life of service when he enlisted as a US Marine during college at The Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio, and, after obtaining his bachelor's degree, was commissioned as an officer and served his first overseas tour in the first Gulf War. His work on reconnaissance missions with the Marine Corps paved the way for Rob’s long and successful career with the FBI. After four years based out of the Bureau’s Miami, Florida field office, apprehending the most violent felons of South Florida as a member of a multi-agency violent crime fugitive task force, Rob transitioned into deep undercover work against the most notorious U.S. and Italian-based organized crime families. Rob was among the few selected to the FBI’s elite Hostage Rescue Team, in which he served as a sniper and was first deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. Rob’s career with and beyond the HRT team placed him at each pivotal step in the resolution of kidnapping and hostile detention matters. He has worked on every facet of operations—negotiating hostage releases and exchanges, operating under the highest pressure against pirates, negotiators, warlords, leaders of terrorist networks, as well as with ambassadors, generals, foreign ministers, and non-government organizations.  From being deep undercover, going after the mob, to dealing with Somali pirates, Rob has had a career that movies are literally made of. Today’s episode, we go deep into a hostage rescue operation on the high seas, dealing with Somali pirates!   In today’s episode, we discuss: ·      The difference between HRT and SWAT in the FBI?  ·      What attributes should HRT operators have? ·      What does HRT training look like? ·      The hijacking of the American SV Quest by Somali pirates and Rob's mission as an FBI HRT operator embedded with Navy SEALs regarding this mission. ·      Four United States citizens on board and 19 pirates. ·      The ultimate conclusion to the kidnapping? ·      Jurisdiction issues and maintaining and processing a floating crime scene that was in danger of sinking. ·      Going onto Somali soil to investigate and make arrests? ·      The strain on his family during this and other operations like this. How did Rob deal with it? What is his advice to someone about to do something similar to this work? ·      Retirement, how difficult was it to walk away from all of this? How did he cope/adjust? All of this and more on today’s episode of the Cops and Writers podcast. Visit Rob at his website! Check out the new Cops and Writers YouTube channel! Check out my newest book, The Good Collar (Michael Quinn Vigilante Justice Series Book 1)!!!!! Enjoy the Cops and Writers book series. Please visit the Cops and Writers website.  

What if the birth certificate was never for your baby—but a tool of control used by the state?In this episode, I sit down with Veda Ray, a freebirthing mother of two, who chose to walk a path most women never even consider: birthing and raising her second child completely outside the system. No pregnancy test. No monitoring. No birth certificate. No social security number.After her first birth at a birth center, Veda knew she wanted something different. This time, she listened deeply—to her body, to her baby, and to her own intuition—and what she heard was clear: this child was to be born free.We go deep into the realities of living outside the system, including how she navigated the legal terrain to secure a passport without government-issued ID, why she believes the birth certificate is a jurisdictional trap, and the spiritual responsibility of saying no to the state's contracts.Inside this episode:What really happens when you don't get a birth certificate or Social Security number for your childThe process Veda used to get a passport without a state-issued IDWhy a “family Bible” can hold legal weight in proving lineage and identityHow the social security number binds your child into the U.S. corporate systemThe link between freebirth and reclaiming jurisdiction over your body and familyWhat it's like to raise a child who has never been registered by the stateThe unseen cost of outsourcing authority—and what you reclaim when you stopTimestamps:[00:00] Introduction[02:01] Choosing radical self-trust after rejecting the medical model[09:21] Learning to sit in the unknown and trust yourself through freebirth[22:54] Rethinking the birth certificate as a contract with the state and choosing a sovereign path instead[26:08] Creating private records to get a passport without a birth certificate[36:47] Using private trusts and EINs as alternatives to social security numbers and state contracts[52:44] Facing fear, claiming trust, and birthing in full sovereignty with family by your sideResources Mentioned:The Business of Being Born | MovieIf you want to connect with Veda, you can find her website here, and follow her @veda.revival.Find more from Emilee on Instagram, YouTube and the Free Birth Society website.Disclaimer: Free Birth Society, LLC of North Carolina shares personal and educational stories and experiences related to freebirth and holistic care. This content is not medical advice, and we are not a licensed midwifery practice. Testimonials reflect individual experiences; results may vary. For services or scheduling, contact info@freebirthsociety.com. See full disclaimer at freebirthsociety.com/youtubeterms.

Vincent and Joel sit down with guest Jaime Harrison to talk about the reality of politics, how the toughest jobs get done, sticking with his party, and so much more! Hear a wonderful personal story about President Joe Biden's kindness and humility, the start of Jaime's podcast, reframing the democratic party, Joel's insightful comments on the Taylor Swift engagement, republican overreach, and the potential upcoming echo of 2006 in 2026. Get your latest Statehouse update and hear firsthand the rationale behind some of the legislature's most controversial bills. Join Senators Sheheen and Lourie in this week's episode where they take a deeper look at upcoming legislation and lawmakers' actions in S.C.  Support the showKeep up to Date with BITBR: Twitter.com/BITBRpodcastFacebook.com/BITBRpodcasthttps://bourboninthebackroom.buzzsprout.com

Valkea Resources (TSX-V: OZ | OTCQB: OZBKF | FSE: S600) has launched its fall drill program at the Paana Project in Finland. President & CEO Chris Donaldson joins the KE Report to outline the strategy, starting with step-outs at the Koivu Zone, new target generation, and the company's broader exploration plans in this Tier-1 district. Key points:  Fall Drill Program (~2,000m): Step-outs at the Koivu Zone following encouraging intercepts from the last campaign (e.g., ~55m @ ~1.6 g/t Au; ~36m @ ~1.5 g/t Au), plus ongoing target generation. Geologic Model & Strategy: Koivu Zone shows disseminated “Ikkari/Rupert-style” gold; Honka Zone is “Kittilä-style” high-grade. Team will test if Koivu and Honka zones connect. Target Pipeline: Base-of-till drilling across multiple anomalies and work advancing the northern Rova project. Core Re-logging & Structural Work: Refining structure and controls on mineralization using historic holes to tighten targeting. Team & Operations: New Exploration Manager, Jens Rönnqvist, on the ground in Finland to coordinate fieldwork and community engagement. Jurisdiction & Neighbors: Paana sits in a Tier-1 district alongside Agnico Eagle's Kittilä Mine, B2Gold/Aurion, and Rupert Resources. Finland ranked #1 by the Fraser Institute for mining attractiveness; recent financings underscore capital flowing into the belt. Near-Term Catalysts: Drills now turning; a ~2-month program with assays expected to begin in the fall (lab timing dependent). Step-outs at Koivu are the headline driver. Any follow up questions for Chris can be emailed to me directly at Fleck@kereport.com.  Click here to visit the Valkea Resources website to learn more about the Company.

In this episode, we delve into the critical distinctions between general and specific jurisdiction, fundamental concepts in personal jurisdiction law. General jurisdiction allows a court to hear any case against a defendant whose connections to the forum state are so continuous and systematic that they are essentially "at home" there. In contrast, specific jurisdiction is more narrowly focused, requiring that the lawsuit arise out of or relate to the defendant's activities within the forum state. We explore landmark cases and recent developments, providing a roadmap through the jurisdictional maze to help you confidently navigate these legal waters.This conversation delves into the complexities of personal jurisdiction, particularly in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in Fold v. Palestine Liberation Organization. The discussion covers the evolution of personal jurisdiction doctrine, the minimum contacts test, and the distinctions between general and specific jurisdiction. It also highlights the implications of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments on jurisdictional inquiries, procedural due process, and the Erie doctrine, providing a comprehensive overview for law students preparing for exams.TakeawaysPersonal jurisdiction is fundamental for courts to bind parties.A court's judgment is void without proper personal jurisdiction.General jurisdiction allows lawsuits in a defendant's home state for any claim.Specific jurisdiction is tied to the defendant's contacts with the forum state.The 14th Amendment limits state courts, while the Fifth Amendment allows broader federal reach.The Fold case changes the understanding of jurisdiction under the Fifth Amendment.Jurisdiction can be established through statutory gateways like long-arm statutes.Minimum contacts must be evaluated for both general and specific jurisdiction.Procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard.Subject matter jurisdiction is non-waivable and must be established for federal courts.personal jurisdiction, minimum contacts, Fold v. Palestine Liberation Organization, procedural due process, subject matter jurisdiction, Erie doctrine, general jurisdiction, specific jurisdiction, Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment

Dive into the complexities of federal subject matter jurisdiction with our latest episode. We unravel the intricacies of constitutional rules and statutory powers, focusing on federal question and diversity jurisdiction. Through real-world scenarios, like Sarah's legal battle, we explore how jurisdiction dictates the courtroom and influences legal strategies. Whether you're a law student or a practicing attorney, this episode equips you with the knowledge to navigate the American legal system confidently. Join us for a deep dive into the foundational aspects of jurisdiction that shape legal outcomes.In the intricate world of law, understanding federal subject matter jurisdiction is crucial. Imagine you're a lawyer, and your client, Sarah, faces a legal dispute involving multiple states. The question of where to file the lawsuit becomes pivotal. This blog post delves into the complexities of federal subject matter jurisdiction, exploring its constitutional roots and real-world implications.The Foundation of Federal Jurisdiction: Federal subject matter jurisdiction is the gatekeeper of the courtroom. Without it, even the most compelling legal arguments fall flat. It determines whether a court has the authority to hear a particular type of case, focusing on the nature of the dispute rather than the parties involved. This distinction is vital for law students and practitioners alike.Federal Question and Diversity Jurisdiction: The two primary pillars of federal jurisdiction are federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. Federal question jurisdiction arises when a case involves a question of federal law, while diversity jurisdiction applies when parties are from different states, ensuring a neutral federal forum. Understanding these concepts is essential for navigating the legal landscape.Real-World Application: Consider Sarah's case, where she faces a contract dispute with a supplier from another state. The intricacies of federal jurisdiction come into play, influencing where the case can be filed and how it unfolds. This real-world scenario highlights the importance of mastering jurisdictional rules for effective legal strategy.Federal subject matter jurisdiction is more than an academic concept; it's a powerful tool that shapes legal outcomes. By understanding its nuances, lawyers can navigate the complexities of the American legal system with confidence. Whether you're preparing for exams or practicing law, mastering jurisdiction is key to success.Subscribe Now: Stay informed and enhance your legal knowledge by subscribing to our blog. Don't miss out on future insights and updates!

     Slam The Gavel welcomes back Olga Wilson to the podcast. Olga was last on  Season 5, Episode  274. Olga has been courageously exposing transcript falsification and corruption in the Butte County, Chico California family courts.      On our last podcast, Olga shared how records were altered to erase evidence and silence her. Since then a shocking new development emerged: a questionable reassignment of a retired judge back on to her case, the denial of her objections and evidence of a systemic cover-up at the highest levels of the California judiciary. However, this isn't just Olga's story, its a warning to the TAXPAYER about how far the courts will go to protect themselves instead of families and their children.To Reach Olga Wilson:  olgavwilson@gmail.comSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)Maryann Petri: dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.comhttps://www.tiktok.com/@maryannpetriFacebook:  https://www.youtube.com/@slamthegavelpodcasthostmar5536Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/guitarpeace/Pinterest: Slam The Gavel Podcast/@guitarpeaceLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/maryann-petri-62a46b1ab/  YouTube:  https://www.youtube.com/@slamthegavelpodcasthostmar5536  Twitter https://x.com/PetriMaryannEzlegalsuit.com   https://ko-fi.com/maryannpetrihttps://www.zazzle.com/store/slam_the_gavel/about*DISCLAIMER* The use of this information is at the viewer/user's own risk. Not financial, medical nor legal advice as the content on this podcast does not constitute legal, financial, medical or any other professional advice. Viewer/user's should consult with the relevant professionals. Reproduction, distribution, performing, publicly displaying and making a derivative of the work is explicitly prohibited without permission from content creator. Podcast is protected by owner. The content creator maintains the exclusive right and any unauthorized copyright infringement is subject to legal prosecution.Support the showSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/

This is a fascinating chat about Private Express Trusts, Sovereignty, Liberty and, what it means to stand in your own Jurisdiction. Ray's website:https://aguadiero.net/Tips are most welcome:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠buymeacoffee.com/niish⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Our website:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://thecosmicsalon.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠I want to thank the producers of this show:Meredith Walako (Scheduling, bookings, and social media manager). Cale Darnegie. Lalita Karoli. Jorge. Susan Jenkins. LynnRadius. Kerry Hoyal. Sarah Etta. Lizz Radican. Claire Cathcart. Steven Mercer. Pamela Holdahl. Jake Vanek. WiseNightOwl. Marcey Shapiro. Noël Jeanette. Melanie Poe. Jason Lambson. Neil Macnaughton. Mark Boettcher. Kate Kukulkan.Everlong,Niish-

From The Archives: (12:23-22)There have been a lot of questions and comments about why the Moscow Police Department doesn't hand over the investigation to the FBI. In this episode, we are going to look at some of the reasons why that isn't feasible and why a local department like Moscow will be the lead agency in localized crimes, even when the FBI is involved.(commercial at 6:11)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Idaho murders: Former FBI special agent explains why federal agency hasn't taken over investigation | Fox NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Vincent and Joel sit down with guest - candidate in South Carolina's 2026 Governor's race - Republican Josh Kimbrell. They discuss the importance of State institutions, an insider's look at the brutality of State Politics, updates on State policy, his vision for the future of South Carolina, and his background in politics!In Bourbon Briefs hear about the hot Governor's race in South Carolina, Ralph Norman's announcement, Nancy Mace's latest messaging, Senator Wes Climer's bid for Congress, possible tax changes, and much more!Get your latest Statehouse update and hear firsthand the rationale behind some of the legislature's most controversial bills. Join Senators Sheheen and Lourie in this week's episode where they take a deeper look at upcoming legislation and lawmakers' actions in S.C.  Support the showKeep up to Date with BITBR: Twitter.com/BITBRpodcastFacebook.com/BITBRpodcasthttps://bourboninthebackroom.buzzsprout.com

Retired agent Raj Patel reviews the 2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombing case where 8 suicide subjects inspired by ISIS detonated themselves in three large Western hotels and three churches, killing approximately 270 people, including five Americans. Raj and other members of the team won the 2021 Director Award for Most Outstanding International Investigation. He served in the FBI for 20 years. Check out the episode show notes, photos, and related articles: https://jerriwilliams.com/364-raj-patel-sri-lanka-easter-bombings-2019-extraterritorial-jurisdiction/   Buy me a coffee - https://www.buymeacoffee.com/JerriWilliams   Join my Reader Team to get the FBI Reading Resource - Books about the FBI, written by FBI agents, the 20 clichés about the FBI Reality Checklist, and keep up to date on the FBI in books, TV, and movies via my monthly email. Join here. http://eepurl.com/dzCCmL    Check out my FBI books, non-fiction and crime fiction, available as audiobooks, ebooks and paperbacks wherever books are sold. https://jerriwilliams.com/books/

In this episode we chat to Dan Myerson, Executive Chairman and CEO of Foran Mining, a company at the forefront of the copper revolution and one of the only single-asset copper developers actively building a mine anywhere in the world.In this episode, we dig into why Foran remains undervalued despite its remarkable progress at the McIlvenna Bay project — now nearing 50% completion and on track for commercial production by mid-2026. Dan shares insights on market sentiment toward pre-production copper companies, the strategic importance of Foran's Saskatchewan jurisdiction, and why now might be a pivotal moment for investors to take a closer look. We also explore what lies beyond McIlvenna Bay, and how Foran is positioning itself in a copper market grappling with supply constraints and long-term demand growth. Stay tuned as we unpack the milestones, the macro trends, and the big vision driving one of Canada's most exciting copper stories. KEY TAKEAWAYS Despite its achievements, Foran Mining is perceived as undervalued in the market. The disconnect between perceived and actual risk is a factor, suggesting that the company's fundamentals do not align with its current valuation. Saskatchewan is recognised as one of the best mining jurisdictions globally, with a supportive government and low after-tax cash costs Beyond McIlvenny Bay, Foran Mining has significant exploration potential with discoveries like the Tesla and Bridge zones. These areas could lead to increased production capacity  With the company positioned at a critical juncture before production, there is a strong argument for investment. BEST MOMENTS "We are the only single asset company building an actual greenfield copper mine in the world today, which when you actually say that out loud is quite amazing." "The actual risk versus the perceived risk is very different... the perceived risk that's still involved is much higher than the actual risk." "The valuation where it's at is the cheapest it's ever been in its history... now is the best time that you could ever have to buy the stock." "Saskatchewan is one of the best jurisdictions in the world... very pragmatic and practical government. I'd say that's the best thing." VALUABLE RESOURCES Mail:        rob@mining-international.org LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rob-tyson-3a26a68/ X:              https://twitter.com/MiningRobTyson YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/DigDeepTheMiningPodcast  Web:        http://www.mining-international.org GUEST SOCIALS  https://foranmining.com/ https://www.facebook.com/people/Foran-Mining-Corporation/100086125762836/ https://x.com/foranmining https://www.linkedin.com/company/foran-mining/posts/?feedView=all @foranmining CONTACT METHOD rob@mining-international.org https://www.linkedin.com/in/rob-tyson-3a26a68/ Podcast Description Rob Tyson is an established recruiter in the mining and quarrying sector and decided to produce the “Dig Deep” The Mining Podcast to provide valuable and informative content around the mining industry. He has a passion and desire to promote the industry and the podcast aims to offer the mining community an insight into people's experiences and careers covering any mining discipline, giving the listeners helpful advice and guidance on industry topics.  This Podcast has been brought to you by Disruptive Media. https://disruptivemedia.co.uk/

Join the conversation with C4 & Bryan Nehman.  MD dems could join the fight with Texas over redistricting.  Committee subpoenas over Epstein.  Baltimore County added as a sanctuary jurisdiction.  Madigan to not get raise as hold over county IG.  Delegate Chris Tomlinson joined the show this morning to discus his legislation to increase sentences for fentanyl distribution in the wake of the Penn North mass overdose event.  Listen to C4 & Bryan Nehman live weekdays from 5:30 to 10am on WBAL News Radio 1090, FM 101.5 & the WBAL Radio App.

In Harrington v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., the Ninth Circuit ruled that, in FLSA collective actions, federal courts must evaluate personal jurisdiction before allowing notices to out-of-state employees in nationwide claims—a move that strengthens employers' ability to challenge these cases. Key Takeaways for Employers Jurisdiction matters: Courts must confirm jurisdiction before notifying out-of-state employees. Limited forum shopping: Plaintiffs face limits to filing in unrelated jurisdictions. Stronger grounds for employers: Employers can challenge out-of-state claims with no forum ties. Arbitration implications: Courts may notify employees under arbitration agreements. In this episode of Employment Law This Week®, Epstein Becker Green attorney Courtney McFate describes the Harrington ruling and shares insights to help employers adapt and minimize costly lawsuits. Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw399 Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw-subscribe Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com Download our Wage & Hour Guide for Employers app: https://www.ebglaw.com/wage-hour-guide-for-employers-app. This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

Our hosts discuss the complexities of handling custody issues when co-parents live in different states. They delve into the legalities, jurisdiction matters, and real-life scenarios including military families and interstate relocations. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding state laws, getting court permissions, and the potential emotional and financial impacts on the children and parents involved. They also provide practical advice on dealing with such situations, emphasizing the significance of consulting with an attorney before making any moves.00:00 Introduction and Greetings00:41 Custody Issues Across State Lines00:57 Jurisdiction and Legal Complexities01:02 Case Study: California to North Carolina02:01 Challenges of Interstate Custody03:12 Real-Life Examples and Scenarios05:06 Impact on Children and Families06:27 Personal Experiences and Insights09:22 Judicial Decisions and Fairness09:50 Financial Implications of Custody Arrangements10:41 Navigating Child Support and Extraordinary Expenses11:04 Relocation and Its Legal Implications12:50 Getting Permission to Move: Legal Steps13:35 Factors Judges Consider in Relocation Cases15:44 Emergency Custody and Relocation Challenges17:30 Co-Parenting and Relocation: Practical Advice19:57 Consulting Attorneys Before Relocating20:38 Final Thoughts on Relocation and Custody

|"Jurisdiction"| Rev. Billy Chapman 6-8-25 by Cornerstone Pentecostal Church Spokane

The Muscogee Nation will assume some law enforcement duties in the city of Tulsa, Okla., when it comes to tribal citizens. The development over jurisdiction ends a federal lawsuit filed by the Muscogee Nation in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark McGirt decision in 2020. The Cherokee and Osage Nations also potentially have jurisdiction claims in Tulsa and other cities. Local law enforcement officials and Gov. Kevin Stitt (R-OK) oppose the agreement, saying it creates a two-tiered system of justice. We'll find out what the new agreement solves and what it leaves unanswered. Also, tribes connected to Florida are speaking out against the Trump administration's fast track plans to establish a detention center for immigration actions near the Florida Everglades. Miccosukee and Seminole tribal officials and citizens say the center, dubbed the “Alligator Alcatraz,” infringes on land that is their “cultural, spiritual, and historical identity.”

GDP Script/ Top Stories for July 5th Publish Date: July 5th PRE-ROLL: From the BG AD Group Studio Welcome to the Gwinnett Daily Post Podcast. Today is Saturday, July 5th and Happy Birthday to Huey Lewis I’m Peyton Spurlock and here are your top stories presented by Gwinnett KIA Mall of Georgia. Gwinnett solicitor says she has no jurisdiction in case involving journalist facing deportation Partnership Gwinnett Intern Mix Highlights Next Generation Workforce Grace Arbor Receives Alzheimer’s Association Grant to Improve Respite Care for People Living with Dementia in Lawrenceville Plus, the Stripers report with Kanekoa Texiera All of this and more is coming up on the Gwinnett Daily Post podcast, and if you are looking for community news, we encourage you to listen daily and subscribe! Break 1: 07.14.22 KIA MOG STORY 1: Gwinnett solicitor says she has no jurisdiction in case involving journalist facing deportation Gwinnett County Solicitor General Lisamarie Bristol clarified her office is not involved in charges against journalist Mario Guevara, who was arrested in DeKalb County on June 14 while covering an immigration protest and now faces possible deportation to El Salvador. Guevara, a Gwinnett resident, was later taken into ICE custody but granted bail. Confusion arose as DeKalb’s Solicitor’s Office handled and dropped charges, while Gwinnett’s Sheriff’s Office announced unrelated charges from May, which have yet to be entered into the court system or served. Guevara was held at ICE’s Folkston detention center. STORY 2: Partnership Gwinnett Intern Mix Highlights Next Generation Workforce Over 50 college interns attended the Partnership Gwinnett Intern Mix, an annual networking event aimed at fostering professional connections and career opportunities in Metro Atlanta. Sponsored by Primerica and PBK Architects, the event highlighted Gwinnett’s focus on talent development and retaining emerging professionals. Interns engaged in networking, industry insights, and career-focused discussions, aligning with Partnership Gwinnett’s broader workforce initiatives like the Talent Council and Workforce Summit. With growing sectors in advanced manufacturing, IT, health sciences, and more, the event emphasized Gwinnett’s commitment to connecting young talent with real opportunities to build their futures locally. STORY 3: Grace Arbor Receives Alzheimer’s Association Grant to Improve Respite Care for People Living with Dementia in Lawrenceville Grace Arbor in Lawrenceville has received a $121,694 grant from the Alzheimer’s Association Center for Dementia Respite Innovation to enhance dementia-specific respite care. Serving the community for 20 years, Grace Arbor will use the funds to support more families, introduce virtual reality dementia simulations, expand partnerships, and update its center. The organization provides affordable, person-centered adult day care for seniors with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s and their caregivers, prioritizing underserved populations. Activities include music, exercise, cognitive stimulation, and multisensory experiences. Grace Arbor is one of 41 recipients nationwide and will also receive training and support to ensure sustainable, high-quality care. We have opportunities for sponsors to get great engagement on these shows. Call 770.874.3200 for more info. We’ll be right back Break 2: STRIPERS INTERVIEW Break 3: STORY 6: City of Lawrenceville Adopts FY 2026 Budget and Tentative Millage Rate Lawrenceville’s $227.7 million Fiscal Year 2026 budget focuses on revenue adjustments, staff retention, and capital improvements. The millage rate remains at 3.26 mills, but state law requires it to be advertised as an 18.16% tax increase due to growth in the tax digest. Key highlights include utility rate adjustments, $1.74 million in salary increases, 16 new positions, and workforce incentives like tuition reimbursement and housing support. The city will invest $31.1 million in infrastructure projects, including street upgrades, utility enhancements, and walkability improvements. Public hearings on the millage are scheduled for July. STORY 7: AROUND TOWN: Hendrickson to lead ACCG economic development and transportation committee Gwinnett County Commission Chairwoman Nicole Love Hendrickson has been reappointed to lead the Association of County Commissioners of Georgia’s Economic Development and Transportation Policy Committee. The committee focuses on strategies to boost economic growth statewide, including workforce development, tax policy, and creating a multimodal transportation system. Hendrickson emphasized the importance of collaboration and progress in her role. The committee’s work informs ACCG’s Policy Priorities, guiding advocacy during Georgia’s legislative session. ACCG leaders praised the committee’s role in driving meaningful change for counties across the state. We’ll have closing comments after this Break 4: Ingles Markets 9 Signoff – Thanks again for hanging out with us on today’s Gwinnett Daily Post Podcast. If you enjoy these shows, we encourage you to check out our other offerings, like the Cherokee Tribune Ledger podcast, the Marietta Daily Journal, or the Community Podcast for Rockdale Newton and Morgan Counties. Read more about all our stories and get other great content at www.gwinnettdailypost.com Did you know over 50% of Americans listen to podcasts weekly? Giving you important news about our community and telling great stories are what we do. Make sure you join us for our next episode and be sure to share this podcast on social media with your friends and family. Add us to your Alexa Flash Briefing or your Google Home Briefing and be sure to like, follow, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Produced by the BG Podcast Network Show Sponsors: www.ingles-markets.com www.kiamallofga.com #NewsPodcast #CurrentEvents #TopHeadlines #BreakingNews #PodcastDiscussion #PodcastNews #InDepthAnalysis #NewsAnalysis #PodcastTrending #WorldNews #LocalNews #GlobalNews #PodcastInsights #NewsBrief #PodcastUpdate #NewsRoundup #WeeklyNews #DailyNews #PodcastInterviews #HotTopics #PodcastOpinions #InvestigativeJournalism #BehindTheHeadlines #PodcastMedia #NewsStories #PodcastReports #JournalismMatters #PodcastPerspectives #NewsCommentary #PodcastListeners #NewsPodcastCommunity #NewsSource #PodcastCuration #WorldAffairs #PodcastUpdates #AudioNews #PodcastJournalism #EmergingStories #NewsFlash #PodcastConversations See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Muscogee Nation will assume some law enforcement duties in the city of Tulsa, Okla., when it comes to tribal citizens. The development over jurisdiction ends a federal lawsuit filed by the Muscogee Nation in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark McGirt decision in 2020. The Cherokee and Osage Nations also potentially have jurisdiction claims in Tulsa and other cities. Local law enforcement officials and Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt oppose the agreement, saying it creates a two-tiered system of justice. We'll find out what the new agreement solves and what it leaves unanswered. Also, tribes connected to Florida are speaking out against the Trump administration's fast track plans to establish a detention center for immigration actions near the Florida Everglades. Miccosukee and Seminole tribal officials and citizens say the center, dubbed the “Alligator Alcatraz,” infringes on land that is their “cultural, spiritual and historical identity.” GUESTS Betty Osceola (Miccosukee), environmental educator State Rep. Scott Fetgatter (Choctaw/R-OK 16) Robert Miller (Eastern Shawnee), law professor at Arizona State University and tribal judge Jason Salsman, press secretary for the Muscogee (Creek) Nation

Vincent and Joel sit down with guest, Freshman Representative Gil Gatch, to discuss his life and politics in the low country, his background as a musician, pastor, lawyer, and politician, how the legislature really functions, and so much more! Hear the Senators break down current events in S.C., discuss the allegations and arrest of S.C. Freedom Caucus founder, his suspension and potential expulsion, the lawsuit surrounding legislative raises, try some new bourbon, and talk to Brandon Dermody about a new Bill in SC called the Equine Advancement Act. Get your latest Statehouse update and hear firsthand the rationale behind some of the legislature's most controversial bills. Join Senators Sheheen and Lourie in this week's episode where they take a deeper look at upcoming legislation and lawmakers' actions in S.C.   Support the showKeep up to Date with BITBR: Twitter.com/BITBRpodcastFacebook.com/BITBRpodcasthttps://bourboninthebackroom.buzzsprout.com

In this episode of Body Slam Briefs, hosts Evil Dose and special guest Anthony Thomas delve into the intricate details of the AEW lawsuit involving Jonathan Wood a.k.a. Jon Moxley and a cameraman named Dispensa. They discuss the lawsuit's background, the legal implications, and the broader impact on AEW. The episode covers topics such as the timing of the lawsuit, Moxley's past disciplinary incidents, and the potential outcomes. Insights into the legal landscape are provided, making it an essential listen.00:39 AEW Lawsuit Overview02:16 Details of the Incident03:57 Legal Implications and Contractor Status12:43 Jurisdiction and Venue20:28 Medical Attention and AEW's Responsibility26:26 Discussing Moxley's Alleged Incidents27:03 Legal Implications and Defamation27:39 Substance Abuse and Rehabilitation28:45 Liability and Legal Responsibility30:49 Assault and Battery Allegations34:57 Legal Procedures and Court Thresholds38:20 Settlement and Arbitration Speculations44:37 Final Thoughts and PlugsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/wrestling-soup--1425249/support.

BECOME A YT MEMBER TODAY!!! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqzgGwRrOLH20OIc8bM_VAg/joinConnect with April https://shinealbum.therealshalil.com/ COME SEE ME DO COMEDY - Get Tickets Here https://linktr.ee/timross(Tim's Lip Balm) - GlowSkin Care - https://www.facebook.com/AllNaturalOrganicProductsMadeWithLove/

On Wednesday's Mark Levin Show, you are hearing it in the leftwing press, in the Never-Trump editorial pages and more - you cannot and must not deport anyone without some kind of notice and due process. Yet, there's nothing from these people on how this is supposed to actually work. What kind of due process are they talking about? The kind of due process that applies to citizens? If not, then what lower standard suffices as constitutional due process? Exactly how would due process, of any kind, be administered to millions and millions of illegal immigrants? We don't have enough courts of any kind in our country to handle the tsunami of cases that would be involved. This was all intentional. The border was opened to anyone. This is the Cloward-Pivens strategy: flood the system, overwhelm the system, break the system, and in doing so achieve your goals. Effectively, this is massive amnesty. Also, it seems these Federal judges are trying to stop mass deportation efforts and disrupt the Trump administration's response to Biden's mass immigration policies. Later, Hans von Spakovsky calls in and explains that he was stunned by Judge Boasberg's order because he's blatantly defying the Supreme Court. Boasberg's order was void from the moment he signed it. So how can he hold the Trump administration in contempt? Either Boasberg is incompetent or he's deliberately ignoring the Supreme Court. Afterward, Jonathan Turley calls in to discuss the criminal referral against NY AG Letitia James. James claims ​that ​her ​Virginia ​home ​was ​her ​principal ​residence. ​That ​was ​not ​and ​cannot ​be ​true ​because ​she was and still ​is ​an ​official ​of ​the ​New ​York ​government ​who ​must ​live ​within ​the ​state. What's ​notable ​about ​her ​false ​statements ​is ​that ​each ​one ​​worked ​towards ​a ​better mortgage ​rate. ​ Then, the Declaration of Independence discusses natural law and natural rights. Where do these concepts originate? They are influenced by John Locke and Montesquieu, but not entirely, as they ultimately come from God. When they say the people are sovereign, that ide comes from God. This is why the government can never be sovereign. The United States is first county on earth to be founded on these principles. Finally, Heritage President, Kevin Roberts, calls in to discuss the organization's impactful projects and ongoing efforts to revitalize federalism in America. Roberts shares insights on the current political landscape, the significance of state legislative work, and the importance of maintaining a conservative agenda while addressing challenges such as tariffs and international relations. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices