Podcast appearances and mentions of justice act

The applicants, two homeowners, hired the respondent company, Benchwood, to renovate their home. Benchwood is a general contracting and construction management business, and the respondent Michael Slaven is one of its co-owners. There were several areas of disagreement between the parties during the course of the renovations. A heated discussion occurred between Mr. Slaven and one of the homeowners. Benchwood performed no further work for the homeowners following this incident.The homeowners subsequently discovered that Benchwood posted photographs of their home online to attract new customers. This angered them and prompted them to post allegedly defamatory statements about Benchwood and Mr. Slaven on social media platforms.In response to these statements, Benchwood and Mr. Slaven commenced an action seeking damages for defamation. The homeowners subsequently brought a motion pursuant to s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act for an order dismissing the action as a proceeding that limits freedom of expression on matters of public interest. The motion judge agreed with the homeowners and ordered that the action be dismissed. Benchwood and Mr. Slaven appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal and set aside the dismissal of the action. Argued Date 2026-05-15 Keywords Torts — Libel and slander — Anti-SLAPP legislation — Dissatisfied clients of company posting negative statements online about company and its owner — Company and owner suing clients for defamation — Clients bringing motion to dismiss action pursuant to anti-SLAPP legislative provision — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in overturning the motion judge's finding that the impugned expression relates to a matter of public interest — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in overturning the motion judge's finding that there are no grounds to believe that the defences are not valid — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in overturning the motion judge's finding that the harms resulting from the impugned expression do not outweigh the public interest in protecting the expression — Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 137.1 Notes (Ontario) (Civil) (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).

The respondent, Jardins de Vérone S.E.C., owned land within the territory of the appellant, Ville de Québec (“City”). The land was officially designated as “serviced vacant land”, a particular that was included in the information concerning the unit of assessment on the assessment roll. On March 1, 2018, the respondent received a building permit from the City for the erection of a building with 109 dwellings. The work began on April 1, 2018, and was carried out without interruption as of that date. In July 2018, the respondent applied to the City's assessment department to have the “serviced vacant land” particular removed from the information on the assessment roll. In October 2018, the municipal assessor's representative denied that request on the ground that no action had been omitted by the assessor, having regard to ss. 32 and 244.36 of the Act respecting municipal taxation, CQLR, c. F-2.1 (AMT), and that there was therefore no basis for making an alteration. The respondent then brought a proceeding before the Administrative Tribunal of Québec (ATQ) under s. 132.1 of the AMT, seeking an order requiring the municipal assessor to alter the information on the roll so that the “serviced vacant land” particular was removed, in accordance with ss. 174, 57.1.1 and 244.36 of the AMT. The building was not entered on the roll until early summer in 2019. On December 16, 2019, the ATQ rendered a decision in the respondent's favour, confirming that, as soon as a building is situated on land, the assessor must alter the assessment roll by removing the “serviced vacant land” particular, regardless of its value. The ATQ ordered that the “serviced vacant land” particular be removed from the assessment roll retroactively to the date when the work had begun.The Court of Québec allowed the City's appeal. The ATQ's decision was set aside and replaced. In the court's view, the interpretation of s. 244.36 of the AMT adopted by the ATQ was not “correct” under the standard of review applicable in this case.The Superior Court dismissed the application filed by the respondent for judicial review of the Court of Québec's decision. The reasonableness of the Court of Québec's decision was upheld.The Court of Appeal allowed the respondent's appeal. It set aside the decisions of the Court of Québec and the Superior Court and restored the ATQ's decision. The Court of Appeal held that, although the Court of Québec did not owe deference to a statutory interpretation by the ATQ, it still could not substitute its erroneous interpretation for the ATQ's correct interpretation. The Court of Appeal accordingly found that the Court of Québec had not properly applied the correctness standard and therefore, contrary to what the Superior Court had concluded, the Court of Québec's decision should have been found unreasonable. Argued Date 2026-05-12 Keywords Administrative law — Appeals — Standard of review — Municipal law — Taxation — Property assessments — Interpretation of concept of “serviced vacant land” under Act respecting municipal taxation — Manner in which Court of Québec must apply standard for appellate intervention (correctness) to conclusions of law in administrative decision — Whether Court of Québec performed its appellate function reasonably — Courts of Justice Act, CQLR, c. T-16, s. 83.1 — Act respecting municipal taxation, CQLR, c. F-2.1, ss. 32, 57.1.1, 131.2, 174 para. 13.1.1(a), 244.36 and 244.49. Notes (Quebec) (Civil) (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).

Do justice-impacted people deserve a second chance? It's Hip-Hop History Month - do you care? Is it too late to stop fascism? Can we pressure SoCal Edison to do the right thing by purchasing stocks in the company? https://www.instagram.com/diprimaradio/

Do justice-impacted people deserve a second chance? It's Hip-Hop History Month - do you care? Is it too late to stop fascism? Can we pressure SoCal Edison to do the right thing by purchasing stocks in the company?https://www.instagram.com/diprimaradio/

The Action Team trace the final Soviet nuke to Los Angeles and unleash Eagle Justice. https://freeleaguepublishing.com/shop/outgunned/ https://www.patreon.com/bastardquest https://www.barrelandbondky.com/ https://www.norsefoundry.com/ https://linktr.ee/bastardquestpodcast

The Amazing Ronjo ("Rowdy" Roddy Piper), Ryan Rex (Anthony Michael Hall) and Xander Klymax (Kurt Russell) attempt to bring Eagle Justice to the Soviet menace. https://freeleaguepublishing.com/shop/outgunned/ https://www.patreon.com/bastardquest https://www.barrelandbondky.com/ https://www.norsefoundry.com/ https://linktr.ee/bastardquestpodcast

The Northern Territory government plans to bring back the use of spit hoods on young people in detention - a practice banned almost eight years ago following media coverage of issues at the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre.

In this powerful and eye-opening conversation, decorated veteran and military justice reform advocate Adam DeRito takes us through his remarkable journey from Air Force Academy cadet to the frontlines of a battle few civilians understand: the fight against military retaliation.Adam's story begins with his post-9/11 commitment to service, arriving at the Air Force Academy with real-world experience as a firefighter and EMT. After becoming an OSI confidential informant reporting cadet misconduct, his life took a devastating turn when he experienced sexual assault off-campus—and faced dismissal rather than support from his command. What followed was a systematic campaign of retaliation culminating in falsified medical records dated after he'd already left the Academy, an illegal tactic designed to permanently block his military career.Despite these obstacles, Adam persevered through multiple administrative appeals, federal court battles, and political advocacy while continuing to serve in the National Guard and Army Reserves. His experiences led him to draft the Military Mental Health Protection and Justice Act (known informally as the "DeRito Act"), which would prevent commanders from weaponizing command-directed evaluations against service members who report misconduct.The conversation exposes critical gaps in military accountability where commanders operate with minimal oversight, creating a chilling effect that damages readiness and unit cohesion. Adam's documentation of his case—including medical records falsified by someone without proper licensing—reveals how military mental health evaluations can be weaponized to silence whistleblowers and assault survivors.For anyone concerned about veterans' rights, military readiness, or constitutional protections, this episode provides rare insight into how our military justice system actually operates and why reforms like the DeRito Act are desperately needed. Visit adamdorito.com to review the evidence and join the fight for accountability that affects thousands of service members.

Today, Hunter was joined by two San Francisco Public Defenders, Sujung Kim and Lilah Wolf, to discuss their recent Racial Justice Act Victory. This California law was designed in part to give public defenders the tools to get explicit and implicit racism out of the criminal legal system. Today, we discussed how it came to be, why it needs to be in place, and how public defenders in California and around the country could be using it.     Guest Sujung Kim, Deputy Public Defender, San Francisco, California Lilah Wolf, Deputy Public Defender, San Francisco, California   Resources: Contact the SF Public Defender ttps://sfpublicdefender.org/ https://www.facebook.com/sfpublicdefender https://x.com/sfdefender https://www.instagram.com/sfpublicdefender/   Exhibits from the Trial https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Qd5HC8wB7HuV_xoh6fHLQwRMmybJWShD?usp=sharing   Read More About the Case https://sfpublicdefender.org/news/2025/03/10462/ https://davisvanguard.org/2025/03/san-francisco-public-defenders-win-landmark-racial-justice-act-case/       Contact Hunter Parnell:                                 Publicdefenseless@gmail.com  Instagram @PublicDefenselessPodcast Twitter                                                                 @PDefenselessPod www.publicdefenseless.com  Subscribe to the Patreon www.patreon.com/PublicDefenselessPodcast  Donate on PayPal https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=5KW7WMJWEXTAJ Donate on Stripe https://donate.stripe.com/7sI01tb2v3dwaM8cMN Trying to find a specific part of an episode? Use this link to search transcripts of every episode of the show! https://app.reduct.video/o/eca54fbf9f/p/d543070e6a/share/c34e85194394723d4131/home  

On this episode of Closed! Lee speaks with New York City Councilwoman Carmen De La Rosa. The Councilwoman currently represents District 10, which includes Washington Heights, Inwood and Marble Hill. Before she was a Councilwoman, Ms. De La Rosa was a member of the State Assembly. Carmen in a fierce advocate for criminal justice reform, workers' rights, affordable housing, LGBTIA rights and a number of other important social justice causes.We asked Councilwoman De La Rosa to join us to discuss her new bill, the Construction Justice Act. Councilwoman De La Rosa explains what the act is, how it is supposed to work and who this act benefits. Notably, she also addresses some of her biggest critics and detractors of the bill.If you are keeping up with New York real estate, this bill will change the way in which development works, so don't miss this interview!You can find more information on Councilwoman Carmen De La Rosa here: https://council.nyc.gov/carmen-de-la-rosa/As always, you can reach out to Lee at Bergstein Flynn Knowlton & Pollina by visiting https://www.bfkplaw.com/. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Here's the description for today's podcast: In the February 2025 episode of 12:01: The Death Penalty in Context, DPI Managing Director Anne Holsinger speaks with three experts on California's Racial Justice Act (RJA). Natasha Minsker, an attorney and consultant, formerly of the ACLU, speaks on the history of the RJA and the impetus for its passage. Genevie Gold, research and writing fellow at the Office of the State Public Defender (OSPD), describes the process that an RJA claim follows through the legal system, and how the RJA has affected the work of OSPD. Avi Frey, a lawyer at the ACLU of Northern California, explains the potential systemic effects of the RJA, which are just beginning to take shape as the legislation approaches its fifth anniversary of passage.

E108 The Fifth Court Dr Thom Mohr on Hugh Kennedy, first Attorney General of the Irish Free State and law reformer who had some radical ideas in his time. This is a most entertaining episode, including details of little known attempts by Hugh Kennedy to disrobe judges and re robe them in the Brehon Law style (or what was his interpretation of such)Thomas Mohr is a distinguished legal scholar and educator based in Ireland. He serves as a faculty member at the School of Law, University College Dublin (UCD), where he teaches jurisprudence, evidence law, and the history of public law. His research primarily focuses on legal history, and he has contributed extensively to the field through various publications. Dr. Mohr is an active member of the Irish Legal History Society, having held positions such as Honorary Secretary from 2009 to 2017 and Vice President since 2018.His cultural recommendation is a book, 'A century of courts, The Courts of Justice Act, 1924'Niamh Howlin, editor (Four Courts Press) Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

rWotD Episode 2823: Master of the Rolls (Ireland) Welcome to Random Wiki of the Day, your journey through Wikipedia’s vast and varied content, one random article at a time.The random article for Saturday, 25 January 2025 is Master of the Rolls (Ireland).The Master of the Rolls in Ireland was a senior judicial office in the Irish Chancery under English and British rule, and was equivalent to the Master of the Rolls in the English Chancery. Originally called the Keeper of the Rolls, he was responsible for the safekeeping of the Chancery records such as close rolls and patent rolls. The office was created by letters patent in 1333, the first holder of the office being Edmund de Grimsby. As the Irish bureaucracy expanded, the duties of the Master of the Rolls came to be performed by subordinates and the position became a sinecure which was awarded to political allies of the Dublin Castle administration. In the nineteenth century, it became a senior judicial appointment, ranking second within the Court of Chancery behind the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. The post was abolished by the Courts of Justice Act 1924, passed by the Irish Free State established in 1922.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 00:13 UTC on Saturday, 25 January 2025.For the full current version of the article, see Master of the Rolls (Ireland) on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm neural Amy.

Happy New Year! Let's talk about racial justice!

Full episode transcript HERE. HOE-HOE-HOLY shit, it was a wild year, Buzzkillianas! *Mariah Carey voice* IT'S TIIIIIIIIME… For our annual year-in-review! It's been a hellacious year in abortlandia, and on this last pod of 2024, the Feminist Buzzkills are re-crapping the year in all things repro! Fueled by lethally spiked eggnog, we made our lists and checked them twice, figured out what stories were the naughtiest, the nicest and the bizarre AF-est!  And the best part? We're bringing it to you with the help of Feminist Buzzkills elves – AAF and FBK Writer/performers, Alyssa “Dooks” Al-Dookhi and Molly Gaebe. PLUS, YOU get to be part of our favorite HOEliday tradition – OUR SECRET SATAN GIFT EXCHANGE! This crew is bringing the crème de la crème AND the crème de la crap of this year's abortion news!  Times are heavy, but knowledge is power, y'all. We gotchu.  OPERATION SAVE ABORTION: You can still join the 10,000+ womb warriors fighting the patriarchy by listening to our five-part OpSave pod series and Mifepristone Panel by clicking HERE for episodes, your toolkit, marching orders, and more. HOSTS:Lizz Winstead IG: @LizzWinstead Bluesky: @LizzWinstead.bsky.socialMoji Alawode-El IG: @Mojilocks Bluesky: @Mojilocks.bsky.socialAlyssa Al-Dookhi IG: @thedookness Bluesky: @TheDookness.bsky.socialMolly Gaebe IG: @MollyGaebe Bluesky: @MollyGaebe.bsky.social WORST NEWS OF 2024:5. EMTALA Case: Federal Court Divided Over Idaho's Abortion Ban and Emergency Care Fight4. Study Estimates 64,000 Pregnancies From Rape in States That Enacted Abortion Bans Post-roe3.  Florida's Abortion Ban Will Reach Well Beyond Florida2. The 2024 Presidential Election Was Close, Not a Landslide1.ProPublica's “Life of the Mother” Series: How Abortion Bans Lead to Preventable Deaths  BEST NEWS OF 2024:3. Research at the Heart of a Federal Case Against the Abortion Pill Has Been Retracted2. France Makes Abortion a Constitutional Right1. Abortion Rights Ballot Measures Win in 7 Out of 10 Us States WEIRDEST NEWS OF 2024:3. Alabama Supreme Court Rules IVF Embryos Are Protected Under Wrongful Death of a Minor Act2. Wisconsin Republican Fancies Himself An Abortion Expert Because He's A Veterinarian + Anti-Abortion Wisconsin Republicans Have Some Thoughts About Women1. West Virginia GOP State Sen. Mike Azinger Pushes Anti-Abortion Propaganda With Lies WHITE ELEPHANT GIFTS:Lizz to Dooks: Donald Trump Elon Musk Christmas Ornament, Joel Webbon's Christ is King Conference & Branch Davidian Memorial Park TourDooks to Moji: Black Preborn Lives Matter Button, Kash Patel's New Boo & Pro-Life John's Jokes BookMoji to Molly: Kash Patel Christmas Hoodie, Autographed Pete Hegseth Book & Counter Culture Children's Book Bundle  Molly to Lizz: An Executive Producer Credit on Anti-abortion Queen Janet Porter's Self-Made Sitcom “What's a Girl to Do?” EPISODE LINKS:JUSTICE FOR SURVIVORS: Michigan Email TemplatesI Was Maced by Nick Fuentes InterviewADOPT-A-CLINIC: Blue Mountain ClinicTICKETS: Lizz's Project 2024 at The Parkway TheaterSTREAM: No One Asked You on JoltOperation Save AbortionSIGN: Repeal the Comstock ActBUY: Reproductive Rights Wall Art!EMAIL your abobo questions to The Feminist BuzzkillsAAF's Abortion-Themed Rage Playlist FOLLOW US:Listen to us ~ FBK PodcastInstagram ~ @AbortionFrontTwitter ~ @AbortionFrontTikTok ~ @AbortionFrontFacebook ~ @AbortionFrontYouTube ~ @AbortionAccessFrontTALK TO THE CHARLEY BOT FOR ABOBO OPTIONS & RESOURCES HERE!PATREON HERE! Support our work, get exclusive merch and more! DONATE TO AAF HERE!ACTIVIST CALENDAR HERE!VOLUNTEER WITH US HERE!ADOPT-A-CLINIC HERE!EXPOSE FAKE CLINICS HERE!GET ABOBO PILLS FROM PLAN C PILLS HERE!When BS is poppin', we pop off!

In this episode, Randel K. Johnson and Andrew Kilberg discuss the relationship between immigration enforcement and employment policy, with a focus on the unique challenges faced by both small and large businesses in maintaining compliance. Additionally, the experts examine the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), considering potential legislative reforms to better align incentives for small businesses while preserving accountability in immigration matters.Featuring:Randel Keith Johnson, Distinguished Immigration Scholar, Cornell Law SchoolAndrew Kilberg, Partner, Gibson Dunn

Episode 96 The Fifth Court with Peter Leonard BL and Mark Tottenham BL.On this episode, Judge Gráinne Malone, a former solicitor who also qualified as a barrister but who went on the bench after six months, and who has now served thirteen years as a judge. She talks about the new Irish Courts Service Podcast, an initiative created to commemorate the centenary of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924 that established our modern Courts system. They discuss the various episodes and some curious judgements made in historic cases. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We catch up with journalist and IPV survivor Natalie Pattillo to talk about the folks fighting for justice for criminalized survivors of intimate partner violence. Listen to find out the story behind Oklahoma activists that led the state to adopt a new law based on NY's Domestic Violence Survivor's Justice Act, and how you can get involved. And finally, Standford's Regilla Project just published a groundbreaking study revealing the scope of the IPV to prison pipeline.    **Natalie Pattillo,** journalist and co-producer of the film And So I Stayed **Alexandra Bailey,** Senior Campaign Strategist for The Sentencing Project **Amanda Ross**, activist and niece of April Wilkens, the first person to use the Oklahoma Survivors' Act to apply for a retroactive sentence reduction **Debbie Mukamal,** Executive Director of Stanford Criminal Justice Center **Andrea Cimino,** Director of Research for the Regilla Project   **Making Contact Staff:** Episode Host: Amy Gastelum Producers: Anita Johnson, Salima Hamirani, Amy Gastelum, and Lucy Kang Executive Director: Jina Chung Editor: Adwoa Gyimah-Brempong Engineer: [Jeff Emtman](http://www.jeffemtman.com/)  Digital Marketing Manager: Lissa Deonarain   **Music Credits:** _Podington Bear_ Tracks: _Arboles, Delphi, Poise _ From the album _Encouraging_ Licensed under [CC BY-NC](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) and available online here: Learn More:  **The Sentencing Project ** **Free April Wilkens ** **We Stand With Nikki** **The Regilla Project ** **And So I Stayed Film ** **Survivor's Justice Project** **Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law and Justice **  

During the month of August, The Imprint Weekly Podcast is re-running some of our most intriguing guest interviews from the early years of the show for listeners who might not have heard them the first time around. This week we feature our 2020 interview with California Assemblymember Ash Kalra, who joined the podcast to discuss the Racial Justice Act, a bill he championed that enables a defendant and their legal counsel to present evidence of racial bias as a means of pushing back against specific sentences for offenses after conviction. 

The deadline to file a Camp Lejeune claim is August 10, 2024. This deadline was established by the Camp Lejeune Justice Act, providing families with a 2-year statute of limitations to file their legal claims.  

Our hosts, Anita Mehta and Simon Blain, discuss what to do when a reporter turns up in your Court and the importance of transparency with Joshua Rozenberg KC (Hon) and Lucy Reed KC (St John's Chambers, Chair of The Transparency Project).  Joshua refers us to the lessons learnt in Tickle v Father & Ors [2023] EWHC 2446 (Fam) (05 October 2023). https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2023/2446.html Our guests discuss the benefits both of judgments being published and reporters having access to write up what happens.  Joshua talks about the importance of the public knowing how the state will resolve their private disputes if they are unable to do so.  He makes the point that the public are only going to know about the importance of Family Jusctice being properly resourced if the press are able to report about what happens.  They both reiterate that scrutiny of the Court is healthy. The message that Joshua and Lucy give our audience is that there is nothing unlawful or inappropriate about a party or a lawyer asking a reporter if they would like to observe a case.  This is not a breach of s.12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960.  This has been specifically endorsed by the senior judges responsible for the Reporting Pilot, because unless reporters are told about interesting cases they will not come to Court.    They make it clear that it is not appropriate for the Judge or the other participants to cross-examine reporters about who told them about the hearing, and the reporter does not need to make an application to attend the hearing.  Lucy refers us to the Transparency Project's guidance notes for help if a reporter turns up in a case you are due to appear in https://transparencyproject.org.uk/updated-guidance-what-to-do-if-a-reporter-attends-or-wants-to-attend-your-hearing-pilot-and-non-pilot-court-versions/.  Lucy points out, it is not for the reporter/ blogger to make an application to make an application to be present in Court, as there is a limited basis for a Court to exclude a reporter, which is found in FPR 27.11 (3). (3) At any stage of the proceedings the court may direct that persons within paragraph (2)(f) shall not attend the proceedings or any part of them, where satisfied that— (a)this is necessary—(i)in the interests of any child concerned in, or connected with, the proceedings;(ii)for the safety or protection of a party, a witness in the proceedings, or a person connected with such a party or witness; or(iii)for the orderly conduct of the proceedings; or(b)justice will otherwise be impeded or prejudiced. If the Court is considering relaxing reporting restrictions it will need to undertake a balancing exercise to weigh the respective weight of article 8 and article 10, as set out by Lord Steyn in Re S (a child), Re [2004] UKHL 47 (28 October 2004).https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2004/47.html ‘The interplay between articles 8 and 10 has been illuminated by the opinions in the House of Lords in Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] 2 WLR 1232. For presentpurposes the decision of the House on the facts of Campbell and the differences between the majority and the minority are not material. What does, however, emerge clearly from the opinions are four propositions. First, neither article has as such precedence over the other. Secondly, where the values under the two articles are in conflict, an intense focus on the comparative importance of the specific rights being claimed in the individual case is necessary. Thirdly, the justifications for interfering with or restricting each right must be taken into account. Finally, the proportionality test must be applied to each. For convenience I will call this the ultimate balancing test. This is how I will approach the present case.' If you would like to hear Joshua's new podcast, you can find it on rozenberg.substack.com If you are a lawyer considering becoming a legal blogger yourself (or a journalist interested in dipping your toe in reporting the family court), Lucy encourages you to get in touch with the Transparency Project:  trustees@transparencyproject.org.uk. You can find out more about legal blogging at www.transparencyproject.org.uk/legalbloggers

President Higgins hosted a reception for the Chief Justice and Presidents of the Supreme Courts at Áras an Uachtaráin to mark 100 years since the enactment of the Courts of Justice Act 1924.

Racial minorities are sometimes removed from prospective juries—just like everybody else. But the Legislature is so concerned that this could happen on the (obviously improper) basis of race that the Racial Justice Act prohibits a challenge to a racial minority even on the basis of proper factors, such as lack of life experience. And if that happens, the Legislature has declared not only that this is against law, but operates as a get-a-new-trial-free card.But the California Constitution prohibits get-a-new-trial-free cards. Instead, no judgment may be reversed—even if the judgment is rife with error—unless the error results in a “miscarriage of justice.”Consider how these opinions might be reconciled:People v. Uriostegui (D2d6 Apr. 5, 2024 No. B325200) ___ Cal.App.5th ___ held violations of the Racial Justice Act are per se reversible.In People v. Simmons (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 323, Justice Yegan argued in dissent that a attempting to bind the courts to a legislative definition of the constitutional term “miscarriage of justice” violates the doctrine of separation of powers.The Supreme Court in F.P. v. Monier (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1099 held that, although the Legislature mandates that trial courts make express findings on principal controverted issues, a court's failure to do so is not per se reversible because the Constitution first requires a finding that the failure worked a miscarriage of justice.In Abdelqader v. Abraham (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2022 No. D078652) --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, failure to make the statutorily-required findings under F.C. 3044 to support awarding custody to a person previously found to have committed domestic violence was per se reversible.In re Marriage of Steiner and Hosseini (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 519 held that, although the Legislature purported to make inadequate disclosures in property-division cases per se reversible, the Legislature cannot provide “a ‘get-a-new-trial-free' card” in light of the constitutional requirement to show a miscarriage of justice.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Tim's writeup on Oriostegui, The Racial Justice Act Is Unconstitutional

Niamh Howlin and Donal Coffey join Myles to discuss how our courts system began, 100 years ago.

Today, Hunter continues the three-part series on criminalized domestic violence survivors by speaking with Elizabeth Isaacs, an appellate attorney with New York's Office of Indigent Legal Services. Specifically, the two discuss the Domestic Violence Survivor's Justice Act, a New York law designed to give post-relief to those whose incarceration is related to their victimization. While certainly not a perfect bill, it is an extremely important and necessary step to understand that people are not simply victims or perpetrators, and that we can attain justice while also acknowledging the humanity of those who did wrong.     Guests: Elizabeth Isaacs, Appellate Attorney, NY Office of Indigent Legal Services     Resources: NYILS Website https://www.ils.ny.gov/ Survivors Justice Project https://www.sjpny.org/ Background Material on the DVSJA ·        Video: Background on DVSJA passage (somewhat dated) ·        Some Legislative History (attached): o   2017 sponsor memo o   Opposition letter by District Attorney Association of the State of New York o   NY Correctional Association response to DA opposition letter ·        SJP DVSJA Resource Guide – we wrote this with incarcerated survivors/applicants as the primary audience ·        SJP/Sentencing Project Report ·        Abby Van Buren article on temporal nexus problem ·        Favorable decisions: o   Brenda WW decision (“mutually abusive” relationship did not foreclose DVSJA relief; abuse history must be considered cumulatively; considered applicant's extensive criminal history in context of her substance abuse, which was related to victimization) o   Patrice Smith decision (court must look at the “full picture” and contemplate cumulative impact of abuse) o   Liz L. decision (the fact that DV history was “factored in” to previous man 1 plea bargain did not make DVSJA resentencing inappropriate) ·        Not so favorable: o   People v. Williams (abuse or abusive relationship must be “ongoing” at the time of the offense) o   People v. Fisher (adopting Williams' temporal holding in case where trans-identifying young person had assaulted her parents, and no expert was called to attempt to explain connection between earlier physical abuse and offense) o   People v. B.N. (many bad holdings/antiquated approach to DV and trauma) ·        People v. Addimando – a study in contrasts (note that Nicole Addimando was finally released from prison last week): o   Trial court decision (denying DVSJA relief at initial sentencing for murder 2 in a case with extensively documented abuse; sentencing Nicole Addimando to 19-to-life) o   Appellate decision (reversing and resentencing her to 7.5 years) ·        Critique of the DVSJA by Survived & Punished   Some very optional reading, but good-to-know-about resources created by the DVSJA Statewide Defender Task Force: ·  Best Practices Manual for DVSJA Investigations ·  Guide to Working with Experts in DVSJA cases ·  Introduction Guide to Coercive Control for the DVSJA Attorney       Contact Hunter Parnell:                                 Publicdefenseless@gmail.com  Instagram @PublicDefenselessPodcast Twitter                                                                 @PDefenselessPod www.publicdefenseless.com  Subscribe to the Patron www.patreon.com/PublicDefenselessPodcast  Donate on PayPal https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=5KW7WMJWEXTAJ Donate on Stripe https://donate.stripe.com/7sI01tb2v3dwaM8cMN  

On this week's Talking History, we're looking at the creation of the Irish courts system 100 years ago and exploring how our legal system came about. On Patrick Geoghegan's panel: Dr Niamh Howlin, Associate Professor at the UCD Sutherland School of Law and main organiser of the Dublin Castle event commemorating the Courts of Justice Act 1924; Dr Donal Coffey, Lecturer and Assistant Professor, School of Law, Maynooth University; Dr Róisin Costello, Assistant Professor of EU and International Law at TCD; Dr Kevin Costello, Senior Lecturer in the Sutherland School of Law at UCD; and Hon. Mr. Justice Gerard Hogan, Ireland's foremost constitutional lawyer.

This week, we are discussing how non-profits will sue federal agencies to stop them from managing land and how they use the Equal Access to Justice Act to profit from the lawsuits. Also, a few headlines we found interesting include; In Washington, the push to restore grizzly bears in the North Cascades continues, with the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service publishing their final Environmental Impact Statements. Wolves have potentially been sighted in Nevada, which is definitely not a normal occurrence for the state. Are they there to stay? Or are they Passing through? The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation recently announced that they have committed over $760,000 to numerous projects in Utah to improve wildlife habitat, further wildlife management and bolster research and hunting support. In Vermont, there have been a few updates and amendments to the legislation that would change how the state's wildlife board functions, along with changes to coyote hunting regulations. In Wyoming, the Legislative session has wrapped up, and Josh Metten with the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership has compiled a list of some of the state's conservation wins. Contact your Elected Officials https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode contains explicit language. Race has been a mostly silent character in criminal courtrooms. Historically, people accused of crimes haven't been able to raise claims of racial bias in the justice system to defend themselves from a criminal accusation. But in 2020, California passed the Racial Justice Act, a groundbreaking law that allows criminal defendants to argue that racism may have played a role in how the justice system handled their case and ask for the court to provide a remedy. It's the first law of its kind in the nation. KQED's Annelise Finney explains how one case in Contra Costa County is testing the limits of the new law. Links: Episode Transcript California's Groundbreaking Racial Justice Act Cuts Its Teeth in Contra Costa Judge Finds 8 Antioch Police Officers Tainted by Racial Bias, Reduces Criminal Charges   This episode was produced by Maria Esquinca, Ellie Prickett-Morgan, and Ericka Cruz Guevarra. It was edited and guest hosted by Alan Montecillo.

Camp Lejeune Justice Act of 2022 I’m Katelyn Holub, an attorney focusing on personal injury law in northwest Indiana. Welcome to Personal Injury Primer, where we break down the law into simple terms, provide legal tips, and discuss personal injury law topics. Today’s question comes from a caller who said he was stationed at Camp […] The post Ep 249 – Camp Lejeune Justice Act of 2022 first appeared on Personal Injury Primer.

This week in Johnston County, the death penalty – a punishment our state has not inflicted in close to two decades – will, effectively, go on trial, when one of more than a hundred pending challenges to the racially discriminatory way North Carolina long sentenced people to death is heard in the case of a […] The post Noel Nickle of the NC Coalition for Alternatives to the Death Penalty on the Racial Justice Act appeared first on NC Newsline.

“While things have moved slowly in the past, I strongly believe that since the court entered this leadership order…we're going to see things happen and move much, much quicker.”Mona Lisa Wallace, co-lead counsel for the Camp Lejeune Justice Act litigation team, joins Voices of NCAJ host Amber Nimocks to offer updates on the litigation and a preview of NCAJ's upcoming CLE. A hundred thousand claims have already been filed under the year-old act, which aims to bring justice to veterans and civilians poisoned or killed by the Marine Base's contaminated water supply between 1953 and 1987.The founder of Wallace & Graham, P.A., Mona Lisa discusses the future of the litigation, the concerns of attorneys handling claims, the public outreach resources that will be available for lawyers as the litigation process unfolds and the need for collaboration among lawyers handling the cases.Don't miss out! On Sept. 27, 2023 Mona Lisa and several other leaders of the Camp Lejeune Justice Act litigation will present a CLE providing updates on the status of the claims process. Visit ncaj.com/events to register!

In 1982, the U.S. Marine Corps discovered that one quarter of the water wells on Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune were contaminated with volatile organic compounds. The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services has estimated that as many as one million military and civilian staff and their families might have been exposed to contaminated […]

In 1982, the U.S. Marine Corps discovered that one quarter of the water wells on Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune were contaminated with volatile organic compounds. The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services has estimated that as many as one million military and civilian staff and their families might have been exposed to contaminated drinking water between the early 1950s and late 1980s.The Camp Lejeune Justice Act of 2022 – one section of the larger PACT Act – was signed into law by President Joe Biden on August 10, 2022. The law provides veterans who served on Camp Lejeune between 1953 and 1987 with two years to bring claims in the Eastern District of North Carolina related to this toxic water exposure. Over 15,000 claims have already been filed and some news outlets have suggested that there could be as many as 500,000 CLJA claims.Among many interesting topics presented by these claims are fees. Personal injury law firms stand ready to collect billions. The American Tort Reform Association estimates that firms have spent more than $41 million on targeted advertisements. However, there is some debate about if a fee cap is in place. A 2021 version of the Camp Lejeune Justice Act limited attorneys' fees to between 20 and 25%, but the 2022 version does not contain such a provision. While some firms are prepared to charge up to 40%, others think the Federal Tort Claims Act will cover the Camp Lejeune cases and limit fees to 20% of claimant recovery.In this recorded webinar, legal experts provide an update and a discussion of the many issues associated with the large scale litigation.Featuring:--Mark A. Behrens, Partner and Co-Chair, Public Policy Group, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP--Prof. Paul Figley, Professor of Legal Rhetoric, American University Washington College of Law--Ashley Keller, Partner, Keller Postman

Leslie and Colleen give a short update on April's case, the efforts in Oklahoma to bring justice to survivors, and the activities happening in Oklahoma next week to support HB 1639, a bill that will help people who were victims of domestic violence at the time of their crime get sentencing relief.     ______ TRANSCRIPTION SPEAKERS Colleen McCarty, Leslie Briggs   Leslie Briggs  00:17 Hey, Colleen.   Colleen McCarty  00:18 Hey Leslie,   Leslie Briggs  00:19 welcome back to the studio.   Colleen McCarty  00:21 I'm so glad to be back here. Bison & Bean with you.   Leslie Briggs  00:25 It's been too long.   Colleen McCarty  00:26 It's been a wild ride,   Leslie Briggs  00:28 guys, we have updates.   Colleen McCarty  00:30 We have so many updates. We never sleep. So   Leslie Briggs  00:34 we do not sleep. It's gnarly. I'm so tired.   Colleen McCarty  00:38 We don't wish this on you. But we're happy to give you all the updates and all the work we've been doing for the last six months since we wrapped our last episode of panic button. The April Wilkins case. Yeah. What's been happening?   Leslie Briggs  00:51 Well, I came to work for you. Oh, that's   Colleen McCarty  00:53 right. Pretty sweet. That   Leslie Briggs  00:56 happened a little while ago. So yeah, I'm the new legal director at OK Appleseed, the nonprofit that puts on the panic button podcast. What do you do at Oklahoma Appleseed, Lesley. Well, I try to execute your vision. protect the rights of every Oklahoman. We're doing a lot of cool stuff. Really.   Colleen McCarty  01:14 Oh my gosh, I know every day I wake up and I'm like, I can't believe I get to do this for a job. And   Leslie Briggs  01:19 me too. I love it so much. Yeah, chaotic, and awesome. Just like us just like just a good time, dude,   Colleen McCarty  01:28 seriously, we strive for a good time. And seeking justice at the same time. Right. And so in service of seeking justice, we we did this big story about April's case that all of you have heard and I hope it has lit a fire under you because it lit a fire under us. And in service of seeking justice for her. We wrote what's called a post conviction relief application. And I'm going to let Leslie talk to you about what that means and and how we're trying to help her get out of prison.   Leslie Briggs  01:57 Yeah, we actually wound up doing that throughout the fall before I came on full time with OK Appleseed. And it's based on new evidence that we uncovered. And we believe that evidence warrants a new trial, or a vacation or sentence, or modification to time served. And that's what we've asked the court to do. We were we lost at the district court, you can go and read all of the pleadings online if you're a legal nerd, or you just want to know more about what the evidence was that we found, but it's currently on appeal. We appealed that district court decision to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. And if we lose there, we're going to take it all the way to the top.   Colleen McCarty  02:39 How long does it usually take to hear back from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals?   Leslie Briggs  02:43 Oh, I mean, I don't know what the what an average time is, but probably several months, I imagine will be on appeal through the summer at least. And then maybe have a decision at the end of the summer.   Colleen McCarty  02:55 Have you talked to April about how she's feeling about all of this?   Leslie Briggs  02:59 I think April, I mean, April has been through every possible legal hurdle, multiple times. I mean, she has this is her third post conviction relief application. And she's been through the appellate process before so April kind of knows how to temper expectations and just see what happens more than anything, though. I think April is extremely motivated and excited about the other work we've been doing, which I'm hoping you'll ever give everyone an update about which is our legislative push to change the system.   Colleen McCarty  03:32 Yeah, so the nice thing about Oklahoma Appleseed is that we work across multiple sectors of the legal system. So we have been working on multiple fronts to bring justice to April and people like her. That's one of the nice things about the Appleseed model is we work on multiple fronts of the legal system. So we can work in the courts for direct advocacy. But then we also work at the legislative level, and the legal research level and the community organizing level and this project with April and criminalized survivorship in Oklahoma has kind of touched all four of those areas in different ways. We were really trying to think outside the box about how we could help April but not just her but everyone in her situation. And we started looking around the country to see what other folks have been doing. And we found this big group in New York that passed a bill called the domestic violence survivor Justice Act, and that has helped several people since it was passed in 2019. Essentially, people who are in prison who can show proof that they were abused at the time of their crime and that the abuse was substantially related to the crime can apply to their sentencing court and receive sentencing relief or a lower sentence. So we thought about how we could make that something that was really made for Oklahomans by Oklahomans. And we worked with a bunch of groups here in Oklahoma to sort of figure out what survivors need. And we also got several survey responses from over 100 survivors and an Oklahoma prison here where April is called Mabel Bassett. And we've started to put together really what these experiences look like, and how these people are being prosecuted for crimes that stem from their survivorship. And we worked together to come up with some language that we thought would formulate a nice law change here in Oklahoma that would give a lot of these people sentencing relief, but then would also provide a mitigation procedure for people who are currently being prosecuted that can show they can show in a sentencing hearing any evidence that they have of their abuse and get a shorter sentence on the front end of the system, too. So it's not just a retroactive reform, it will do both things which we were pretty excited about putting this together back in the fall, and we were not sure where it was going to go. And then we heard back from a Republican legislator in Oklahoma named Toni Hasenbeck, who's from Elgin, Oklahoma, and she is a fierce champion for women's rights. And she was very disturbed by some of the stories that we were hearing from survivors in prison. And she agreed to author this bill for us.   Leslie Briggs  06:22 So Bill have a number. The bill does have finally   Colleen McCarty  06:24 has a number. It's HB 1639. It's starting in the Oklahoma House of Representatives. And it will be traveling through it's been introduced, and it has language and we expect it to be heard in committee. Next Wednesday, which is the 28th of February, the year of our Lord 2023. At 10:30am. In the rotunda   Leslie Briggs  06:49 Be there or be square. Yeah, right. Yes. We want you to come join us. We have we're doing a ton of stuff at the Capitol next week in celebration and advocacy of this monumental and historic effort that Rep. Hasenbeck is undertaking and Colleen's gonna give you some of those deets.   Colleen McCarty  07:08 Yeah, so we'd love to see anyone who's in the Oklahoma City area next week. We have two capital days that volunteers are free to come and meet us in the Supreme Court hallway. We will have water and snacks and talking points and anything you will need to be prepared to speak to your legislators. That date is February 27. We will start advocating at nine and probably be there all day until five. There's a bus leaving from Tulsa, Oklahoma from OSU Tulsa downtown. That will leave at 830 and arrive to the Capitol at about 10 and leave the Capitol at about three and be back by 430 to make sure everyone can pick up their kids and things like that. So if you need a ride, do not hesitate to hop on the just bus just bus I named it myself if I'm really proud of it.   Leslie Briggs  08:05 Oh man,   Colleen McCarty  08:06 just bus or bust.   Leslie Briggs  08:10 Say that three times. Dude, that just bus bust just bear in Tulsa. You do not want to miss that just but   Colleen McCarty  08:21 I feel like we're gonna I'm gonna set everybody up with a playlist and it's gonna be fire so far. So get on the bus or don't drive your ass down there.   Leslie Briggs  08:30 I don't care. We want to see you there, though.   Colleen McCarty  08:32 We want to see all of your faces, even if it's like, I'm just here because I listen to the podcast. I don't care. I want you there.   Leslie Briggs  08:38 Yeah, we want you there. We think that I mean, just to support this bill to support what rep Hasselbeck is trying to achieve. For survivors of domestic violence in the state of Oklahoma. It's I mean, it's historic. It's something that we need   Colleen McCarty  08:52 it is we just found out that the 2020 numbers showed that more women in Oklahoma are killed by their partners than any other state except one. So we're second in the nation for the number of women being killed by their intimate partners. But then we also know on the flip side, when those survivors rarely are the ones that live in an altercation like that. They're getting life and 30 years and 40 years in prison. And it's not a rare situation.   Leslie Briggs  09:19 Yeah. Which is actually kind of a good segue. But it's a good segue into   Colleen McCarty  09:25 our teaser, we're previewing also today this season two for   Leslie Briggs  09:31 season two, panic button, season two. Should we say the title?   Colleen McCarty  09:35 Yeah, we should say the title. That's a good title.   Leslie Briggs  09:38 Operation Wildfire.   Colleen McCarty  09:40 Yep. Panic Button. Season two Operation Wildfire. We can't spoiler you tonight about why it's called that.   Leslie Briggs  09:47 No sport. Yeah, no, absolutely no spoilers, but we'll just say this that like the question. I think that season two is going to be exploring is a lot of people. Plenty of people We'll have rightly asked, Why didn't April just leave? Like, I think that that's not an a strange question to wonder? Like, why didn't April just get out and get away? And so season two, I think is gonna we're gonna really get to explore what happens when they when someone does. What happens when someone gets away? Yeah. What happens to the abuser? What happens to that person? And   Colleen McCarty  10:25 yeah, I also think it speaks to what happens when people band together to try to stop a violent person. Yeah. And the power in that but also the questions that that kind of like causes   Leslie Briggs  10:43 the obstacles, the challenges and then yeah, like the I think yeah, questions about tactics, questions about results, questions about, I think systemic. I guess failings is the word. But it doesn't seem to really do it justice. It's more like systemic. Like I'm thinking of, well, my sink is broken right now. So it's like, clogs, right? And like the way that the system is just clogged and can't function and you can't get get get the water through to the pipes on the down on this metaphor. It's working. With all these hand motions of sink troubles right now, what's top of mind. But   Colleen McCarty  11:26 I think also, it's just like, this is gonna sound like a rant. But for the majority of human history, people were just killing each other, and there were no consequences. Then we had a little bit of human history where the only consequences for any wrongdoing were death, and everyone's getting killed. And then it was like, Okay, well, we can't kill everybody. So let's wind that back a little bit, and just put people in prison for a really long time. But now, we're to this point where it's like, the only real violence at mass scale that happens in our society is violence against women. And there's really Yeah.   Leslie Briggs  12:08 What about like mass shootings?   Colleen McCarty  12:10 I mean, sure, that is a totally different crime type than what we're talking. Yeah. Yeah. Like a domestic violence call is made every second in America,   Leslie Briggs  12:22 right? I mean, we've seen the data here in Oklahoma, and Oklahoma City, our largest metropolitan area. Yeah. So   Colleen McCarty  12:28 43,000 domestic violence calls made in 2021. And less than 1000 of those lead to arrest. And so it just starts to ask this question about like, this is the most prevalent type of violence that the system is the most bad at responding to   Leslie Briggs  12:46 that I agree with wholeheartedly. Like this violence is so prevalent, and our system doesn't effectively curtail it, or really even punish it, which it's a punitive system. I mean, if it does nothing, well, it punishes people. Well. Yeah, that's this,   Colleen McCarty  13:06 but not this. And then it's like, there are just so many ways to get away with it. Right. And the people who know how to get away with it, get away with really get away with it so much, really get away with it. And it's startling, it really is because like I come from criminal justice reform, where everyone's getting punished for every goddamn thing. Yeah. Yeah. And we're trying to stop people for getting punished as much as they are. Yeah. And then walking into this world of domestic violence advocacy and victims advocacy and saying,   Leslie Briggs  13:44 This is so warped way. So warped, yeah. Like, it's not capturing the right bad actors at the right moment.   Colleen McCarty  13:53 No, and it's not preventing any violence. No, it's actually like, allowing, we talked about this with April's case. But it's allowing these cycles of violence to like, expand and expand and expound because, you know, if you talk to people who work in trauma, or people who try to heal trauma, they will tell you that subconsciously or subconscious wounds are acting themselves out until something happens to cause you to heal it. And if you just keep not getting held accountable. Yeah, it just keeps getting like louder and bigger and more people getting hurt.   Leslie Briggs  14:30 Yeah, more chaotic more untethered. I think and those themes are going to be coming through in season two. Certainly.   Colleen McCarty  14:37 Yes, but you are going to meet some really fun character. So too.   Leslie Briggs  14:40 Yeah. And it's another Oklahoma based story. So we're, we're excited. We're in the research phase. We have two excellent, top notch interns that are plugging away getting us all the details and so they are basically legal research superheroes. I think I called them or Swiss Army Knife interns the other day. I love that they do everything for us there like, I mean, I will message either one of them at like 5pm It'd be like, I need this thing and I'm sorry. It will be like 615 They're like it's done.   Colleen McCarty  15:11 It's done. It's in the file.   Leslie Briggs  15:12 It's good. Love it. So excellent. So shout out. Alison cat. You guys are true heroes.   Colleen McCarty  15:18 Yes. So we don't want to take too much more of your time because we want you to start preparing to come to the Capitol with us next week. There's two days you can do that you can do that Monday the 27th or Thursday, the second we will be conducting community art projects and bringing people together and speaking to the survivor experience in Oklahoma. So we hope you will join us and stay tuned for season two of panic button.   Leslie Briggs  15:47 Operation Wildfire.   Colleen McCarty  15:54 Panic Button is a co production of Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law and Justice and Leslie bricks. We're your hosts Colleen McCarty and Leslie Briggs. Our theme music is velvet rope by Guillaume the production team is Lesley Briggs and rusty row were recorded at Bison and be in studio in Tulsa. Special thanks to Lynn Worley, Amanda Ross and Ashlyn Faulkner for their work on this case. If you or someone you know is experiencing domestic abuse, use a safe computer and contact the National Domestic Violence Hotline at the hotline.org or call 1-800-799-7233 help others find our show by leaving us a rating and writing a review. Follow us at Oka underscore Appleseed across all social platforms. You can subscribe right now in the Apple podcasts app by clicking on our podcasts logo and then hit the subscribe button. If you want to continue the conversation with other listeners, please join our panic button podcast community on book clubs. Join for free at BIT dot L y slash three in our H O eight. See. Thanks so much for listening

Conservation in 2023 with Gabriella Hoffman Show Notes: Gabriella Hoffman is the host of the District of Conservation podcast. She's also a media strategist, consultant, and award-winning outdoor writer based in the Washington D.C. metro area. Since 2016, Gabriella has been a consultant to various non-profit organizations, political campaigns, small businesses and start-ups, and veteran-owned companies. She's worked on all kinds of media projects, ranging from radio and public relations to op-ed writing.   As it relates to conservation, Gabriella's one of the few journalists in D.C who actively hunts and fishes. She's been fishing for most of her life and started hunting about five years ago. Gabriella shares some great insights as to what's trending and we kick off by talking about the long game anti-hunting groups, or “preservationists” seem to be playing. Hunters aren't always painted in the best light, and preservationists have won the narrative. However, there's been a renewed interest in hunting lately and opinions are starting to change.   Gabriella also shares information about the Equal Access to Justice Act and how it has empowered environmentalists to sue to stop hunting activities and true conservation. We talk about how conservationists can fight back, even though it's a bit of an uphill climb. Gabriella and I discuss wildlife management issues, how hunters can use their social media platforms to bring awareness to issues, and how anti-hunting organizations make money from lawsuits to raise funds.    What's Inside: How preservationists shape the anti-hunting narrative and how opinions are shifting. How environmentalists use the Equal Access to Justice Act to raise funds. How hunters can use their platforms to bring awareness to issues.   Mentioned in this episode Phoenix Shooting Bags save 20% with code johnstallone Howl for Wildlife: https://www.howlforwildlife.org/ GoHunt: https://www.gohunt.com/ District of Conservation Podcast GabriellaHoffman.com   Short Description: Gabriella Hoffman is the host of the District of Conservation podcast. She's also a media strategist, consultant, and award-winning outdoor writer based in the Washington D.C. metro area. Gabriella and I discuss wildlife management issues, how hunters can use their social media platforms to bring awareness to issues, and how anti-hunting organizations make money from lawsuits to raise funds.   Tags: big game hunting, hunting tips, hunting guide, buck hunting, hunting stories, conservation, preservation, wildlife management, journalism, fishing, Equal Access to Justice Act, environmentalists, politics

नाबालिक गुन्हेगार मुलांकरता आपल्या कायद्यामध्ये वेगळी सोय आहे. भारतामध्ये नाबालिक गुन्हेगारांकरीता कायदा काय म्हणतो हे नक्कीच पाहण्यासारखे आहे. बऱ्याच वेळेला आडनाडी वयामध्ये बाल गुन्हेगार अत्यंत नीच असेल असा गुन्हा करतो अशा वेळेला कायद्यामध्ये त्याला काय शिक्षा आहे आणि नुकत्याच काही वर्षात झालेल्या विविध बलात्कारांच्या प्रकरणामुळे नीच गुन्ह्यांकरता अशा आडनाडी वयातील कोणत्या वयापर्यंतच्या मुलांना संपूर्ण दोषी मानलं जातं ते कायद्यात जाणन आवश्यक ठरतं

In this Episode John Stallone and Gabriella Hoffman discuss the Equal Access to Justice Act and how anti-hunting organizations exploit this law to push their agenda and line their pockets. We talk about how hunters need to do a better job at portraying what we do and how we are not only part of the conservation system but how we are the main drivers of its success. We also talk about the differences of Preservation vs Conservation and how anti-hunters have co-opted the word conservation.    You can check out Gabriella's podcast District of Conservation here  Check out her instagram 

In this Episode John Stallone and Gabriella Hoffman discuss Equal Access to Justice Act and how anti-hunting organization exploit this law to push their agenda and line their pockets. We talk about how hunters need to do a better job at portraying what we do and how we are not only part of the conservation system but how we are the main drivers of its success. We also talk about the differences of Preservation vs Conservation and how anti-hunters have co-opted the word conservation.    you can check out Gabriellas podcast District of Conservation here  Check out here instagram 

Former Marine and State of Michigan Attorney General, Mike Cox talks about the Camp LeJeune Justice Act; that claims against the government must be filed by August 2024; how it won't reduce your VA Disability Claim, how it allows family members to make a claim, and much more. Attorney Cox discusses his family's service in the Army, Marines and Navy with host Jim Fausone.  

CAROLINE WALSH – US COAST GUARD Caroline Walsh enlisted in the USCG and experienced good duty and bad.  She became an intel analysit for the USCG and then for the CIA.  Having now moved on to a PhD progam in leadership she has written a book “Fairly Smooth Operator” reflecting on that service.  She candidly discusses the sexual harassment and poor leadership in the USCG and offers some changes that could be implemented.  Caroline talks to Jim Fausone about the good , the bad and the ugly aspects of service for a young college-educated, athletic woman. Caroline's book “Fairly Smooth Operator” can be purchased on Amazon. 2023 GEORGE W. BUSH VETERAN LEADERSHIP PROGRAM The George W. Bush Institute's Veteran Leadership Program is discussed by Matt Amidon with host Jim Fausone.This free executive leadership program brings together 50 scholars each year creating a network of civilian and military leaders. ATTORNEY MIKE COX ON CAMP LEJEUNE JUSTICE ACT AND MILITARY SERVICE Former Marine and State of Michigan Attorney General, Mike Cox talks about the Camp LeJeune Justice Act; that claims against the government must be filed by August 2024; how it wont reduce your VA disability claim, how it allows family members to make a claim and much more. The 2023 application window is open until January 18, 2023.  See www.bushcenter.org/standto

In Episode 251 of District of Conservation, Gabriella discusses news over the Biden administration (specifically Interior Department/USFWS) capitulating to Center for Biological Diversity in a "sue and settle" agreement to potentially revoke opening upwards of 100 national wildlife refuges to new hunting and fishing opportunities. Sportsmen and women, who'll be directly affected by such changes, don't have a say. She explains the update from Sportsmen's Alliance, the Montana court settlement, abuses to the Equal Access to Justice Act, the basics of "sue and settle" and the problem with sportsmen and women being excluded from the table. SHOW NOTES Sportsmen's Alliance: Biden Admin Negotiating with Animal Activists Over Public Land Hunting CBD vs. USFWS: Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings CBD: Lawsuit Aims to Protect Endangered Wildlife From Massive Sport Hunting, Fishing Expansion on National Wildlife Refuges August 2021: Interior Department Announces Largest Expansion of Fishing and Hunting on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Managed Lands and Waters EP 250: USFWS Announces $1.5B Haul for Conservation from 2021 USFWS: Why Hunting is Allowed on Refuges EAJA & FFRC: Reforming the Equal Access to Justice Act "Sue and Settle" & S.1247 - Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 2021 Forbes: Pruitt's EPA Directive Sends The 'Sue And Settle' Racket Into Its Death Rattle Chamber of Commerce on Sue and Settle: Regulating Behind Closed Doors & Damage Done Report --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/district-of-conservation/support

Meet the Civilian Climate Corps for the Jobs and Justice Act.To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

Today, the AEI Podcast Channel presents https://www.aei.org/tag/what-the-hell-podcast/ (What the Hell is Going On), a podcast hosted by AEI scholars Danielle Pletka and Marc Thiessen. Sen. Tim Scott joined Dany and Marc to discuss the JUSTICE Act and partisan delays in meaningful police reform. The post https://www.aei.org/multimedia/wth-is-going-on-with-the-chaos-in-american-cities-sen-tim-scott-on-the-politicization-of-violence-and-racial-unrest-what-the-hell/ (WTH is going on with the chaos in American cities? Sen. Tim Scott on the politicization of violence and racial unrest (What the Hell)) appeared first on https://www.aei.org (American Enterprise Institute - AEI). Find What the Hell is Going On? wherever you get your podcasts.

This episode involves an analysis of the two policy proposals: JUSTICE Act and the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. Is justice being served to the many victims of police brutality? Listen now!

Senator Tim Scott joins Michael Knowles and Senator Ted Cruz to play never-before-heard voicemails left in his Senate office, to react to Democrats blocking his JUSTICE Act and real police reform, and to break down what it's like to be a black conservative in America today. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Join Jimmy Sengenberger at the Crossroads with Cassie Smedile and more. Jimmy (@SengCenter) begins the show by highlighting South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott's tremendous Senate floor speech blasting Democrats for thwarting even a debate and vote on his JUSTICE Act. Then, RNC Deputy Communications Director Cassie Smedile (@CMSmedile) returns to discuss 2020 politics, Pelosi's latest comments, the JUSTICE Act debate, and more.

1415 During the Hundred Years' War between England and France, Henry V, the young king of England, leads his forces to victory at the Battle of Agincourt in northern France. Two months before, Henry had crossed the English Channel with 11,000 men and laid siege to Harfleur in Normandy. After five weeks the town surrendered, but Henry lost half his men to disease and battle casualties. He decided to march his army northeast to Calais, where he would meet the English fleet and return to England. At Agincourt, however, a vast French army of 20,000 men stood in his path, greatly outnumbering the exhausted English archers, knights, and men-at-arms. The battlefield lay on 1,000 yards of open ground between two woods, which prevented large-scale maneuvers and thus worked to Henry's advantage. The English stood their ground as French knights, weighed down by their heavy armor, began a slow advance across the muddy battlefield. The French were met by a furious bombardment of artillery from the English archers, who wielded longbows with a range of 250 yards. French cavalrymen tried and failed to overwhelm the English positions, but the archers were protected by a line of pointed stakes. As more and more French knights made their way onto the crowded battlefield, their mobility decreased further, and some lacked even the room to raise their arms and strike a blow. At this point, Henry ordered his lightly equipped archers to rush forward with swords and axes, and the unencumbered Englishmen massacred the French. Almost 6,000 Frenchmen lost their lives during the Battle of Agincourt, while English deaths amounted to just over 400. With odds greater than three to one, Henry had won one of the great victories of military history. 1774 The First Continental Congress sends a respectful petition to King George III to inform his majesty that if it had not been for the acts of oppression forced upon the colonies by the British Parliament, the American people would be standing behind British rule. Despite the anger that the American public felt towards the United Kingdom after the British Parliament established the Coercive Acts—called the Intolerable Acts by the colonists—Congress was still willing to assert its loyalty to the king. In return for this loyalty, Congress asked the king to address and resolve the specific grievances of the colonies. The petition, written by Continental Congressman John Dickinson, laid out what Congress felt was undo oppression of the colonies by the British Parliament. Their grievances mainly had to do with the Coercive Acts, a series of four acts that were established to punish colonists and to restore order in Massachusetts following the Boston Tea Party. The first of the Coercive Acts was the Boston Port Act, which closed the port of Boston to all colonists until damages from the Boston Tea Party were paid. The second, the Massachusetts Government Act, gave the British government total control of town meetings, taking all decisions out of the hands of the colonists. The third, the Administration of Justice Act, made British officials immune to criminal prosecution in America and the fourth, the Quartering Act, required colonists to house and quarter British troops on demand, including in private homes as a last resort. 1983 President Ronald Reagan, citing the threat posed to American nationals on the Caribbean nation of Grenada by that nation's Marxist regime, orders the Marines to invade and secure their safety. There were nearly 1,000 Americans in Grenada at the time, many of them students at the island's medical school. In little more than a week, Grenada's government was overthrown. A number of Americans were skeptical of Reagan's defense of the invasion, noting that it took place just days after a disastrous explosion in a U.S. military installation in Lebanon killed over 240 U.S. troops, calling into question the use of military force to achieve U.S. goals.