Podcasts about justice system

Norm Pattis is one of America's most fearless and outspoken trial lawyers — a champion of the marginalized who has built his career defending clients in some of the highest-stakes criminal and civil rights cases in the country. With over 150 jury trials and admissions to federal courts including the U.S. Supreme Court, he's earned a reputation as one of the fiercest defenders of the Constitution and free speech. Known for taking on controversial cases and clients that others refuse to touch, Norm has spent over 30 years fighting against government overreach and injustice. In this conversation, he opens up about the realities of the criminal justice system, what it truly means to defend the guilty and the innocent, and the personal toll of standing up for what's right in a system built to break you. #LockedInWithIanBick #TrueCrime #CriminalJustice #DefenseAttorney #LawAndOrder #CourtroomStories #JusticeSystem #realstories Thank you to BLUECHEW & K9S.ORG for sponsoring this episode: BlueChew: Visit https://bluechew.com/ and use promo code LOCKEDIN at checkout to get your first month of BlueChew & pay five bucks for shipping. K9s.org: Donate anytime at https://k9s.org/ Connect with Norm Pattis: https://www.pattispazlaw.com/ Hosted, Executive Produced & Edited By Ian Bick: https://www.instagram.com/ian_bick/?hl=en https://ianbick.com/ Shop Locked In Merch: http://www.ianbick.com/shop Timestamps: 00:00 – Intro: Who Is Norm Pattis? What Makes a Trial Lawyer Great 03:10 – Norm Pattis: Early Life, Background & Career Start 07:11 – College to Law School: How Norm Found His Calling 11:25 – Discovering Criminal Defense & Why It Hooked Him 13:50 – How Trial Lawyers Choose Clients & Case Strategy 17:37 – Social Media, Jury Pools & Modern High-Profile Cases 21:09 – The Media, Public Opinion & How It Impacts Trials 25:01 – Going to Trial: Tough Cases, Strategy & Client Decisions 31:05 – Juries Explained: Psychology, Testimony & Mirroring 36:26 – Federal vs State Court: Public Defenders, CJA & Differences 42:00 – Losing Cases, The Justice System & Prison Sentences 47:00 – The “Trial Tax,” Plea Deals & Sentencing Realities 52:21 – Pro Bono Work, Crowdfunding & Taking the Right Cases 55:55 – AI in Law: Helpful Tools, Risks & Hallucinations 01:00:00 – Sentencing, Pre-Sentence Reports & What Judges Consider 01:05:00 – Norm Pattis: Biggest Lessons After 30 Years in the Courtroom Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Is Florida's judicial system broken? Ryan Hoppy dives into a shocking real-life story from the Kava community, then shifts gears to celebrity drama—from Ariana Grande's rumored last tour to Jennifer Aniston's new romance. Plus, NBA injury updates, Golden Bachelor gossip, and Tampa Bay news you won't hear anywhere else. Subscribe for raw takes and trending topics!   

How are the federal courts faring during these tumultuous times? I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss this important subject with a former federal judge: someone who understands the judicial role well but could speak more freely than a sitting judge, liberated from the strictures of the bench.Meet Judge Nancy Gertner (Ret.), who served as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts from 1994 until 2011. I knew that Judge Gertner would be a lively and insightful interviewee—based not only on her extensive commentary on recent events, reflected in media interviews and op-eds, but on my personal experience. During law school, I took a year-long course on federal sentencing with her, and she was one of my favorite professors.When I was her student, we disagreed on a lot: I was severely conservative back then, and Judge Gertner was, well, not. But I always appreciated and enjoyed hearing her views—so it was a pleasure hearing them once again, some 25 years later, in what turned out to be an excellent conversation.Show Notes:* Nancy Gertner, author website* Nancy Gertner bio, Harvard Law School* In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, AmazonPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat.substack.com. You're listening to the eighty-fifth episode of this podcast, recorded on Monday, November 3.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.Many of my guests have been friends of mine for a long time—and that's the case for today's. I've known Judge Nancy Gertner for more than 25 years, dating back to when I took a full-year course on federal sentencing from her and the late Professor Dan Freed at Yale Law School. She was a great teacher, and although we didn't always agree—she was a professor who let students have their own opinions—I always admired her intellect and appreciated her insights.Judge Gertner is herself a graduate of Yale Law School—where she met, among other future luminaries, Bill and Hillary Clinton. After a fascinating career in private practice as a litigator and trial lawyer handling an incredibly diverse array of cases, Judge Gertner was appointed to serve as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts in 1994, by President Clinton. She retired from the bench in 2011, but she is definitely not retired: she writes opinion pieces for outlets such as The New York Times and The Boston Globe, litigates and consults on cases, and trains judges and litigators. She's also working on a book called Incomplete Sentences, telling the stories of the people she sentenced over 17 years on the bench. Her autobiography, In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, was published in 2011. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Judge Nancy Gertner.Judge, thank you so much for joining me.Nancy Gertner: Thank you for inviting me. This is wonderful.DL: So it's funny: I've been wanting to have you on this podcast in a sense before it existed, because you and I worked on a podcast pilot. It ended up not getting picked up, but perhaps they have some regrets over that, because legal issues have just blown up since then.NG: I remember that. I think it was just a question of scheduling, and it was before Trump, so we were talking about much more sophisticated, superficial things, as opposed to the rule of law and the demise of the Constitution.DL: And we will get to those topics. But to start off my podcast in the traditional way, let's go back to the beginning. I believe we are both native New Yorkers?NG: Yes, that's right. I was born on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, in an apartment that I think now is a tenement museum, and then we moved to Flushing, Queens, where I lived into my early 20s.DL: So it's interesting—I actually spent some time as a child in that area. What was your upbringing like? What did your parents do?NG: My father owned a linoleum store, or as we used to call it, “tile,” and my mother was a homemaker. My mother worked at home. We were lower class on the Lower East Side and maybe made it to lower-middle. My parents were very conservative, in the sense they didn't know exactly what to do with a girl who was a bit of a radical. Neither I nor my sister was precisely what they anticipated. So I got to Barnard for college only because my sister had a conniption fit when he wouldn't pay for college for her—she's my older sister—he was not about to pay for college. If we were boys, we would've had college paid for.In a sense, they skipped a generation. They were actually much more traditional than their peers were. My father was Orthodox when he grew up; my mother was somewhat Orthodox Jewish. My father couldn't speak English until the second grade. So they came from a very insular environment, and in one sense, he escaped that environment when he wanted to play ball on Saturdays. So that was actually the motivation for moving to Queens: to get away from the Lower East Side, where everyone would know that he wasn't in temple on Saturday. We used to have interesting discussions, where I'd say to him that my rebellion was a version of his: he didn't want to go to temple on Saturdays, and I was marching against the war. He didn't see the equivalence, but somehow I did.There's actually a funny story to tell about sort of exactly the distance between how I was raised and my life. After I graduated from Yale Law School, with all sorts of honors and stuff, and was on my way to clerk for a judge, my mother and I had this huge fight in the kitchen of our apartment. What was the fight about? Sadie wanted me to take the Triborough Bridge toll taker's test, “just in case.” “You never know,” she said. I couldn't persuade her that it really wasn't necessary. She passed away before I became a judge, and I told this story at my swearing-in, and I said that she just didn't understand. I said, “Now I have to talk to my mother for a minute; forgive me for a moment.” And I looked up at the rafters and I said, “Ma, at last: a government job!” So that is sort of the measure of where I started. My mother didn't finish high school, my father had maybe a semester of college—but that wasn't what girls did.DL: So were you then a first-generation professional or a first-generation college graduate?NG: Both—my sister and I were both, first-generation college graduates and first-generation professionals. When people talk about Jewish backgrounds, they're very different from one another, and since my grandparents came from Eastern European shtetls, it's not clear to me that they—except for one grandfather—were even literate. So it was a very different background.DL: You mentioned that you did go to Yale Law School, and of course we connected there years later, when I was your student. But what led you to go to law school in the first place? Clearly your parents were not encouraging your professional ambitions.NG: One is, I love to speak. My husband kids me now and says that I've never met a microphone I didn't like. I had thought for a moment of acting—musical comedy, in fact. But it was 1967, and the anti-war movement, a nascent women's movement, and the civil rights movement were all rising around me, and I wanted to be in the world. And the other thing was that I didn't want to do anything that women do. Actually, musical comedy was something that would've been okay and normal for women, but I didn't want to do anything that women typically do. So that was the choice of law. It was more like the choice of law professor than law, but that changed over time.DL: So did you go straight from Barnard to Yale Law School?NG: Well, I went from Barnard to Yale graduate school in political science because as I said, I've always had an academic and a practical side, and so I thought briefly that I wanted to get a Ph.D. I still do, actually—I'm going to work on that after these books are finished.DL: Did you then think that you wanted to be a law professor when you started at YLS? I guess by that point you already had a master's degree under your belt?NG: I thought I wanted to be a law professor, that's right. I did not think I wanted to practice law. Yale at that time, like most law schools, had no practical clinical courses. I don't think I ever set foot in a courtroom or a courthouse, except to demonstrate on the outside of it. And the only thing that started me in practice was that I thought I should do at least two or three years of practice before I went back into the academy, before I went back into the library. Twenty-four years later, I obviously made a different decision.DL: So you were at YLS during a very interesting time, and some of the law school's most famous alumni passed through its halls around that period. So tell us about some of the people you either met or overlapped with at YLS during your time there.NG: Hillary Clinton was one of my best friends. I knew Bill, but I didn't like him.DL: Hmmm….NG: She was one of my best friends. There were 20 women in my class, which was the class of ‘71. The year before, there had only been eight. I think we got up to 21—a rumor had it that it was up to 21 because men whose numbers were drafted couldn't go to school, and so suddenly they had to fill their class with this lesser entity known as women. It was still a very small number out of, I think, what was the size of the opening class… 165? Very small. So we knew each other very, very well. And Hillary and I were the only ones, I think, who had no boyfriends at the time, though that changed.DL: I think you may have either just missed or briefly overlapped with either Justice Thomas or Justice Alito?NG: They're younger than I am, so I think they came after.DL: And that would be also true of Justice Sotomayor then as well?NG: Absolutely. She became a friend because when I was on the bench, I actually sat with the Second Circuit, and we had great times together. But she was younger than I was, so I didn't know her in law school, and by the time she was in law school, there were more women. In the middle of, I guess, my first year at Yale Law School, was the first year that Yale College went coed. So it was, in my view, an enormously exciting time, because we felt like we were inventing law. We were inventing something entirely new. We had the first “women in the law” course, one of the first such courses in the country, and I think we were borderline obnoxious. It's a little bit like the debates today, which is that no one could speak right—you were correcting everyone with respect to the way they were describing women—but it was enormously creative and exciting.DL: So I'm gathering you enjoyed law school, then?NG: I loved law school. Still, when I was in law school, I still had my feet in graduate school, so I believe that I took law and sociology for three years, mostly. In other words, I was going through law school as if I were still in graduate school, and it was so bad that when I decided to go into practice—and this is an absolutely true story—I thought that dying intestate was a disease. We were taking the bar exam, and I did not know what they were talking about.DL: So tell us, then, what did lead you to shift gears? You mentioned you clerked, and you mentioned you wanted to practice for a few years—but you did practice for more than a few years.NG: Right. I talk to students about this all the time, about sort of the fortuities that you need to grab onto that you absolutely did not plan. So I wind up at a small civil-rights firm, Harvey Silverglate and Norman Zalkind's firm. I wind up in a small civil-rights firm because I couldn't get a job anywhere else in Boston. I was looking in Boston or San Francisco, and what other women my age were encountering, I encountered, which is literally people who told me that I would never succeed as a lawyer, certainly not as a litigator. So you have to understand, this is 1971. I should say, as a footnote, that I have a file of everyone who said that to me. People know that I have that file; it's called “Sexist Tidbits.” And so I used to decide whether I should recuse myself when someone in that file appeared before me, but I decided it was just too far.So it was a small civil-rights firm, and they were doing draft cases, they were doing civil-rights cases of all different kinds, and they were doing criminal cases. After a year, the partnership between Norman Zalkind and Harvey Silverglate broke up, and Harvey made me his partner, now an equal partner after a year of practice.Shortly after that, I got a case that changed my career in so many ways, which is I wound up representing Susan Saxe. Susan Saxe was one of five individuals who participated in robberies to get money for the anti-war movement. She was probably five years younger than I was. In the case of the robbery that she participated in, a police officer was killed. She was charged with felony murder. She went underground for five years; the other woman went underground for 20 years.Susan wanted me to represent her, not because she had any sense that I was any good—it's really quite wonderful—she wanted me to represent her because she figured her case was hopeless. And her case was hopeless because the three men involved in the robbery either fled or were immediately convicted, so her case seemed to be hopeless. And she was an extraordinarily principled woman: she said that in her last moment on the stage—she figured that she'd be convicted and get life—she wanted to be represented by a woman. And I was it. There was another woman in town who was a public defender, but I was literally the only private lawyer. I wrote about the case in my book, In Defense of Women, and to Harvey Silvergate's credit, even though the case was virtually no money, he said, “If you want to do it, do it.”Because I didn't know what I was doing—and I literally didn't know what I was doing—I researched every inch of everything in the case. So we had jury research and careful jury selection, hiring people to do jury selection. I challenged the felony-murder rule (this was now 1970). If there was any evidentiary issue, I would not only do the legal research, but talk to social psychologists about what made sense to do. To make a long story short, it took about two years to litigate the case, and it's all that I did.And the government's case was winding down, and it seemed to be not as strong as we thought it was—because, ironically, nobody noticed the woman in the bank. Nobody was noticing women in general; nobody was noticing women in the bank. So their case was much weaker than we thought, except there were two things, two letters that Susan had written: one to her father, and one to her rabbi. The one to her father said, “By the time you get this letter, you'll know what your little girl is doing.” The one to her rabbi said basically the same thing. In effect, these were confessions. Both had been turned over to the FBI.So the case is winding down, not very strong. These letters have not yet been introduced. Meanwhile, The Boston Globe is reporting that all these anti-war activists were coming into town, and Gertner, who no one ever heard of, was going to try the Vietnam War. The defense will be, “She robbed a bank to fight the Vietnam War.” She robbed a bank in order to get money to oppose the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War was illegitimate, etc. We were going to try the Vietnam War.There was no way in hell I was going to do that. But nobody had ever heard of me, so they believed anything. The government decided to rest before the letters came in, anticipating that our defense would be a collection of individuals who were going to challenge the Vietnam War. The day that the government rested without putting in those two letters, I rested my case, and the case went immediately to the jury. I'm told that I was so nervous when I said “the defense rests” that I sounded like Minnie Mouse.The upshot of that, however, was that the jury was 9-3 for acquittal on the first day, 10-2 for acquittal on the second day, and then 11-1 for acquittal—and there it stopped. It was a hung jury. But it essentially made my career. I had first the experience of pouring my heart into a case and saving someone's life, which was like nothing I'd ever felt before, which was better than the library. It also put my name out there. I was no longer, “Who is she?” I suddenly could take any kind of case I wanted to take. And so I was addicted to trials from then until the time I became a judge.DL: Fill us in on what happened later to your client, just her ultimate arc.NG: She wound up getting eight years in prison instead of life. She had already gotten eight years because of a prior robbery in Philadelphia, so there was no way that we were going to affect that. She had pleaded guilty to that. She went on to live a very principled life. She's actually quite religious. She works in the very sort of left Jewish groups. We are in touch—I'm in touch with almost everyone that I've ever known—because it had been a life-changing experience for me. We were four years apart. Her background, though she was more middle-class, was very similar to my own. Her mother used to call me at night about what Susan should wear. So our lives were very much intertwined. And so she was out of jail after eight years, and she has a family and is doing fine.DL: That's really a remarkable result, because people have to understand what defense lawyers are up against. It's often very challenging, and a victory is often a situation where your client doesn't serve life, for example, or doesn't, God forbid, get the death penalty. So it's really interesting that the Saxe case—as you talk about in your wonderful memoir—really did launch your career to the next level. And you wound up handling a number of other cases that you could say were adjacent or thematically related to Saxe's case. Maybe you can talk a little bit about some of those.NG: The women's movement was roaring at this time, and so a woman lawyer who was active and spoke out and talked about women's issues invariably got women's cases. So on the criminal side, I did one of the first, I think it was the first, battered woman syndrome case, as a defense to murder. On the civil side, I had a very robust employment-discrimination practice, dealing with sexual harassment, dealing with racial discrimination. I essentially did whatever I wanted to do. That's what my students don't always understand: I don't remember ever looking for a lucrative case. I would take what was interesting and fun to me, and money followed. I can't describe it any other way.These cases—you wound up getting paid, but I did what I thought was meaningful. But it wasn't just women's rights issues, and it wasn't just criminal defense. We represented white-collar criminal defendants. We represented Boston Mayor Kevin White's second-in-command, Ted Anzalone, also successfully. I did stockholder derivative suits, because someone referred them to me. To some degree the Saxe case, and maybe it was also the time—I did not understand the law to require specialization in the way that it does now. So I could do a felony-murder case on Monday and sue Mayor Lynch on Friday and sue Gulf Oil on Monday, and it wouldn't even occur to me that there was an issue. It was not the same kind of specialization, and I certainly wasn't about to specialize.DL: You anticipated my next comment, which is that when someone reads your memoir, they read about a career that's very hard to replicate in this day and age. For whatever reason, today people specialize. They specialize at earlier points in their careers. Clients want somebody who holds himself out as a specialist in white-collar crime, or a specialist in dealing with defendants who invoke battered woman syndrome, or what have you. And so I think your career… you kind of had a luxury, in a way.NG: I also think that the costs of entry were lower. It was Harvey Silverglate and me, and maybe four or five other lawyers. I was single until I was 39, so I had no family pressures to speak of. And I think that, yes, the profession was different. Now employment discrimination cases involve prodigious amounts of e-discovery. So even a little case has e-discovery, and that's partly because there's a generation—you're a part of it—that lived online. And so suddenly, what otherwise would have been discussions over the back fence are now text messages.So I do think it's different—although maybe this is a comment that only someone who is as old as I am can make—I wish that people would forget the money for a while. When I was on the bench, you'd get a pro se case that was incredibly interesting, challenging prison conditions or challenging some employment issue that had never been challenged before. It was pro se, and I would get on the phone and try to find someone to represent this person. And I can't tell you how difficult it was. These were not necessarily big cases. The big firms might want to get some publicity from it. But there was not a sense of individuals who were going to do it just, “Boy, I've never done a case like this—let me try—and boy, this is important to do.” Now, that may be different today in the Trump administration, because there's a huge number of lawyers that are doing immigration cases. But the day-to-day discrimination cases, even abortion cases, it was not the same kind of support.DL: I feel in some ways you were ahead of your time, because your career as a litigator played out in boutiques, and I feel that today, many lawyers who handle high-profile cases like yours work at large firms. Why did you not go to a large firm, either from YLS or if there were issues, for example, of discrimination, you must have had opportunities to lateral into such a firm later, if you had wanted to?NG: Well, certainly at the beginning nobody wanted me. It didn't matter how well I had done. Me and Ruth Ginsburg were on the streets looking for jobs. So that was one thing. I wound up, for the last four years of my practice before I became a judge, working in a firm called Dwyer Collora & Gertner. It was more of a boutique, white-collar firm. But I wasn't interested in the big firms because I didn't want anyone to tell me what to do. I didn't want anyone to say, “Don't write this op-ed because you'll piss off my clients.” I faced the same kind of issue when I left the bench. I could have an office, and sort of float into client conferences from time to time, but I did not want to be in a setting in which anyone told me what to do. It was true then; it certainly is true now.DL: So you did end up in another setting where, for the most part, you weren't told what to do: namely, you became a federal judge. And I suppose the First Circuit could from time to time tell you what to do, but….NG: But they were always wrong.DL: Yes, I do remember that when you were my professor, you would offer your thoughts on appellate rulings. But how did you—given the kind of career you had, especially—become a federal judge? Because let me be honest, I think that somebody with your type of engagement in hot-button issues today would have a challenging time. Republican senators would grandstand about you coming up with excuses for women murderers, or what have you. Did you have a rough confirmation process?NG: I did. So I'm up for the bench in 1993. This is under Bill Clinton, and I'm told—I never confirmed this—that when Senator Kennedy…. When I met Senator Kennedy, I thought I didn't have a prayer of becoming a judge. I put my name in because I knew the Clintons, and everybody I knew was getting a job in the government. I had not thought about being a judge. I had not prepared. I had not structured my career to be a judge. But everyone I knew was going into the government, and I thought if there ever was a time, this would be it. So I apply. Someday, someone should emboss my application, because the application was quite hysterical. I put in every article that I had written calling for access to reproductive technologies to gay people. It was something to behold.Kennedy was at the tail end of his career, and he was determined to put someone like me on the bench. I'm not sure that anyone else would have done that. I'm told (and this isn't confirmed) that when he talked to Bill and Hillary about me, they of course knew me—Hillary and I had been close friends—but they knew me to be that radical friend of theirs from Yale Law School. There had been 24 years in between, but still. And I'm told that what was said was, “She's terrific. But if there's a problem, she's yours.” But Kennedy was really determined.The week before my hearing before the Senate, I had gotten letters from everyone who had ever opposed me. Every prosecutor. I can't remember anyone who had said no. Bill Weld wrote a letter. Bob Mueller, who had opposed me in cases, wrote a letter. But as I think oftentimes happens with women, there was an article in The Boston Herald the day before my hearing, in which the writer compared me to Lorena Bobbitt. Your listeners may not know this, but he said, “Gertner will do to justice, with her gavel, what Lorena did to her husband, with a kitchen knife.” Do we have to explain that any more?DL: They can Google it or ask ChatGPT. I'm old enough to know about Lorena Bobbitt.NG: Right. So it's just at the tail edge of the presentation, that was always what the caricature would be. But Kennedy was masterful. There were numbers of us who were all up at the same time. Everyone else got through except me. I'm told that that article really was the basis for Senator Jesse Helms's opposition to me. And then Senator Kennedy called us one day and said, “Tomorrow you're going to read something, but don't worry, I'll take care of it.” And the Boston Globe headline says, “Kennedy Votes For Helms's School-Prayer Amendment.” And he called us and said, “We'll take care of it in committee.” And then we get a call from him—my husband took the call—Kennedy, affecting Helms's accent, said, ‘Senator, you've got your judge.' We didn't even understand what the hell he said, between his Boston accent and imitating Helms; we had no idea what he said. But that then was confirmed.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits@nexfirm.com.So turning to your time as a judge, how would you describe that period, in a nutshell? The job did come with certain restrictions. Did you enjoy it, notwithstanding the restrictions?NG: I candidly was not sure that I would last beyond five years, for a couple of reasons. One was, I got on the bench in 1994, when the sentencing guidelines were mandatory, when what we taught you in my sentencing class was not happening, which is that judges would depart from the guidelines and the Sentencing Commission, when enough of us would depart, would begin to change the guidelines, and there'd be a feedback loop. There was no feedback loop. If you departed, you were reversed. And actually the genesis of the book I'm writing now came from this period. As far as I was concerned, I was being unfair. As I later said, my sentences were unfair, unjust, and disproportionate—and there was nothing I could do about it. So I was not sure that I was going to last beyond five years.In addition, there were some high-profile criminal trials going on with lawyers that I knew that I probably would've been a part of if I had been practicing. And I hungered to do that, to go back and be a litigator. The course at Yale Law School that you were a part of saved me. And it saved me because, certainly with respect to the sentencing, it turned what seemed like a formula into an intellectual discussion in which there was wiggle room and the ability to come up with other approaches. In other words, we were taught that this was a formula, and you don't depart from the formula, and that's it. The class came up with creative issues and creative understandings, which made an enormous difference to my judging.So I started to write; I started to write opinions. Even if the opinion says there's nothing I can do about it, I would write opinions in which I say, “I can't depart because of this woman's status as a single mother because the guidelines said only extraordinary family circumstances can justify a departure, and this wasn't extraordinary. That makes no sense.” And I began to write this in my opinions, I began to write this in scholarly writings, and that made all the difference in the world. And sometimes I was reversed, and sometimes I was not. But it enabled me to figure out how to push back against a system which I found to be palpably unfair. So I figured out how to be me in this job—and that was enormously helpful.DL: And I know how much and how deeply you cared about sentencing because of the class in which I actually wound up writing one of my two capstone papers at Yale.NG: To your listeners, I still have that paper.DL: You must be quite a pack rat!NG: I can change the grade at any time….DL: Well, I hope you've enjoyed your time today, Judge, and will keep the grade that way!But let me ask you: now that the guidelines are advisory, do you view that as a step forward from your time on the bench? Perhaps you would still be a judge if they were advisory? I don't know.NG: No, they became advisory in 2005, and I didn't leave until 2011. Yes, that was enormously helpful: you could choose what you thought was a fair sentence, so it's very advisory now. But I don't think I would've stayed longer, because of two reasons.By the time I hit 65, I wanted another act. I wanted another round. I thought I had done all that I could do as a judge, and I wanted to try something different. And Martha Minow of Harvard Law School made me an offer I couldn't refuse, which was to teach at Harvard. So that was one. It also, candidly, was that there was no longevity in my family, and so when I turned 65, I wasn't sure what was going to happen. So I did want to try something new. But I'm still here.DL: Yep—definitely, and very active. I always chuckle when I see “Ret.,” the abbreviation for “retired,” in your email signature, because you do not seem very retired to me. Tell us what you are up to today.NG: Well, first I have this book that I've been writing for several years, called Incomplete Sentences. And so what this book started to be about was the men and women that I sentenced, and how unfair it was, and what I thought we should have done. Then one day I got a message from a man by the name of Darryl Green, and it says, “Is this Nancy Gertner? If it is, I think about you all the time. I hope you're well. I'm well. I'm an iron worker. I have a family. I've written books. You probably don't remember me.” This was a Facebook message. I knew exactly who he was. He was a man who had faced the death penalty in my court, and I acquitted him. And he was then tried in state court, and acquitted again. So I knew exactly who he was, and I decided to write back.So I wrote back and said, “I know who you are. Do you want to meet?” That started a series of meetings that I've had with the men I've sentenced over the course of the 17-year career that I had as a judge. Why has it taken me this long to write? First, because these have been incredibly moving and difficult discussions. Second, because I wanted the book to be honest about what I knew about them and what a difference maybe this information would make. It is extremely difficult, David, to be honest about judging, particularly in these days when judges are parodied. So if I talk about how I wanted to exercise some leniency in a case, I understand that this can be parodied—and I don't want it to be, but I want to be honest.So for example, in one case, there would be cooperators in the case who'd get up and testify that the individual who was charged with only X amount of drugs was actually involved with much more than that. And you knew that if you believed the witness, the sentence would be doubled, even though you thought that didn't make any sense. This was really just mostly how long the cops were on the corner watching the drug deals. It didn't make the guy who was dealing drugs on a bicycle any more culpable than the guy who was doing massive quantities into the country.So I would struggle with, “Do I really believe this man, the witness who's upping the quantity?” And the kinds of exercises I would go through to make sure that I wasn't making a decision because I didn't like the implications of the decision and it was what I was really feeling. So it's not been easy to write, and it's taken me a very long time. The other side of the coin is they're also incredibly honest with me, and sometimes I don't want to know what they're saying. Not like a sociologist who could say, “Oh, that's an interesting fact, I'll put it in.” It's like, “Oh no, I don't want to know that.”DL: Wow. The book sounds amazing; I can't wait to read it. When is it estimated to come out?NG: Well, I'm finishing it probably at the end of this year. I've rewritten it about five times. And my hope would be sometime next year. So yeah, it was organic. It's what I wanted to write from the minute I left the bench. And it covers the guideline period when it was lunacy to follow the guidelines, to a period when it was much more flexible, but the guidelines still disfavored considering things like addiction and trauma and adverse childhood experiences, which really defined many of the people I was sentencing. So it's a cri de cœur, as they say, which has not been easy to write.DL: Speaking of cri de cœurs, and speaking of difficult things, it's difficult to write about judging, but I think we also have alluded already to how difficult it is to engage in judging in 2025. What general thoughts would you have about being a federal judge in 2025? I know you are no longer a federal judge. But if you were still on the bench or when you talk to your former colleagues, what is it like on the ground right now?NG: It's nothing like when I was a judge. In fact, the first thing that happened when I left the bench is I wrote an article in which I said—this is in 2011—that the only pressure I had felt in my 17 years on the bench was to duck, avoid, and evade, waiver, statute of limitations. Well, all of a sudden, you now have judges who at least since January are dealing with emergencies that they can't turn their eyes away from, judges issuing rulings at 1 a.m., judges writing 60-page decisions on an emergency basis, because what the president is doing is literally unprecedented. The courts are being asked to look at issues that have never been addressed before, because no one has ever tried to do the things that he's doing. And they have almost overwhelmingly met the moment. It doesn't matter whether you're ruling for the government or against the government; they are taking these challenges enormously seriously. They're putting in the time.I had two clerks, maybe some judges have three, but it's a prodigious amount of work. Whereas everyone complained about the Trump prosecutions proceeding so slowly, judges have been working expeditiously on these challenges, and under circumstances that I never faced, which is threats the likes of which I have never seen. One judge literally played for me the kinds of voice messages that he got after a decision that he issued. So they're doing it under circumstances that we never had to face. And it's not just the disgruntled public talking; it's also our fellow Yale Law alum, JD Vance, talking about rogue judges. That's a level of delegitimization that I just don't think anyone ever had to deal with before. So they're being challenged in ways that no other judges have, and they are being threatened in a way that no judges have.On the other hand, I wish I were on the bench.DL: Interesting, because I was going to ask you that. If you were to give lower-court judges a grade, to put you back in professor mode, on their performance since January 2025, what grade would you give the lower courts?NG: Oh, I would give them an A. I would give them an A. It doesn't matter which way they have come out: decision after decision has been thoughtful and careful. They put in the time. Again, this is not a commentary on what direction they have gone in, but it's a commentary on meeting the moment. And so now these are judges who are getting emergency orders, emergency cases, in the midst of an already busy docket. It has really been extraordinary. The district courts have; the courts of appeals have. I've left out another court….DL: We'll get to that in a minute. But I'm curious: you were on the District of Massachusetts, which has been a real center of activity because many groups file there. As we're recording this, there is the SNAP benefits, federal food assistance litigation playing out there [before Judge Indira Talwani, with another case before Chief Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island]. So it's really just ground zero for a lot of these challenges. But you alluded to the Supreme Court, and I was going to ask you—even before you did—what grade would you give them?NG: Failed. The debate about the shadow docket, which you write about and I write about, in which Justice Kavanaugh thinks, “we're doing fine making interim orders, and therefore it's okay that there's even a precedential value to our interim orders, and thank you very much district court judges for what you're doing, but we'll be the ones to resolve these issues”—I mean, they're resolving these issues in the most perfunctory manner possible.In the tariff case, for example, which is going to be argued on Wednesday, the Court has expedited briefing and expedited oral argument. They could do that with the emergency docket, but they are preferring to hide behind this very perfunctory decision making. I'm not sure why—maybe to keep their options open? Justice Barrett talks about how if it's going to be a hasty decision, you want to make sure that it's not written in stone. But of course then the cases dealing with independent commissions, in which you are allowing the government, allowing the president, to fire people on independent commissions—these cases are effectively overruling Humphrey's Executor, in the most ridiculous setting. So the Court is not meeting the moment. It was stunning that the Court decided in the birthright-citizenship case to be concerned about nationwide injunctions, when in fact nationwide injunctions had been challenged throughout the Biden administration, and they just decided not to address the issue then.Now, I have a lot to say about Justice Kavanaugh's dressing-down of Judge [William] Young [of the District of Massachusetts]….DL: Or Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Kavanaugh.NG: That's right, it was Justice Gorsuch. It was stunningly inappropriate, stunningly inappropriate, undermines the district courts that frankly are doing much better than the Supreme Court in meeting the moment. The whole concept of defying the Supreme Court—defying a Supreme Court order, a three-paragraph, shadow-docket order—is preposterous. So whereas the district courts and the courts of appeals are meeting the moment, I do not think the Supreme Court is. And that's not even going into the merits of the immunity decision, which I think has let loose a lawless presidency that is even more lawless than it might otherwise be. So yes, that failed.DL: I do want to highlight for my readers that in addition to your books and your speaking, you do write quite frequently on these issues in the popular press. I've seen your work in The New York Times and The Boston Globe. I know you're working on a longer essay about the rule of law in the age of Trump, so people should look out for that. Of all the things that you worry about right now when it comes to the rule of law, what worries you the most?NG: I worry that the president will ignore and disobey a Supreme Court order. I think a lot about the judges that are dealing with orders that the government is not obeying, and people are impatient that they're not immediately moving to contempt. And one gets the sense with the lower courts that they are inching up to the moment of contempt, but do not want to get there because it would be a stunning moment when you hold the government in contempt. I think the Supreme Court is doing the same thing. I initially believed that the Supreme Court was withholding an anti-Trump decision, frankly, for fear that he would not obey it, and they were waiting till it mattered. I now am no longer certain of that, because there have been rulings that made no sense as far as I'm concerned. But my point was that they, like the lower courts, were holding back rather than saying, “Government, you must do X,” for fear that the government would say, “Go pound sand.” And that's what I fear, because when that happens, it will be even more of a constitutional crisis than we're in now. It'll be a constitutional confrontation, the likes of which we haven't seen. So that's what I worry about.DL: Picking up on what you just said, here's something that I posed to one of my prior guests, Pam Karlan. Let's say you're right that the Supreme Court doesn't want to draw this line in the sand because of a fear that Trump, being Trump, will cross it. Why is that not prudential? Why is that not the right thing? And why is it not right for the Supreme Court to husband its political capital for the real moment?Say Trump—I know he said lately he's not going to—but say Trump attempts to run for a third term, and some case goes up to the Supreme Court on that basis, and the Court needs to be able to speak in a strong, unified, powerful voice. Or maybe it'll be a birthright-citizenship case, if he says, when they get to the merits of that, “Well, that's really nice that you think that there's such a thing as birthright citizenship, but I don't, and now stop me.” Why is it not wise for the Supreme Court to protect itself, until this moment when it needs to come forward and protect all of us?NG: First, the question is whether that is in fact what they are doing, and as I said, there were two schools of thought on this. One school of thought was that is what they were doing, and particularly doing it in an emergency, fuzzy, not really precedential way, until suddenly you're at the edge of the cliff, and you have to either say taking away birthright citizenship was unconstitutional, or tariffs, you can't do the tariffs the way you want to do the tariffs. I mean, they're husbanding—I like the way you put it, husbanding—their political capital, until that moment. I'm not sure that that's true. I think we'll know that if in fact the decisions that are coming down the pike, they actually decide against Trump—notably the tariff ones, notably birthright citizenship. I'm just not sure that that's true.And besides, David, there are some of these cases they did not have to take. The shadow docket was about where plaintiffs were saying it is an emergency to lay people off or fire people. Irreparable harm is on the plaintiff's side, whereas the government otherwise would just continue to do that which it has been doing. There's no harm to it continuing that. USAID—you don't have a right to dismantle the USAID. The harm is on the side of the dismantling, not having you do that which you have already done and could do through Congress, if you wanted to. They didn't have to take those cases. So your comment about husbanding political capital is a good comment, but those cases could have remained as they were in the district courts with whatever the courts of appeals did, and they could do what previous courts have done, which is wait for the issues to percolate longer.The big one for me, too, is the voting rights case. If they decide the voting rights case in January or February or March, if they rush it through, I will say then it's clear they're in the tank for Trump, because the only reason to get that decision out the door is for the 2026 election. So I want to believe that they are husbanding their political capital, but I'm not sure that if that's true, that we would've seen this pattern. But the proof will be with the voting rights case, with birthright citizenship, with the tariffs.DL: Well, it will be very interesting to see what happens in those cases. But let us now turn to my speed round. These are four questions that are the same for all my guests, and my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as an abstract system of governance.NG: The practice of law. I do some litigation; I'm in two cases. When I was a judge, I used to laugh at people who said incivility was the most significant problem in the law. I thought there were lots of other more significant problems. I've come now to see how incredibly nasty the practice of law is. So yes—and that is no fun.DL: My second question is, what would you be if you were not a lawyer/judge/retired judge?NG: Musical comedy star, clearly! No question about it.DL: There are some judges—Judge Fred Block in the Eastern District of New York, Judge Jed Rakoff in the Southern District of New York—who do these little musical stylings for their court shows. I don't know if you've ever tried that?NG: We used to do Shakespeare, Shakespeare readings, and I loved that. I am a ham—so absolutely musical comedy or theater.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?NG: Six to seven hours now, just because I'm old. Before that, four. Most of my life as a litigator, I never thought I needed sleep. You get into my age, you need sleep. And also you look like hell the next morning, so it's either getting sleep or a facelift.DL: And my last question is, any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?NG: You have to do what you love. You have to do what you love. The law takes time and is so all-encompassing that you have to do what you love. And I have done what I love from beginning to now, and I wouldn't have it any other way.DL: Well, I have loved catching up with you, Judge, and having you share your thoughts and your story with my listeners. Thank you so much for joining me.NG: You're very welcome, David. Take care.DL: Thanks so much to Judge Gertner for joining me. I look forward to reading her next book, Incomplete Sentences, when it comes out next year.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat@substack.com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, November 26. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz joins Steve to sound the alarm on America's growing war on faith. His new column, “Faith Becoming a Crime,” warns that selective prosecution is turning belief itself into a target, and it's paving the way for tyranny. They also talk about the government shutdown, Democrats' hatred for America, and the future of New York under socialist control.

Just when it seemed that we might enjoy a lull with the ceasefire, a fresh scandal overtakes the public sphere in Israel. This one is a homegrown domestic mess but it could lead to far reaching, international consequences. In July, 2024, allegations of prisoner abuse at Sde Teiman prison in southern Israel began to surface. This is the prison where detainees captured in the Gaza Strip were held. Then a video - purporting to show physical abuse by IDF soldiers in the prison - was released. The video, in fact, is very grainy and does not show what has been suggested. Nevertheless, when it was leaked an international uproar ensued. Several IDF soldiers were indicted on serious criminal charges but it is unclear exactly what they pertain to.The indictments of IDF reservists sparked serious riots in Israel, when civilians broke into two IDF bases. A series of probes within the legal system were conducted, and we didn't hear much more - until Wednesday, October 29. On that day, the top lawyer in the IDF - Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi - was put on leave. Two days later she resigned and admitted, in writing, that she had leaked the video. So now we have a leak and cover up at the highest levels. During the last week there has been high drama in this case. Yerushalmi disappeared for a few hours - causing major alarm. Her phone disappeared and was found five days later in the sea. Incredibly, it still worked. She was held in custody for five days and then released to house arrest. Tonight she is in hospital following an overdose and what appears to be a suicide attempt. Everything about this case is sensational and horrible; the personal suffering and indignity and the profound implications for the justice system in Israel. We discuss it all with former IDF MAG lawyer, Ben Wahlhous, who now works as an attorney in private practice in Israel. Wahlhous explains the role of the unit and what is concerning about this case. He also puts it into perspective - making clear that this case demonstrates how strong and ethical the Israeli justice system remains.Because the facts of this case are so - complicated - and important to understand….and there is so much going on, I have divided this podcast into four parts:Part 1 - Introduction and The Facts 00:00 - 14:25Part 2 - Interview with Ben Wahlhous, attorney and former lawyer in IDF legal unit - MAG 14:26 - 41:39Part 3 - Update on the Facts Current to the evening of Sunday, November 9 41:40-44:28Part 4 - A Little Levity - An iPhone Experiment Conducted on a Top Political Analysis Show 44:29 - endShow your support for STLV at buymeacoffee.com/stateoftelavivPodcast NotesBen Wahlhaus served for many years as an officer in the IDF's International Law Department. He has been a member of Israel's defense team at The Hague against South Africa's allegations of genocide, advised on Israel's peace treaties and agreements, and appeared in international media explaining the IDF's commitment to international law. Today Ben serves in the International Law Department as a reserve duty officer, and works in private practice.State of Tel Aviv is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.stateoftelaviv.com/subscribe

We'll try to figure out what is fact and what is just fear driven political and social opinion as I put AI and Tech through an Anarchist Audit. Then in the second hour I'm joined by Attorney Saul Bienenfeld

The documentary "Take Care of Maya" outraged viewers, and a subsequent lawsuit resulted in a quarter of a billion-dollar judgment against the hospital that had treated her. But an appeals court has now reversed that judgment, and new questions have been raised. Was the hospital in the wrong? Or was Maya the victim of Munchausen Syndrome by proxy?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Brandon Steppe left a corporate career to start a recording studio in his garage—never imagining that a few persistent neighborhood kids would change his life. Those early studio sessions grew into the David's Harp Foundation, a nonprofit where justice-involved and opportunity youth in San Diego discover their voices and chart a path forward through music, media, and mentorship. This Episode Can rhythm and relationship change a young person's life? Brandon shares how vulnerability and honesty became cornerstones of his organization's culture, starting with a simple practice he calls flashlight first: mentors shine the light on themselves before asking youth to open up. From those early lessons grew a creative community that helps youth connect to support, record songs behind detention walls, and build micro-enterprises that pay real wages and teach real skills. Together with Grant, Brandon explores how art heals, how relationships transform justice, and how community-rooted workforce programs can help young people thrive. Key Moments: [4:05] How one determined teenager changed Brandon's path [8:28] “Flashlight first”—earning trust through vulnerability [22:54] The importance of relational support [32:52] Creating access and opportunity in the creative economy [43:35] Turning a $1M gift into transformational community-based housing Resources Mentioned in This Episode: David's Harp Foundation – Empowering youth through music, media, and mentorship Brandon Steppe TEDx Talk – On honesty and human connection Prebys Foundation Workforce Initiative – Supporting career pathways for youth Take Action: Listen First – Practice “flashlight first” in your own conversations. Invest in Creativity – Support programs that give young people tools to tell their stories. See Youth as Talent – Hire, mentor, or collaborate with local young creators. Value Relationship – Support programs that center relational care, not control.  Credits:This is a production of the Prebys FoundationHosted by Grant OliphantCo-Hosted by Crystal PageCo-produced by Crystal Page and Adam GreenfieldEngineered by Adam GreenfieldProduction Coordination by Tess KareskyVideo Production by Edgar Ontiveros MedinaThe Stop & Talk Theme song was created by San Diego's own Mr. Lyrical Groove.Download episodes at your favorite podcatcher or visit us at StopAndTalkPod​cast​.orgSpecial thanks to the Prebys Foundation TeamIf you like this show, and we hope you do, the best way to support this show is to share, subscribe

Did you know Britain's courts are in crisis? After years of cuts by politicians, pandemic disruption and operational failures, The Standard's special report explores the spiralling backlog of court cases that define our broken justice system. Defendants and victims talk about the impact of being trapped, waiting years - sometimes until 2029 or 2030 - for their cases to even come to court. The Standard's Courts Correspondent Tristan Kirk reports on this shameful decline, and how jury trials could be axed as a possible solution. It comes as Justice Secretary David Lammy is under fire, as two criminals were mistakenly released from HMP Wandsworth by mistake - with prison governors called in for crisis talks. He went on to admit that the government has a "mountain to climb" in tackling the prisons crisis, as it emerged that 40 more inmates may be wrongly freed before Christmas. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Bongani Bingwa speaks to Mmamoloko Kubayi, Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, as the Constitutional Court weighs in on a crucial question of authority, who really controls South Africa’s extradition process? Is it the National Prosecuting Authority, or the Minister of Justice? The answer could determine whether wanted fugitives finally face justice or continue to exploit legal grey areas. From Richard Payne, accused of defrauding the Gauteng Department of Health of R700 million and still hiding out in the UK, to Moroadi Cholota, extradited in 2024 over the R255 million asbestos scandal, and Johnathan Richard Schultz, linked to the theft of precious metals, South Africa’s struggle to bring back its accused is testing the limits of its justice system. So, when the law’s arm seems too short, who will extend it? 702 Breakfast with Bongani Bingwa is broadcast on 702, a Johannesburg based talk radio station. Bongani makes sense of the news, interviews the key newsmakers of the day, and holds those in power to account on your behalf. The team bring you all you need to know to start your day Thank you for listening to a podcast from 702 Breakfast with Bongani Bingwa Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays from 06:00 and 09:00 (SA Time) to Breakfast with Bongani Bingwa broadcast on 702: https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/36edSLV or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/zEcM35T Subscribe to the 702 Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfetc Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In today's BizNews Briefing, Alec Hogg speaks with DA justice spokesperson and former prosecutor Glynnis Breytenbach, who's been sitting through weeks of testimony before Parliament's ad hoc committee and the Madlanga Commission. Breytenbach unpacks the deep fractures inside South Africa's criminal justice system, offers a rare skeptical view of General Mkhwanazi's July bombshell, and weighs in on whether the costly commissions of inquiry are delivering any real accountability - eight years after Zuma's exit.

To join our Mega Orderers Club, and get ad free listening, early episode releases, bonus content and exclusive access to live events, visit https://disorder.supportingcast.fm/  In institutional design, the US justice system is more independent than its European counterparts. Even though the US President selects his Attorney General, a corrupt President can be dealt with not only via impeachment, but in Principal through independent special counsels pursing justice while avoiding potential conflicts of interest. And yet… from Hillary's emails to Trump's possible collusion with Russia and promotion of an insurrection, the Special Prosecutor system hasn't worked as it should. And now despite all those checks and balances, we have a weaponized justice, with a more political DOJ under Pam Bondi being used to pursue revenge against Trump's enemies.  How did we get to here? Why can't the American system – designed with the most checks and balances -- work to hold power to account?   To find out, Jason is joined this week by Elie Honig, senior legal analyst for CNN and author of When You Come at the King: Inside DOJ's Pursuit of the President, from Nixon to Trump. This episode is brought to you in partnership with the New Books Network. They discuss the legal details of Watergate, Hillary Clinton's emailgate, the Mueller investigation, and Jan 6. As they order the disorder, Elie and Jason consider whether and how the system can be reformed, and the importance of courage and integrity within the justice system. Producer: George McDonagh Subscribe to our Substack - https://natoandtheged.substack.com/ Disorder on YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@DisorderShow Show Notes Links: Join the Mega Orderers Club via this link: ⁠https://disorder.supportingcast.fm/⁠ For more on our New Books Network partnership visit ⁠https://newbooksnetwork.com/category/up-partners/disorder⁠  Buy When You Come at the King: Inside DOJ's Pursuit of the President, from Nixon to Trump by Elie Honig ⁠https://www.amazon.co.uk/When-You-Come-King-President/dp/0063447363⁠  Read Why The Supreme Court Might Strike Down Trumps Tariffs ⁠https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/why-the-supreme-court-might-strike-down-trumps-tariffs.html⁠ Read The John Bolton Indictment Is Different ⁠https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/the-john-bolton-indictment-is-different/ar-AA1OESRh?apiversion=v2&domshim=1&noservercache=1&noservertelemetry=1&batchservertelemetry=1&renderwebcomponents=1&wcseo=1⁠ Watch Elie Honig on the Lincoln Project ⁠https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSEytVs2Er4⁠  Read a review of Elie's book at ⁠https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/elie-honig/when-you-come-at-the-king/⁠  Another take on Elie's book ⁠https://historynerdsunited.com/2025/09/when-you-come-at-the-king-by-elie-honig-book-review/⁠  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Here is a line up: Alex Salmond, former head of Scotland, Dame Noeline Taurua, and Siouxsie Wiles, as in the microbiologist. The Salmond family is wanting their estate made bankrupt. It comes out of a judicial review over the handling of a couple of complaints against him by civil servants that turned out to be “tainted”. In other words, his defence was successful, but the cost of winning proved too high. Noeline, I have no idea what her lawyers cost, but you would hope as part of the deal she gets the bill covered. But I doubt it. And then Siouxsie Wiles, who you may remember took her employer, Auckland University, to court and won. She took mediation arbitration – it went back and forward for a while, but ultimately ended in court. During Covid she was harassed, she claimed her employer should have done more to protect her. She has now launched a crowd funding page to help pay her bills. The commonality here is all three appear to be on the right side. They have been wronged, they have had to defend themselves, and yet all three appear out of pocket for the experience. Wiles has spent thousands – hundreds of thousands. She has taken loans, her and her husband, she won but she is paying off loans. Inherently here is a fault with the law. The costs, even when awarded your way, never cover the bill. My question: why not? Is justice really served or seen to be done if you can be victorious, if you can defend your name, your honour, or reputation and still go broke? Doesn't that mean the deepest pockets will always triumph? The State v Salmond. A sport v a coach. The university v a microbiologist. It's one thing to settle – yes it saves court time, but do you settle because you will be broke if you don't? Is being broke and right worth it? Is launching a crowdfunding bid acceptable when you didn't do anything wrong? Is the justice system serving us properly when even the victorious and validated aren't really winners?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jeffrey Epstein's story isn't just about one predator—it's a brutal indictment of how the American justice system bends for the rich and breaks the poor. Despite years of credible accusations, dozens of underage victims, and a mountain of evidence, Epstein managed to evade real justice for decades. His 2008 Florida plea deal—engineered by powerful lawyers and signed off by then–U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta—gave him a sweetheart sentence that allowed him to leave jail six days a week on “work release.” The deal secretly immunized co-conspirators and denied victims the right to be heard, a direct violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. It was the ultimate display of privilege: a man who bought his freedom with money and influence while his victims were left to rot in silence. The system didn't fail by accident—it functioned exactly as it was designed to for people with Epstein's power.Even in death, the system continued its farce. Epstein's death inside a federal jail exposed staggering negligence—cameras malfunctioned, guards falsified logs, and evidence vanished. The Department of Justice's Inspector General confirmed “serious misconduct and negligence” but offered little accountability. No one higher up faced real consequences, and the network of enablers—financiers, lawyers, royals, and academics—walked away untouched. The courts offered settlements, not justice; hearings, not answers. Three years after his death, Epstein's case remains a mirror held up to a broken system—a system that shields the powerful, discards the vulnerable, and calls it due process.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Telegram Channel: https://t.me/ApostlearomeYoutube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@ApostleAromeOsayi

Jeffrey Epstein's story isn't just about one predator—it's a brutal indictment of how the American justice system bends for the rich and breaks the poor. Despite years of credible accusations, dozens of underage victims, and a mountain of evidence, Epstein managed to evade real justice for decades. His 2008 Florida plea deal—engineered by powerful lawyers and signed off by then–U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta—gave him a sweetheart sentence that allowed him to leave jail six days a week on “work release.” The deal secretly immunized co-conspirators and denied victims the right to be heard, a direct violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. It was the ultimate display of privilege: a man who bought his freedom with money and influence while his victims were left to rot in silence. The system didn't fail by accident—it functioned exactly as it was designed to for people with Epstein's power.Even in death, the system continued its farce. Epstein's death inside a federal jail exposed staggering negligence—cameras malfunctioned, guards falsified logs, and evidence vanished. The Department of Justice's Inspector General confirmed “serious misconduct and negligence” but offered little accountability. No one higher up faced real consequences, and the network of enablers—financiers, lawyers, royals, and academics—walked away untouched. The courts offered settlements, not justice; hearings, not answers. Three years after his death, Epstein's case remains a mirror held up to a broken system—a system that shields the powerful, discards the vulnerable, and calls it due process.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Today we're talking about the growing controversy surrounding America's relationship with Israel, and the disturbing pattern of censorship that follows anyone who dares to even question it. Why are discussions about foreign influence and government transparency being shut down? Why are prominent voices silenced the moment they speak against powerful interests? We're asking the uncomfortable questions no one in the mainstream media wants to touch, from the suppression of speech to the "alliances" shaping U.S. policy, and praising those few, like Candace Owens, who refuse to back down in the pursuit of real justice and truth.This episode isn't about taking sides, it's about demanding honesty, accountability, and the freedom to ask hard questions without fear.

Telegram Channel: https://t.me/ApostlearomeYoutube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@ApostleAromeOsayi

Investigative journalists Mandy Matney and Liz Farrell have a long list of questions for South Carolina's 1st Circuit Solicitor David Pascoe and they aren't afraid to ask them. Pascoe, who is running to replace state attorney general Alan Wilson in next year's election has a well-known history of being the only top law enforcement officer in the state who is calling out corruption and seeking accountability for public officials who cross the line. Our Questions: Why is the unhinged (now former) Beaufort County deputy Billy Squires STILL not arrested? Is someone sitting on the case? Why are lawyer-legislators making hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money under Attorney General Alan Wilson? Wait. What? They are?!? Is there really a separate, better door for wealthy and politically connected defendants when it comes to the justice system? And what's going on with Judge Carmen Mullen? Plus a special Premium-Only conversation about Grand Juries and why some charges are routed there. ☕ Cups Up! ⚖️Episode References David Pascoe for SC AG Website 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Being an American right now is a wild ride. Every day brings a new controversy, with breathless media narratives and the same loud voices rushing in to score political points. Then another Truth Social post drops and the circus moves on. But all that noise is drowning out the actual story. On Crooked Media's new podcast Runaway Country, veteran journalist Alex Wagner talks to the voices at the center of the headlines: from the fringes of the resistance, to the marrow of MAGA, to the many people who've found themselves smack-dab in the crosshairs of a fight they never asked for. Because if you want to understand our unreal times, you've got to talk to the very real people who are experiencing it all first-hand. Join Alex as she brings together the stories of everyday Americans trapped in our national car with no brakes, alongside conversations with some of the smartest thinkers in politics. Buckle up, this road could lead anywhere.New episodes every Thursday wherever you get your podcasts, and @RunawayCountryWithAlexWagner on YouTube. Make sure to subscribe, so you don't miss an episode. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

New York Attorney General Letitia James pleaded not guilty to federal charges in a mortgage fraud case Friday morning related to a property she purchased in 2020 in Norfolk's Fairmount Park neighborhood.

Capitol Police are investigating an American flag with a swastika on it that was hanging in a Republican staffer's cubicle during a teleconference.A federal judge threatened sanctions against a lawyer who is representing January 6th rioters.The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in its latest attempt to gut what's left of the Voting Rights Act.  Plus, a couple of prosecutors who initially refused to bring charges against NYAG Letitia James were fired from the DOJ. Allison Gillhttps://muellershewrote.substack.com/https://bsky.app/profile/muellershewrote.comHarry DunnHarry Dunn | Substack@libradunn1.bsky.social on BlueskyWant to support this podcast and get it ad-free and early?Go to: https://www.patreon.com/aisle45podTell us about yourself and what you like about the show - http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=short Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Logan is back from his classes and is now freshly licensed class-A CDL driver! But that means the guys are back to business as usual and talking about the state of disarray the Colorado justice system is in. Governor Polis has instituted a slew of garbage policies that  call for the release of extremely dangerous and unhinged criminals back into society. The worst part is, there's nothing our local government agencies can do about it. #wheresthejustice #nojustice #nopeace #protectandserve Looking to sponsor or grab ad space? CONTACT US: theguys@youmeafp.com. Or how about starting your peptide journey with Platinum Peptides Code:ATFP15. You can also support our channel by heading over to Patreon and signing up! As always, you can check us out on these platforms! Apple Podcasts, Firearms Radio Network, Spotify, YouTube , Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Berserker Tactics, Berserker Tactics IG, Berserker Tactics FB

In this episode, Jeff points out the ridiculousness of the belief that President Trump has brought peace to the Middle East with the ceasefire agreement he got Israel and Hamas to sign. There is a mountain of evidence which makes clear that this ceasefire is simply a lull until the next war. In the meantime, the leftists/terrorists are making massive inroads into America and our failure to cut off the head of the terror snake will be our country's greatest failure in the not so distant future.In other news, Bruce Cutler has passed, at one point the most famous lawyer in the world. Bruce also was the lawyer who had a large part in getting Jeff to drop Pre-med in college and go to law school. In this podcast, Jeff recounts some very funny Bruce stories from years past. RIP Bruce.

Few scandals have shaken Australia's justice system like the Lawyer X affair. At the center was a prominent barrister who secretly worked as a police informant, all while representing some of the country's most notorious criminals. Her name was tied to dozens of figures on both sides of the law, leaving behind a trail of questions about loyalty, ethics, and justice.By living a double life, she jeopardised the very foundation of the courts. Convictions were thrown into doubt, appeals were launched, and the credibility of the entire legal system was called into question. The scandal not only exposed corruption and desperation in law enforcement, but also highlighted the dangers of blurred boundaries between lawyers and their clients.In this series, we dig into how one lawyer's choices spiraled into one of the biggest legal crises in Australian history. From the underworld connections to the Royal Commission, we explore how the Lawyer X scandal redefined trust, justice, and the rule of law in Victoria.***Linked Episodes:- 309-312 - L'Onorata Societa, the Calabrian Mafia- 188 & 189 - The Death of the Vampire Gigolo- 351-358 - The Gangland Wars- 76 & 77 - The Walsh St Shooting- 61 & 62 - Old Melbourne GaolBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/weird-crap-in-australia--2968350/support.

In todays show, Dr. Amy Novatt welcomes two remarkable guests, Kellyann Kostyal-Larrier, an advocate for victims of domestic violence, and Nikki Addimando, a criminalized survivor from Dutchess County. Together, they delve into the profound impacts of domestic violence on individuals and explore the complexities of navigating the judicial penal system, which often adds layers of trauma instead of providing justice and protection. Highlighting the staggering statistics provided by the CDC and the ACLU, the discussion sheds light on the broader crisis of intimate partner violence and the systemic failures that exacerbate victimization. Kellyann and Nikki candidly share their personal and professional experiences, emphasizing the importance of understanding each survivor's unique journey. Throughout the conversation, Kellyann discusses her extensive work with victims, addressing systemic gaps and supporting survivors through multidisciplinary teams. Nikki recounts her harrowing experience of being a criminalized survivor, the challenges she faced during her trial, and her resilience in advocating for the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA), which has played a crucial role in re-sentencing her case and offers hope for countless other survivors. The episode also underscores the significant role of voting in shaping the landscape of criminal justice, urging listeners to consider the impact of their choices on domestic violence survivors. Dr. Novatt and her guests advocate for electing informed and empathetic officials who can transform the systems that often fail victims. The discussion calls for continued education, professional accountability, and systemic change to ensure that survivors are protected and supported. FEARLESS! f/k/a Safe Homes, National Domestic Violence Hotline, Grace Smith House, Office for The Prevention of Domestic Violence

In this final segment, we tackle the eerie silence surrounding Richard Allen's current status in the Oklahoma prison system. Even his wife Kathy—who hasn't seen him since the conviction—is still waiting weeks into a background check just to visit. Advocacy groups and legal experts can't even find his inmate listing. So the question becomes: where is Richard Allen? And why is he being kept so hard to reach? Tony, Stacy, Todd, and Bob explore the systemic fog that has enveloped Allen since his sentencing. With no transparency, no accountability, and no updates—even his appellate attorneys are struggling to get access. This isn't just legal red tape. It's a case study in how a person can be swallowed by the prison system, with safeguards eroded under vague “safekeeping” orders and bureaucratic runarounds. We also discuss the bigger picture: is the state trying to disappear Richard Allen to avoid scrutiny? Are they protecting a conviction at the expense of basic human rights? Or has the machine simply stopped caring what happens to the man at the center of one of the most contested murder trials in recent history? This is a wake-up call for anyone who believes due process is still alive and well in America. #RichardAllen #DelphiMurders #PrisonSystemFailure #InmateRights #TrueCrime #HiddenInmate #Disappeared #WrongfulConviction #DelphiCase #HiddenKillers Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

In this final segment, we tackle the eerie silence surrounding Richard Allen's current status in the Oklahoma prison system. Even his wife Kathy—who hasn't seen him since the conviction—is still waiting weeks into a background check just to visit. Advocacy groups and legal experts can't even find his inmate listing. So the question becomes: where is Richard Allen? And why is he being kept so hard to reach? Tony, Stacy, Todd, and Bob explore the systemic fog that has enveloped Allen since his sentencing. With no transparency, no accountability, and no updates—even his appellate attorneys are struggling to get access. This isn't just legal red tape. It's a case study in how a person can be swallowed by the prison system, with safeguards eroded under vague “safekeeping” orders and bureaucratic runarounds. We also discuss the bigger picture: is the state trying to disappear Richard Allen to avoid scrutiny? Are they protecting a conviction at the expense of basic human rights? Or has the machine simply stopped caring what happens to the man at the center of one of the most contested murder trials in recent history? This is a wake-up call for anyone who believes due process is still alive and well in America. #RichardAllen #DelphiMurders #PrisonSystemFailure #InmateRights #TrueCrime #HiddenInmate #Disappeared #WrongfulConviction #DelphiCase #HiddenKillers Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

In this final segment, we tackle the eerie silence surrounding Richard Allen's current status in the Oklahoma prison system. Even his wife Kathy—who hasn't seen him since the conviction—is still waiting weeks into a background check just to visit. Advocacy groups and legal experts can't even find his inmate listing. So the question becomes: where is Richard Allen? And why is he being kept so hard to reach? Tony, Stacy, Todd, and Bob explore the systemic fog that has enveloped Allen since his sentencing. With no transparency, no accountability, and no updates—even his appellate attorneys are struggling to get access. This isn't just legal red tape. It's a case study in how a person can be swallowed by the prison system, with safeguards eroded under vague “safekeeping” orders and bureaucratic runarounds. We also discuss the bigger picture: is the state trying to disappear Richard Allen to avoid scrutiny? Are they protecting a conviction at the expense of basic human rights? Or has the machine simply stopped caring what happens to the man at the center of one of the most contested murder trials in recent history? This is a wake-up call for anyone who believes due process is still alive and well in America. #RichardAllen #DelphiMurders #PrisonSystemFailure #InmateRights #TrueCrime #HiddenInmate #Disappeared #WrongfulConviction #DelphiCase #HiddenKillers Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Nor'easter to batter NYC starting Sunday... A push to get outdoor dining in the city back year-round... AG Letitia James says Trump has weaponized justice system full 599 Fri, 10 Oct 2025 09:58:06 +0000 DScMoZc5DclGeG9uUEosTNomWFcYZpP7 news 1010 WINS ALL LOCAL news Nor'easter to batter NYC starting Sunday... A push to get outdoor dining in the city back year-round... AG Letitia James says Trump has weaponized justice system The podcast is hyper-focused on local news, issues and events in the New York City area. This podcast's purpose is to give New Yorkers New York news about their neighborhoods and shine a light on the issues happening in their backyard. 2024 © 2021 Audacy, Inc. News

In this final segment, we tackle the eerie silence surrounding Richard Allen's current status in the Oklahoma prison system. Even his wife Kathy—who hasn't seen him since the conviction—is still waiting weeks into a background check just to visit. Advocacy groups and legal experts can't even find his inmate listing. So the question becomes: where is Richard Allen? And why is he being kept so hard to reach? Tony, Stacy, Todd, and Bob explore the systemic fog that has enveloped Allen since his sentencing. With no transparency, no accountability, and no updates—even his appellate attorneys are struggling to get access. This isn't just legal red tape. It's a case study in how a person can be swallowed by the prison system, with safeguards eroded under vague “safekeeping” orders and bureaucratic runarounds. We also discuss the bigger picture: is the state trying to disappear Richard Allen to avoid scrutiny? Are they protecting a conviction at the expense of basic human rights? Or has the machine simply stopped caring what happens to the man at the center of one of the most contested murder trials in recent history? This is a wake-up call for anyone who believes due process is still alive and well in America. #RichardAllen #DelphiMurders #PrisonSystemFailure #InmateRights #TrueCrime #HiddenInmate #Disappeared #WrongfulConviction #DelphiCase #HiddenKillers Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Former FBI Director James Comey is set to be arraigned this morning. The move, though hardly unexpected, marks a defining moment in the history of the justice system after President Donald Trump repeatedly pressed for Comey's prosecution. Playbook's Jack Blanchard and White House Bureau Chief Dasha Burns break down where things go from here. Plus, National Guard troops are poised to deploy to another major U.S. city. And on the eighth day of the government shutdown, do Democrats have the upper hand?

In this final segment, we tackle the eerie silence surrounding Richard Allen's current status in the Oklahoma prison system. Even his wife Kathy—who hasn't seen him since the conviction—is still waiting weeks into a background check just to visit. Advocacy groups and legal experts can't even find his inmate listing. So the question becomes: where is Richard Allen? And why is he being kept so hard to reach? Tony, Stacy, Todd, and Bob explore the systemic fog that has enveloped Allen since his sentencing. With no transparency, no accountability, and no updates—even his appellate attorneys are struggling to get access. This isn't just legal red tape. It's a case study in how a person can be swallowed by the prison system, with safeguards eroded under vague “safekeeping” orders and bureaucratic runarounds. We also discuss the bigger picture: is the state trying to disappear Richard Allen to avoid scrutiny? Are they protecting a conviction at the expense of basic human rights? Or has the machine simply stopped caring what happens to the man at the center of one of the most contested murder trials in recent history? This is a wake-up call for anyone who believes due process is still alive and well in America. #RichardAllen #DelphiMurders #PrisonSystemFailure #InmateRights #TrueCrime #HiddenInmate #Disappeared #WrongfulConviction #DelphiCase #HiddenKillers Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

In this final segment, we tackle the eerie silence surrounding Richard Allen's current status in the Oklahoma prison system. Even his wife Kathy—who hasn't seen him since the conviction—is still waiting weeks into a background check just to visit. Advocacy groups and legal experts can't even find his inmate listing. So the question becomes: where is Richard Allen? And why is he being kept so hard to reach? Tony, Stacy, Todd, and Bob explore the systemic fog that has enveloped Allen since his sentencing. With no transparency, no accountability, and no updates—even his appellate attorneys are struggling to get access. This isn't just legal red tape. It's a case study in how a person can be swallowed by the prison system, with safeguards eroded under vague “safekeeping” orders and bureaucratic runarounds. We also discuss the bigger picture: is the state trying to disappear Richard Allen to avoid scrutiny? Are they protecting a conviction at the expense of basic human rights? Or has the machine simply stopped caring what happens to the man at the center of one of the most contested murder trials in recent history? This is a wake-up call for anyone who believes due process is still alive and well in America. #RichardAllen #DelphiMurders #PrisonSystemFailure #InmateRights #TrueCrime #HiddenInmate #Disappeared #WrongfulConviction #DelphiCase #HiddenKillers Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

In this powerful episode, we dig into the heartbreaking story of Logan Federico — and the shocking failures in South Carolina's criminal justice system that helped create it. With 70 charges and 25 felony convictions, Alexander Dickey should have been behind bars. Instead, a system of repeat suspended sentences and political cronyism kept him free, leading to devastating consequences. We break down how South Carolina's legislature-controlled judicial appointments have created one of the nation's most lenient environments for violent offenders, why “Republicans” are appointing liberal judges, and how big law firms profit from this revolving door of justice. We'll also look at the explosive aftermath of a judge's $1.5 million Edisto Island home being destroyed — and the media's rush to paint it as a “MAGA attack.” Coming up at 8:00, you'll hear directly from Logan Federico's father, whose testimony before Congress has gripped the nation. This is a story about corruption, heartbreak, and why South Carolina's justice system needs reform now.

Today's episode dives into the escalating chaos in America—from violent gang activity and human trafficking in Chicago to unchecked Antifa attacks in Portland, and shocking political threats in Virginia. We explore how federal law enforcement, local authorities, and political leadership intersect with crime, creating what some see as a two-tier justice system. We examine: ICE agents and journalists under assault while city police allegedly stand down. Transnational gangs and the Democrat cartel nexus allegedly impacting communities and politics. Political figures defending or ignoring threats and violence against opponents and law enforcement. High-profile cases highlighting disparities in law enforcement and accountability. This episode offers a raw, unfiltered look at lawlessness, political extremism, and the consequences for safety, justice, and governance in America today.

Few scandals have shaken Australia's justice system like the Lawyer X affair. At the center was a prominent barrister who secretly worked as a police informant, all while representing some of the country's most notorious criminals. Her name was tied to dozens of figures on both sides of the law, leaving behind a trail of questions about loyalty, ethics, and justice.By living a double life, she jeopardised the very foundation of the courts. Convictions were thrown into doubt, appeals were launched, and the credibility of the entire legal system was called into question. The scandal not only exposed corruption and desperation in law enforcement, but also highlighted the dangers of blurred boundaries between lawyers and their clients.In this series, we dig into how one lawyer's choices spiraled into one of the biggest legal crises in Australian history. From the underworld connections to the Royal Commission, we explore how the Lawyer X scandal redefined trust, justice, and the rule of law in Victoria.***Linked Episodes:- 309-312 - L'Onorata Societa, the Calabrian Mafia- 188 & 189 - The Death of the Vampire Gigolo- 351-358 - The Gangland Wars- 76 & 77 - The Walsh St Shooting- 61 & 62 - Old Melbourne GaolBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/weird-crap-in-australia--2968350/support.

This week's A.M. Update: Week in Review dives into Secretary of War Pete Hegseth's bold speech on military culture and combat readiness, the historic indictment of former FBI Director James Comey, and a call for unity amid the tragic attack on an LDS church in Michigan. Aaron McIntire unpacks these stories with sharp commentary on leadership, justice, and cultural divides.   military reform, Pete Hegseth, James Comey, FBI indictment, LDS church attack, culture war, leadership, justice system, government shutdown, political accountability

Lawyer Paula Gerber on the human rights of the most endangered group of people in any community - its children. They are open to the most predatory forms of exploitation simply because they don't have the worldliness of adults, and must rely on trust and goodwill. When Paula Gerber was growing up in suburban Brisbane, she didn't spend her weekends at the pool or playing cricket with her dad.Quality time with her father meant visiting his clients with him in the local jail or mental institution.Her dad was a criminal lawyer, and Paula tagged along to many of his meetings watching him empathise with people, coming up with defences that worked, sometimes because his client were innocent, and sometimes because he knew the law like the back of his hand, and could do some creative arguing around technicalities.Paula wanted nothing else but to follow in the footsteps of her father.She began her career in construction law, but after a motorbike accident, she needed a change, and turned her thoughts to how to help more people with her law degree.Paula began to specialise in human rights, specifically the rights of children.Sex, Gender & Identity: Trans Rights in Australia is published by Monash University Publishing.This episode of Conversations was produced by Meggie Morris. Executive Producer is Nicola Harrison.It explores childhood trauma, abuse, child protection services, juvenile justice, the age of criminal responsibility, the queer community, growing up gay, lesbians, construction law, Multiplex, property development, women in male dominated fields, writing, books, the law, the legal system, courts, barrister, criminal law, the UN Convention on the Rights of Children, human rights abuses, discrimination, parenting.To binge even more great episodes of the Conversations podcast with Richard Fidler and Sarah Kanowski go the ABC listen app (Australia) or wherever you get your podcasts. There you'll find hundreds of the best thought-provoking interviews with authors, writers, artists, politicians, psychologists, musicians, and celebrities.

Critics argue that the Epstein–Maxwell–Prince Andrew saga showcased the two-tier justice system in stark relief. Epstein's infamous 2008 Florida plea deal, which let him plead guilty to lesser state charges and avoid sweeping federal prosecution, has been described as the clearest example of justice bending for the powerful. Critics note that any ordinary defendant facing similar charges would likely have received decades in federal prison rather than a lenient sentence that allowed Epstein day release and minimal oversight.In contrast, Maxwell became the only major figure from Epstein's circle to face a lengthy prison term, while many alleged co-conspirators avoided charges altogether. Prince Andrew, despite being accused in a civil suit brought by Virginia Giuffre, evaded criminal liability entirely and settled quietly out of court without admitting wrongdoing. To survivors and legal critics, the contrast makes clear that elite figures with wealth, influence, and royal status have means to shield themselves from consequences that others would inevitably face.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Enemy Within? Trump, Government Shutdown & Sean “Diddy” Combs Sentencing | Karel Cast 25-123 Who exactly is America's “enemy within”? Donald Trump told military leaders to prepare for internal enemies—but does that mean everyday citizens, immigrants, or simply anyone who disagrees with him? This episode dives deep into the dangerous rhetoric that blurs the line between democracy and authoritarianism. Meanwhile, the U.S. government is shut down—again. But this time, Trump appears ready to weaponize it, making Americans suffer in order to blame the other side. Why does Congress keep getting paid while the country stalls? And finally, Sean “Diddy” Combs faces sentencing. Prosecutors are pushing for 11 years—sparking questions about whether the punishment is fair, or if he's being targeted because of race, power, and success. Join Karel for bold commentary, sharp insights, and the real questions others avoid.

Few scandals have shaken Australia's justice system like the Lawyer X affair. At the center was a prominent barrister who secretly worked as a police informant, all while representing some of the country's most notorious criminals. Her name was tied to dozens of figures on both sides of the law, leaving behind a trail of questions about loyalty, ethics, and justice.By living a double life, she jeopardised the very foundation of the courts. Convictions were thrown into doubt, appeals were launched, and the credibility of the entire legal system was called into question. The scandal not only exposed corruption and desperation in law enforcement, but also highlighted the dangers of blurred boundaries between lawyers and their clients.In this series, we dig into how one lawyer's choices spiraled into one of the biggest legal crises in Australian history. From the underworld connections to the Royal Commission, we explore how the Lawyer X scandal redefined trust, justice, and the rule of law in Victoria.***Linked Episodes:- 309-312 - L'Onorata Societa, the Calabrian Mafia- 188 & 189 - The Death of the Vampire Gigolo- 351-358 - The Gangland Wars- 76 & 77 - The Walsh St Shooting- 61 & 62 - Old Melbourne GaolBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/weird-crap-in-australia--2968350/support.

Send us a textBuckle up—this one's going to piss some people off. Peaches, Trent, and Aaron sit down with Arvis Owens, a Naval Academy grad and former officer who had his career torched by a broken system. From botched carrier landings to fighting false accusations, Arvis lays out how the Uniform Code of Military Justice turned into a political circus where accusations = convictions and careers burn for headlines. The crew rips into toxic training, third-party harassment nonsense, and the absurd reality that you can be innocent and still lose everything. This isn't a pity party—it's a call to action. If you're thinking about joining, already serving, or just want the unfiltered truth about how the military polices itself, this is the episode you can't ignore. Grab your popcorn, sign the damn petition, and maybe don't leave your office door closed ever again.- Petition Link: http://www.change.org/UnjustUCMJ- Theresa's Evidence Link: https://www.theresatapestries.com/false-accusations⏱️ Timestamps 00:00 – Special Warfare selection and Peaches' intro 03:30 – Meet Arvis Owens: From Beaumont to the Naval Academy 06:00 – Carrier landings, failure, and finding another path 07:30 – The accusation that destroyed everything 12:45 – How politics hijacked the UCMJ 19:30 – Good order and discipline—or fear and intimidation? 24:15 – New UCMJ laws and the insanity of “three-potato” stares 31:40 – Incentives to accuse: PCS, VA claims, and payouts 37:00 – Bystander training, Green Dot, and $1.6M of garbage 46:00 – Arvis' petition and what real change looks like 54:30 – Article 134, speech, and the First Amendment clash 01:05:00 – Cameras, common sense, and fixing a broken system 01:10:00 – Closing: Protecting the future force

In this episode we unpack the high-stakes scramble to indict James Comey before key statutes of limitation run out — and what that race reveals about America's courtrooms, jurisdictions, and political polarization. From the choice to move the matter toward the Eastern District of Virginia, to doubts about DC juries, perjury and leak allegations, and the legal gymnastics prosecutors face, the hosts lay out the legal obstacles, the political realities, and why some believe justice has become impossible in “post-American” jurisdictions. Expect a blow-by-blow read of the latest leaks, explanation of the statute-of-limitations and conspiracy strategies investigators might use to preserve charges, and a frank discussion about whether prosecution is realistic — or merely symbolic. We also examine the broader consequences: public trust in juries, allegations of institutional bias, and calls for sweeping FBI reform. Clear-eyed, combative, and urgent — this episode asks whether the system can still deliver accountability, and what happens if it can't.

Are you truly prepared for what happens after you defend yourself?In this episode of Gun Talk Nation, host Ryan Gresham sits down with Chris Cunningham, retired Oklahoma City Police homicide detective and current Critical Response Coordinator for CCW Safe.Chris reveals hard truths about the criminal justice system, and how even good people with no prior criminal record can find themselves completely unprepared — and financially devastated — after a self-defense shooting. With decades of real-world law enforcement experience, Chris walks through:What really happens after a self-defense shootingWhy not calling the police first is a massive mistakeHow road rage and brandishing incidents escalate into criminal casesThe right and wrong things to say after using your gunWhat it actually costs to defend yourself (you'll be shocked)How CCW Safe provides expert legal protection, crisis support, and even crime scene cleanupWhether you're a concealed carrier or just a concerned citizen, this is a must-watch episode that could save you from being steamrolled by the system.This Gun Talk Nation is brought to you by Safariland, First Person Defender, Hodgdon Powder, and Guns & Gear.About Gun Talk NationGun Talk Media's Gun Talk Nation with Ryan Gresham is a weekly multi-platform podcast that offers a fresh look at all things firearms-related. Featuring notable guests and a lot of laughs. Gun Talk Nation is available as an audio podcast or in video format.For more content from Gun Talk Media, visit guntalk.com or subscribe on YouTube, Rumble, Facebook, Instagram, and X. Catch First Person Defender on the new Official FPD YouTube channel. Watch Gun Talk Nation on its new YouTube channel. Catch Gun Talk Hunt on the new dedicated YouTube Channel. Listen to all Gun Talk Podcasts with Spreaker, iHeart, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you find podcasts.Copyright ©2025 Freefire Media, LLCGun Talk Nation 09.24.25Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/gun-talk--6185159/support.

Welcome to another episode of Impact Theory with Tom Bilyeu. In this episode, Tom and his co-host Drew jump straight into the thick of current societal and political tensions ripping through America—from digital manipulation and global disinformation, to the divisive battles over identity, gender, and violence. Drawing from recent news cycles and online controversies, Tom and Drew dig into how global powers exploit social media to stoke division, and challenge their audience to ground themselves against the rising tide of emotion-driven narratives dominating discourse today. Together, they dissect the psychology and biology behind polarization, fulfillment, and violent tendencies, weaving insights from neuroscience, evolutionary psychology, and history. They also address why anger is such a motivating force—and such a dangerous one when unchecked—while mapping the intersections of male identity, cultural radicalization, gender roles, and the persistent confusion of contemporary masculinity. Part 1 promises a candid, unflinching look at how our minds, biology, and society collide, and why understanding our “biological experience” is essential to navigating the chaos of the modern world. SHOWNOTES 00:00 - Welcome & Introduction: Global Division and Disinformation 00:09 - Russia, RT, and Digital Manipulation 00:37 - Distraction from Big Political Moves 01:11 - Economic Reality vs. Emotional Outrage 01:38 - Strategies for Grounding Yourself Amidst Division 02:51 - Biological Experience & The Rules of Human Behavior 04:05 - Harnessing the “Dark Side” Responsibly 04:47 - Identity in the Aftermath of Violence and Assassinations 05:54 - Anger as Short-Term Focus, Long-Term Consequences 07:30 - The Danger of Colliding Values & Cultural Conflict 08:33 - Grounding the Social Media Debate: The Unseen Gen Z 10:08 - The Importance of Insider Voices in Cultural Discourse 12:12 - Why Is Violence Predominantly Male? 14:21 - Evolution, Gender, and Violence: The Biological Roots 17:08 - Physical Extremes, Gender Differences, and the Justice System 18:33 - Exploring Women's Evolutionary Choices and Hypergamy 21:11 - The Breakdown of Male-Female Partnership in Modern Society FOLLOW TOM BILYEU: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tombilyeu/ Tik Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@tombilyeu?lang=en Twitter: https://twitter.com/tombilyeu YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TomBilyeu FOLLOW DREW: @DrewDynamite04 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Meghna Philip, director of the special litigation unit at the Legal Aid Society, talks about its call for the department of investigation to look into all cases of deaths in police custody, after a fifth death occurred this year.

The murder of Iryna Zarutska is a testimony of the broken polices of crime forgiveness without accountability. This infection of thinking is not of GOD, but rather rooted in the bowels of guilt and too often the desires to create the climate of crime to justify laws that further the destruction of our Constitutional freedoms. The crime is NOT about race but rather a testimony to the agenda of those that seek to destroy this nation by upending the moral laws our Nation was built on. It is a crime that demands justice and accountability. This is time to pray for peace and wisdom of Holy Spirit.  #BardsFM_Morning #IrynaZarutska #PeaceBeStill Bards Nation Health Store: https://www.bardsnationhealth.com MYPillow promo code: BARDS Go to https://www.mypillow.com/bards and use the promo code BARDS or... Call 1-800-975-2939.  Founders Bible 20% discount code: BARDS >>> https://thefoundersbible.com/#ordernow Mission Darkness Faraday Bags and RF Shielding. Promo code BARDS: Click here EMPShield protect your vehicles and home. Promo code BARDS: Click here EMF Solutions to keep your home safe: https://www.emfsol.com/?aff=bards Treadlite Broadforks...best garden tool EVER. Promo code BARDS: Click here Natural Skin Products by No Knot Today: Click here Product Store, Ambitious Faith: Click here Health, Nutrition and Detox Consulting: HealthIsLocal.com Destination Real Food Book on Amazon: click here Images In Bloom Soaps and Things: ImagesInBloom.com Angeline Design: click here DONATE: Click here Mailing Address: Xpedition Cafe, LLC Attn. Scott Kesterson 591 E Central Ave, #740 Sutherlin, OR  97479

The failures of the Justice System are exposed after an innocent woman's murder; Trump lights up social media with his latest announcement, and Speaker Mike Johnson stuns everyone. Suspect Behind Fatal North Carolina Train Stabbing of Ukrainian Refugee Arrested, Charged with Murder https://www.breitbart.com/local/2025/09/06/suspect-behind-fatal-north-carolina-train-stabbing-arrested-charged-with-murder/ OMB: Trump's Economic Agenda Will Cut Deficit by Half Over the Next 10 Years https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/omb-forecast-trumps-economic-agenda-cut-deficit-half-over-next-10-years Senators Introduce Legislation to End Cashless Bail in D.C., Nationwide https://justthenews.com/nation/states/center-square/legislation-end-cashless-bail-dc-nationwide-introduced-senate Sponsors: Hillsdale - https://hillsdale.edu/Vince Jacked Up Fitness - https://Getjackedup.com Code: Vince Home Title Lock - “Use promo code VINCE at https://hometitlelock.com/vince for a FREE title history report and a FREE trial of their Million Dollar Triple Lock Protection.” Blackout Coffee - https://BlackoutCoffee.com/Vince Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices