POPULARITY
4 episodes with Law library
3 episodes with Law library
6 episodes with Law library
2 episodes with Law library
2 episodes with Law library
2 episodes with Law library
4 episodes with Law library
7 episodes with Law library
4 episodes with Law library
Recently retired Ms. Justice Marie Baker served as a Judge of the Supreme Court from 2019 to 2024, a Judge of the Court of Appeal from 2018 to 2019, and a Judge of the High Court from 2014 to 2018. She now serves as Chair of the recently formed Electoral Commission. She talks to Declan Harmon BL on growing up in Cork, her journey into law and reflects on her time both on the bench and in the Law Library.
In this episode of The Perry Pod, I look at Season 5 Episode 9: The Case of the Posthumous Painter. This episode includes: Law Library: the 5th Amendment and Postal inspections Plot: Episode plot Trivia: Matisse's Blue Waters, Lori March, and Perry's belief The Theme: Fraud The Perry Proverb: "Good art is like..." The Water Cooler: Deleted scenes and the Paul Prompt from the last ep... Contact me at theperrypod@gmail.com. Keep on walking that Park Avenue Beat!
In s3e67 of Platemark, I talk with Amy Namowitz Worthen, a distinguished engraver and curator, about her lifelong journey in printmaking. Influenced early by her artist mother, she pursued art education at Smith College and the University of Iowa, honing her artistic skills under Leonard Baskin and Mauricio Lasansky. Amy's career is marked by multi-faceted contributions to printmaking, including prestigious curatorial positions at Des Moines Art Center, along with helping to establish its Print Club. Her work bridges historical and contemporary practices, with publications and collaborations spanning across the globe, notably in Venice. Personal experiences, including significant tragedies, deeply influenced her art, shaping unique series and projects. Amy's legacy is celebrated through her continued involvement in the art community and her influential prints, which are showcased and valued internationally. Useful links FB https://www.facebook.com/amy.worthen IG @amynamowitzworthen Link to Hayter film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUIM9ZiMqzw Platemark links Platemark website Sign-up for Platemark emails Leave a 5-star review Support the show Get your Platemark merch Check out Platemark on Instagram Join our Platemark group on Facebook Leonard Baskin (American, 1922–2000). Man of Peace, 1952. Woodcut. Image: 59 5/8 x 30 7/8 in. (151.5 x 78.5 cm.). Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Amy N. Worthen at the Scuola Internazionale de Grafica di Venezia, 1989. Courtesy of the Artist. View from Amy N. Worthen's Venice apartment. Courtesy of the Artist. Amy N. Worthen (American, born 1946). My Wisteria 25, 2023. India ink on Seichosen Tosa Kozo paper. 55 x 29 ½ in. Olson Larsen Gallery, Des Moines. Amy N. Worthen (American, born 1946). My Wisteria, Venice: Summer Shadows and Sunlight. View from my terrace looking towards Palazzo Zane Collalto, Ponte sant'Agostin, and Palazzo Morosini degli Spezieri (W. japonica floribunda macrobotrys), 2022/2023. India ink on Seichosen Tosa Kozo paper. 55 x 29 ½ in. Olson Larsen Gallery, Des Moines. Amy N. Worthen (American, born 1946). My Wisteria,Venice: Last year's seed pods, budding and flowering racemes, a falling blossom, terrace view towards Ponte sant'Agostin (W. japonica floribunda macrobotrys), 2023. India ink and watercolor. 30 x 22 in. Olson Larsen Gallery, Des Moines. Jacques Bellange (French, c. 1575–1616). Pietà, 1615. Etching with stippling and engraving. Sheet (trimmed): 12 3/16 × 7 13/16 in. (31 × 19.8 cm). Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Giorgio Morandi (Italian, 1890–1964). Natura morta a grandi segni, 1931. Etching. Plate: 9 5/8 x 12 1/2 in. (24.4 x 31.8 cm.); sheet: 15 1/8 x 20 in. (38.4 x 50.8 cm.). Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Amy N. Worthen (American, born 1946). Strumenti d'Incisione (Engraving Tools), 1995. Engraving, roulette, and mezzotint. Plate: 7 3/8 x 6 in. (18.9 x 15.6 cm.). Courtesy of the Artist. Amy N. Worthen in her home studio, Des Moines. Courtesy of the Artist. Amy N. Worthen (American, born 1946). The Law Library, from the series Real and Imagined Aspects of the Iowa State Capitol, 1977. Etching. Plate: 17 ½ x 14 ½ in. (44.5 x 36.8 cm.). Courtesy of the Artist. Amy N. Worthen (American, born 1946). Terrace Hill with Peacock, 2008. Engraving. Plate: 13 7/8 x 16 ½ in. (35 x 42 cm.). Courtesy of the Artist. Amy N. Worthen (American, born 1946). Sotoportego Pisano, from the series Sotoporteghi Veneziani, 1994. Engraving. 9 x 7 7/8 in. (22.7 x 20 cm.). Olson Larsen Gallery, Des Moines. Antonio del Pollaiuolo (Italian, 1431/32–1498). Battle of the Nudes, 1470s–80s. Engraving. Sheet: 42.4 x 60.9 cm. (16 11/16 x 24 in.); plate: 42 x 60.4 cm. (16 9/16 x 23 3/4 in.). The Cleveland Museum of Art. Amy N. Worthen (American, born 1946). House in Ruins, 1986. Engraving. Plate: 16 ¾ x 13 7/8 in. (42.5 x 35.3 cm.). Courtesy of the Artist. Amy N. Worthen (American, born 1946). House of Emblems, 1988. Engraving, roulette, and mezzotint. Plate: 24 x 18 in. (61 x 45.7 cm.). Courtesy of the Artist. Amy N. Worthen (American, born 1946). Vanitas, 1987. Engraving. Plate: 14 ¾ x 11 7/8 in. (37 x 30.4 cm.). Courtesy of the Artist. Amy N. Worthen (American, born 1946). A Sphinx Fountain, 1971. Engraving. Plate: 14 1/8 x 12 ½ in. (36 x 31.7 cm.). Courtesy of the Artist. Amy N. Worthen (American, born 1946). Melancolia II, 1973. Engraving. Plate: 8 1/8 x 14 7/8 in. (20.5 x 38 cm.). Courtesy of the Artist. Amy N. Worthen (American, born 1946). The Supreme Court, from the series Real and Imagined Aspects of the Iowa State Capitol, 1977. Engraving and etching. Plate: 13 7/8 x 16 ¾ in. (35.2 x 42.5 cm.). Courtesy of the Artist. Amy N. Worthen (American, born 1946). An Iowa Valentine, 1990. Engraving with hand coloring. Plate: 6 7/8 x 5 in. (17.5 x 12.7 cm.). Olson Larsen Gallery, Des Moines. Amy N. Worthen (American, born 1946). Iowa Alphabet, 1990. 25 engravings with watercolor. Overall: 19 7/8 x 15 in. (50.1 x 38.1 cm.). Courtesy of the Artist. Amy N. Worthen (American, born 1946). Iowa Alphabet: VOTE, 2020. Engraving printed in blue. Courtesy of the Artist. Amy N. Worthen (American, born 1946). Iowa Alphabet: VOTE, 2020. Engraving printed in blue with watercolor. Courtesy of the Artist. Amy N. Worthen (American, born 1946). Billboard with Iowa Alphabet: VOTE, 2020. Courtesy of the Artist. Get-Out-The-Vote postcards featuring Amy N. Worthen's Iowa Alphabet: VOTE, 2020. Courtesy of the Artist. Amy N. Worthen speaks in front of her Wisteria drawings at Olson Larsen Gallery, Des Moines, 2023. Courtesy of the Artist.
(Oct 2, 2024) As women's mountain biking grows in popularity, we hear from fans and riders at last weekend's World Cup races in Lake Placid; the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe has created a new digital law library of its own laws so community members have better access to legal information; with EEE on the rise, Sen. Schumer is calling for increased coordination between local and federal agencies; and, a lobster chowder recipe from Chef Curtiss!
In today's interview, we talked with Nikolaos Pelekis, Sonoma County Law Library Manager, who oversees the Law Library. He discusses the amazing services provided including passport services, lawyers in the library and how to get a state park pass on loan. Listen in to hear all the amazing details.
E85 The Fifth CourtA most entertaining episode of podcast as our hosts Mark Tottenham BL and Peter Leonard BL chat to Law Library legend Ercus Stewart, a barrister for almost fifty five years during which time he has probably been involved in every type of legal case imaginable. The three even touch on Master and Servant law! His membership of associations probably tells a story or two...he's a member of;American Arbitration AssociationChartered Institute of ArbitratorsE.E.L.A. - European Employment Lawyer's AssociationFILA - Franco Irish Lawyers AssociationI.C.C. Arbitration CommitteeI.C.S.I.D. International Centre - ArbitrationInternational Chamber of CommerceIrish Society for Labour LawIrish Sports Council - Anti-Doping CommitteeLondon Court of International ArbitrationPanel member, Law Society Arbitration PanelU.A.E. - Union Des Avocats EuropeensAnd our hosts discuss three more case from the Decisis.ie casebookA proceeds of crime case involving an alleged fraudulent transactionA case where a job offer was revoked following a Garda vetting procedureA case concerning a European arrest warrant, a Croatian and alleged war crimes Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
In this podcast, Greg Brown delves into the intricacies of a lawsuit he filed against prison officials for prohibiting inmates from conversing in the prison law library and removing self-help law books. Brown cites a landmark Supreme Court ruling, Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico, which established that once an institution decides to provide access to certain materials, it cannot arbitrarily remove them without a valid justification. Drawing parallels between schools and prisons, Brown argues that the same principle applies to correctional facilities. He emphasizes the significance of legal resources for prisoners, despite their lack of formal legal training, as they are held to the same standards as attorneys in Washington state courts. Brown highlights a series of court cases that underscore this expectation, dating back to the 1980s. He contends that the removal of books and the ban on communication in the law library were deliberate attempts to stifle prisoner litigation. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/joel-wilborn/support
Audio recorded at the 2023 Charleston Conference from the 14th annual "Long Arm of the Law” session. This session was presented by Kyle K. Courtney, Director of Copyright & Information Policy, Harvard University and Michelle Wu, Retired Associate Dean of Library Services, Director of Law Library, and Professor of Law, (retired) and moderated by Ann Okerson, Director, Offline Internet Consortium. Video of the presentation available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtyovk_Kzvs Social Media: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ann-okerson-1b171b5/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/kyle-k-courtney-221b099/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/michelle-wu-a1179219/ Twitter: Keywords: #AI, #ArtificialIntelligence, #copyright, #CopyrightIssues, #data, #information, #licensing, #fairuse, #knowledge, #research #scholcomm, #collaboration,#engagement, #problemsolvers, #publishing, #libraries, #librarians, #information, #2023ChsConf, #LibrariesAndVendors, #LibrariesAndPublishers, #libraryissues, #libraryneeds,#librarylove, #librarychallenges, #libraryconference #podcast
Audio from the 2023 Charleston Conference Leadership Interview Series. Heather Staines, Senior Strategy Consultant, Delta Think and a Director for the Charleston Conference interviews Michelle Wu, Retired Associate Dean of Library Services, Director of Law Library and Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Library. Michelle has over 25 years of experience in libraries, mainly in academic law libraries, but she also oversaw IT, finance, administration, and human resources for the law school in addition to directing the law library. Heather and Michelle talk about how she got involved in librarianship, what it was like at the reference desk years ago and the shifts that she saw overtime, the work that she has done in copyright and building digital collections, how the conversation around CDL changed with covid closures and the pandemic and using strategy to help move that conversation forward. Michelle talks about her experiences at the Charleston Conference where she participated in the Long Arm of the Law session. Michelle says it is a rich and unusual conference where she leaves a session and hears all the participants still discussing the topic and exploring it in greater depth from new angles with true engagement, which she attributes more to the characteristics of fellow attendees she encounters who come to Charleston wearing multiple hats with different perspectives which allows for these rich conversations. Video of the Interview is available at: https://youtu.be/ub3ZJKeMjOU Social Media: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/heatherstaines/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/michelle-wu-a1179219/ Keywords: #LawSchool, #LawLibrary, #LegalEducation, #CDL, #DigitalLending, #DigitalCollections, #copyright, #LeadershipDevelopment, #entrepreneurship, #leaders, #leadership, #2023ChsConf, #libraries, #librarianship, #LibraryNeeds, #LibraryLove, #ScholarlyPublishing, #AcademicPublishing, #publishing, #LibrariesAndPublishers, #podcasts
The Great Gaines Case remains the longest civil litigation in US History. The nearly six decade long court battle involved a wealthy Louisiana politician and merchant's vast fortune, a hidden marriage and child and property in the heart of New Orleans business district. Want more Southern Mysteries? Hear the Southern Mysteries show archive of 60+ episodes along with Patron exclusive podcast, Audacious: Tales of American Crime and more when you become a patron of the show. You can immediately access exclusive content now at patreon.com/southernmysteries Connect Website: southernmysteries.com Facebook: Southern Mysteries Podcast Twitter: @southernpod_ Instagram: @shannonballard_ Email: southernmysteriespodcast@gmail.com Episode Sources The New Orleans woman who fought the longest court battle in US history, The Historic New Orleans Collection. (Viewed November 2023) https://www.hnoc.org/publications/first-draft/new-orleans-woman-who-fought-longest-court-battle-us-history Notorious Woman: The Celebrated Case of Myra Clark Gaines by Elizabeth Urban Alexander https://lsupress.org/9780807130247/ Myra Clark Gaines: The Longest-Running Civil Lawsuit in America. Law Library of Louisiana (Viewed November 2023) https://lasc.libguides.com/c.php?g=560377&p=3854854 Gaines v. Relf, 53 U.S. 472 (1851). Justia US Supreme Court (Viewed November 2023) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/53/472/ The Gaines Case Settled; Some of the Claims to be at Once Paid by the Administrator, New York Times, July 27, 1892 A man in shadow: the life of Daniel Clark, Tulane University Digital Library. (Viewed November 2023). https://digitallibrary.tulane.edu/islandora/object/tulane%3A27489 Episode Music Theme Song “Dark & Troubled” by Pantherburn. Special thanks to Phillip St Ours for permission for use. Meditation Impromptu One by Kevin MacLeod Licensed under Creative Commons.
In today's episode of 'AI Lawyer Talking Tech', we'll delve into the latest developments in the legal technology landscape. From cybersecurity advancements to AI-powered tools optimizing legal processes, we'll explore how these innovations are shaping the future of the legal industry. Join us as we discuss the acceleration of cyber discovery incident response programs, the impact of generative AI in eDiscovery, and the recognition of effective pro bono partnerships. Stay tuned for a captivating discussion on the intersection of law and technology. Now Available: First Two Episodes of the New ‘LawNext PR' Podcast, Featuring Law Insider and PracticePanther10 Nov 2023LawSitesCS Disco's Strategic Partnership Unveiled: Leveraging vLex's Law Library for Comprehensive Legal Software10 Nov 2023JDJournalDid Chuck Schumer Just Come Out Against Top-Down AI Licensing?10 Nov 2023REASON OnlineSurvey: 73% of Lawyers Expect to Integrate Generative AI Into Legal Work10 Nov 2023Corporate Compliance InsightsLive Today on Legaltech Week: Colin Levy Joins Us to Discuss His New Book, The Legal Tech Ecosystem10 Nov 2023LawSitesChina Proposes National Standards on Generative AI Security10 Nov 2023LexBlog72% of Lawyers Doubt the Industry Is Ready for Generative AI10 Nov 2023PYMNTS.comBreaking: OneCoin Executive Guilty in Crypto Fraud Case10 Nov 2023CryptoNews.netAre City law firms ready to tackle a triad of threats?10 Nov 2023LexisNexis UKThe Power of Connection: Innovative Networking Techniques for Lawyers10 Nov 2023LexBlogYouTube's Adblocker Avoidance Tech May Violate the GDPR09 Nov 2023Data Privacy + Cybersecurity InsiderLaw Students' Use of AI in Legal Writing: A Comprehensive Study09 Nov 2023JDJournalAward-Winning Legal Tech Startups Are Reshaping the Future of Justice09 Nov 2023LexBlogImportant: Startup Alley Deadline Extended to Monday!10 Nov 2023LawSitesNew instruments for data transfer from the UK: UK Extension to the EU-US DPF and IDTA/UK Addendum10 Nov 2023Legal IT groupAI's Role in the Future of Corporate Law Practice08 Nov 2023GenAI-Lexology“If You Build It, They Will Come,” Doesn't Apply to LegalTech10 Nov 2023Legaltech on MediumWhite House Ushers in New Era of Regulation With Landmark Executive Order on Artificial Intelligence06 Nov 2023GenAI-LexologyAl Tamimi & Company and Harvey Announce Strategic Partnership to Enhance Legal Services with AI10 Nov 2023Legal Technology News - Legal IT Professionals | Everything legal technologyCanadian Cleantech is Growing10 Nov 2023Goodmans Technology BlogChat GPT to indemnify business customers for copyright claims08 Nov 2023GenAI-Lexology
Welcome to today's episode of "AI Lawyer Talking Tech," your daily review of the latest legal technology news. In this episode, we delve into the exciting world of legal tech, discussing topics such as the integration of generative AI in legal work, the impact of AI on the future of corporate law practice, and the potential risks and benefits of AI regulation. Join us as we explore these fascinating developments and their implications for the legal industry. Stay tuned for an engaging and insightful discussion! Now Available: First Two Episodes of the New ‘LawNext PR' Podcast, Featuring Law Insider and PracticePanther10 Nov 2023LawSitesCS Disco's Strategic Partnership Unveiled: Leveraging vLex's Law Library for Comprehensive Legal Software10 Nov 2023JDJournalDid Chuck Schumer Just Come Out Against Top-Down AI Licensing?10 Nov 2023REASON OnlineSurvey: 73% of Lawyers Expect to Integrate Generative AI Into Legal Work10 Nov 2023Corporate Compliance InsightsLive Today on Legaltech Week: Colin Levy Joins Us to Discuss His New Book, The Legal Tech Ecosystem10 Nov 2023LawSitesChina Proposes National Standards on Generative AI Security10 Nov 2023LexBlog72% of Lawyers Doubt the Industry Is Ready for Generative AI10 Nov 2023PYMNTS.comBreaking: OneCoin Executive Guilty in Crypto Fraud Case10 Nov 2023CryptoNews.netAre City law firms ready to tackle a triad of threats?10 Nov 2023LexisNexis UKThe Power of Connection: Innovative Networking Techniques for Lawyers10 Nov 2023LexBlogYouTube's Adblocker Avoidance Tech May Violate the GDPR09 Nov 2023Data Privacy + Cybersecurity InsiderLaw Students' Use of AI in Legal Writing: A Comprehensive Study09 Nov 2023JDJournalAward-Winning Legal Tech Startups Are Reshaping the Future of Justice09 Nov 2023LexBlogImportant: Startup Alley Deadline Extended to Monday!10 Nov 2023LawSitesNew instruments for data transfer from the UK: UK Extension to the EU-US DPF and IDTA/UK Addendum10 Nov 2023Legal IT groupAI's Role in the Future of Corporate Law Practice08 Nov 2023GenAI-Lexology“If You Build It, They Will Come,” Doesn't Apply to LegalTech10 Nov 2023Legaltech on MediumWhite House Ushers in New Era of Regulation With Landmark Executive Order on Artificial Intelligence06 Nov 2023GenAI-LexologyAl Tamimi & Company and Harvey Announce Strategic Partnership to Enhance Legal Services with AI10 Nov 2023Legal Technology News - Legal IT Professionals | Everything legal technologyCanadian Cleantech is Growing10 Nov 2023Goodmans Technology BlogChat GPT to indemnify business customers for copyright claims08 Nov 2023GenAI-Lexology
Psychedelic Law Library Psychedelica Lex Episode 2023 – 084 Psychedelic Law Library 06 February 2023 Part 1 of 1 ____________________________________________________ Author and host, Gary Michael Smith, Esq., is a decades-experienced, AV rated, attorney, American Arbitration Association panelist, founding director of the Arizona Cannabis Bar Association, board member of the Arizona Cannabis Chamber of Commerce, and general counsel to the nation's oldest federally recognized, 501C3, multi-racial peyote church. Psychedelica Lex is the first book to offer a comprehensive survey of the laws and regulations governing psychedelic substances. ABOUT THE PSYCHEDELICA LEX PODCAST AND CHANNEL President Nixon's enactment of the Controlled Substances Act in 1970 banished most psychedelics to Schedule I, making psychedelics for most purpose illegal. However, as the Congressional Record reveals, psychedelics never got a fair trial and little scientific evidence, if any, was considered by lawmakers. Prohibition was more about politics than public health. Yet, historical record, anecdotal evidence, and scientific studies all suggest that prohibition was an unnecessary and harmful overreaction and that many benefits may be derived from psychedelics. Psychedelica Lex puts the question of psychedelics on trial. Hosted by a veteran litigation attorney, each episode will explore psychedelics from different perspectives. As we explore the evidence together, you - the audience - will serve as jurors. Together we will examine every facet. Applying the rigors of cross examination and the Socratic method, we will seek an objective truth. ____________________________________________________________ The growth, trafficking, sale, possession, or consumption of psychedelics may be a felony punishable by imprisonment, fines, forfeiture of property, or any combination thereof. Most states have regulatory and criminal laws that mimic federal law. This podcast is for general informational purposes only. Material in this podcast is not intended to be and should not be used as a substitute for personal consultation with appropriate professionals. I am not your lawyer, and this podcast is not legal advice. PARENTAL ADVISORY: This podcast discusses psychedelic drugs. This episode may contain content that viewers may find offensive. Potentially offensive topics may include: drugs, sex, violence, religion, politics, science, public policy, economics, freedom of thought, free will, the nature of consciousness, art, and law. Language may be coarse and could include George Carlin's seven dirty words: sh*t, p*ss, f*ck, c*nt, c*cks*ck*r, m*th*rf*ck*r, and t*ts or some combination thereof. Opinions expressed in the podcast belong to the party who expressed them and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Psychedelica Lex or its host. SPECIAL CAUTION - This podcast might place you at risk of changing your mind. Viewer discretion is advised.
ILTA sits down with an array of SMEs from universities, law firms, and our partners, to talk technical competency rule ABA 1.1 and how technology has evolved and changed the way new lawyers and students learn and thus, practice. Keep up with ILTA and guests as we unpack the ever-changing world of learning and what competency means to them. Episode 7 features Kenton Brice, Director of the Law Library at the University of Oklahoma College of Law
ILTA sits down with an array of SMEs from universities, law firms, and our partners, to talk technical competency rule ABA 1.1 and how technology has evolved and changed the way new lawyers and students learn and thus, practice. Keep up with ILTA and guests as we unpack the ever-changing world of learning and what competency means to them. Episode 3 features Kristina L. Niedringhaus, Assoc. Dean for Law Library, Information Services, Legal Technology & Innovation, Georgia State University College of Law
We continue our conversation about the Tulane University School of Law Women's Prison Project to explore the work of jailhouse lawyers within women's prisons in the state of Louisiana. Hannah Groedel, the Emil Gumpert Access to Justice Legal Fellow at Tulane Law, leads the effort to educate and support jailhouse lawyers, also known as counsel subs. Ms. Groedel joins the conversation to provide an overview of the work, its challenges and the long road to justice that women experience when wrongfully incarcerated.This episode was recorded on location at the 2023 CCAW and discusses incarceration, gender-based violence, and discrimination.
Given the recent story in the news of the lawyer who used ChatGPT for legal research and cited fabricated cases created by ChatGPT in their brief, on this show, we discuss the limitations and best practices for using ChatGPT and other LLMs for legal research by lawyers and laypeople with guests Richelle Reid, Assistant Law Library Director at NCCU School of Law, Austin, Director of the Law Library & Professor of Law at Georgetown University School of Law, and Shelly DeAdder, Senior Professor of Legal Writing and Coordinator of the 1L Legal Writing Program at NCCU School of Law.
What's changing in planning law? Tom Flynn SC provides a whistlestop tour of the Draft Planning & Development Bill, and some key questions that have arisen out of its publication. Read the Oireachtas Report on the Pre-legislative Scrutiny of the Draft Bill: https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/committee/dail/33/joint_committee_on_housing_local_government_and_heritage/reports/2023/2023-05-04_report-on-the-pre-legislative-scrutiny-of-the-draft-planning-and-development-bill-2022_en.pdf Read Tom's article here: https://www.lawlibrary.ie/bar-reviews/the-bar-review-april-2023/ View Tom's Law Library profile: https://www.lawlibrary.ie/members/tom-flynn-sc/ The views expressed in this podcast are the contributor's own and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Bar of Ireland. Intro Music: Positive Fuse - French Fuse
E31 - The Fifth CourtPresented by Peter Leonard, BL and Mark Tottenham BL21'.30""In recent weeks the DPP cannot get Senior Counsel to act in criminal cases, I'm assuming because their fees, relative to other work, are so low." - Luigi Rea, BLLuigi Rea BL (joined the profession in 1977 and Darren Lalor BL (2015) join our hosts Peter Leonard and Mark Tottenham to talk about the 'burning issue' in the Law Library - the campaign to reverse the cuts in legal criminal aid fees. These were cut during the time of the Troika, but the fees that were cut were State fees, so legal aid fees (not other fees), and these cuts have never been reversed.Luigi talks about preferring criminal law over other areas such as property related cases where he didn't like when cases were being 'dragged out' 'so that fees would be generated'. 'Criminal (legal) work was easier to live with'.Luigi says that in criminal cases nowadays that you 'can't touch client's money (for fees) because such monies might be the proceeds of crime' and therefore could be a criminal offence to accept such a payment. 'Drugs dealers have money, but you can't touch it' - so it's legal aid or nothing.Peter Leonard asks Luigi 'how can you defend the bad guys' but Luigi interrupts and asks his own similar question that he's often asked, 'How do you defend people who are guilty' and he counters that by pointing out that 'on the other side' that there may be barristers prosecuting people who they know are innocent'.Darren Lalor left school at 14 and decided to go back to school and college. A chance encounter with Luigi in the taxi that Darren was driving [he happened to be reading a law book so a conversation ensued] that has forged a lifelong and life changing friendship, and Darren joined the profession in 2015 specialising in criminal cases. Jokingly, he refers to media mentions of the Four Courts as being the Four Goldmines, while the Criminal Courts of Justice as being the Four Coalmines.15.00" Luigi and Darren get into the meat of the campaign for the restitution of their fees back to the 2002 levels as he could work all day on a case and be paid €25. Luigi refers to one of his formal 'devils' who has fees outstanding from a solicitor of €7,000 - a 'loss' that she can't bear. They discuss the likelihood of a strike - which they say should happen 'sooner rather than later'. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
US Forces in Afghanistan have invested 50 million dollars into infrastructure focused on Rule of Law. Construction of the Law Library began in late 2012 at a cost of 3.1 million dollars. Available in High Definition.
Technology advancements have drastically transformed how we live, communicate, and conduct business globally. The legal profession is no exception, and lawyers have become increasingly interested in utilizing technology to improve their services. In light of this, we are delighted to welcome Kenton Brice, Interim Director of the Law Library and Director of Technology Innovation at the University of Oklahoma College of Law, to today's podcast. In our discussion, he shares his insights on leveraging technology to streamline the legal workflow and enhance efficiency. Kenton's experience will be a valuable guide for all the attorneys embracing technology to succeed in their legal careers. In his roles, Kenton leads the Law Library, the OU Law Center for Technology & Innovation in Practice, and the College's Digital Initiative. He teaches courses and workshops on legal research, technology in practice, and innovation at the College and speaks at multiple conferences. Through his efforts, OU Law is the first and only law school in North America to receive the Apple Distinguished School award and has been listed as a Top 20 Most Innovative Law School multiple times. Kenton is a 2018 inductee into the Fastcase 50 and is a Lean Six Sigma Green Belt. Before his current role, Kenton practiced with a small firm in the Dallas/Ft. Worth Metroplex, where he received honors as the Texas Appellate Lawyer of the Week and was inducted into the Texas Bar Pro Bono College. Join Kenton and me as we talk about the following three questions and more! Three Main questions What are the top three reasons attorneys should attend the ABA TECHSHOW? What are the top three things law students and new attorneys should know when using technology? What are the top three tech devices or software new attorneys should purchase for their practice beyond a computer, a phone, and a printer? In our conversation, we cover the following and much more: [00:05] Tech Setup - Kenton's current tech setup. [08:39] ABA Tech Show - Kenton highlights the wide range of legal technologies available in the show, emphasizing the importance of the community and the technology. He further stresses the value of in-person networking and the opportunity to connect with people from all sectors of the legal ecosystem. [13:40] Tech Tips for Law Students and New Lawyers - Top three things law students and new attorneys should know when using technology. [19:20] Software for New Attorneys - We delve deeper into client portals, electronic payments, and CRM (Customer Relationship Management) systems while discussing software that new attorneys should get for their practices. [29:36] Business Mindset - Importance of understanding ROI when investing in technology. [34:23] More on Mindset - Don't be afraid to adapt. Maintain a flexible and adaptable mindset. Fail often, fail fast. [37:59] Devices and Tools - Other than the basics (a computer, phone, and printer), what other technological equipment should a new lawyer invest in for themselves? RESOURCES Connect with Kenton: E-mail: kbrice@ou.edu LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/kentonbrice ABA Tech Show: techshow.com/ Equipment mentioned in the podcast: Apple AirPods Pro: apple.com/airpods-pro/ Audio Technica ATH-M50X headphones: audio-technica.com/en-eu/ath-m50x Bose noise-canceling headphones: bose.com/en_us/products/headphones/noise_cancelling_headphones.html CalDigit TS hub: caldigit.com/ts3-plus/ 27-inch Dell monitor: dell.com/en-in/shop/dell-27-monitor-se2722h/apd/210-azhl/monitors-monitor-accessories iPhone 14 Pro: apple.com/iphone-14-pro/ iPhone: apple.com/iphone/ Logitech C920 webcam: logitech.com/en-ch/products/webcams/c920-pro-hd-webcam.960-001055.html Mac XDR: apple.com/shop/product/HMUA2VC/A/lg-ultrafine-4k-display MacBook Pro: apple.com/macbook-pro-14-and-16/ Magic Touchpad: apple.com/shop/product/MK2D3AM/A/magic-trackpad-white-multi-touch-surface Mechanical keyboard (wireless, Mac-compatible) from Logitech: logitech.com/en-us/products/keyboards/mx-mechanical-mini-mac.920-010831.html Mechanical keyboard (wireless) from Logitech: logitech.com/en-us/products/keyboards/mx-mechanical.html MOBDIK Paperfeel Screen Protector: amazon.com/gp/product/B07WHNJ9H8/ Plexicam: https://www.plexicam.com 34-inch Samsung monitor (single screen): samsung.com/latin_en/monitors/ultra-wide/premium-curved-monitor-with-greater-viewing-comfort-perfect-multi-tasking-34-inch-lc34f791wqlxzp/ SanDisk 128GB USB Drive Ultra Dual Drive Luxe Type-C: amazon.com/SanDisk-128GB-Ultra-Dual-Type-C/dp/B09PQJWMHJ/ Shure SM7B microphones for recording: shure.com/en-US/products/microphones/sm7b?variant=SM7B Yeti Blue microphone (upgrading to a Shure SM7B): bluemic.com/en-us/products/yeti/ Software & cloud services or apps mentioned in the podcast: Camo app: reincubate.com/camo/
This is Torrey Braxton 313197, coming with a few requests. I’m currently incarcerated in the Michigan Department of Corrections, and we’ve been busy at the Law- Fellow inmates been real busy at the Law Library,…
The Legal Services Department at Genesis Women's Shelter & Support was founded in 2016 to address the lack of access to no-cost civil legal representation for survivors of domestic violence in Dallas County. Focused on family law and offered in conjunction with the organization's trauma-informed, wraparound domestic violence services, Genesis' direct representation model for survivors navigates the complexities of protective orders, divorce proceedings, and child custody cases. Since its inception, the legal team at Genesis has represented thousands of survivors in family court cases.In this episode, Jan Langbein, CEO of Genesis, and attorney Rachel Elkin, Director of Legal Services at Genesis, explain the history and purpose of family court, how children are impacted by court rulings, and how and why domestic violence offenders attempt to weaponize the court system. We also look to the future of legal services at Genesis and announce the launch of a reimagined legal program to better serve women and children.
You can listen to the oral arguments yourself here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2022/21-869 Pia M. Hunter is a Teaching Associate Professor at the University of Illinois College of Law and the Associate Director for Research and Instruction at the college's Albert E. Jenner Jr. Law Library. She holds a J.D. from the University of Illinois College of Law and a Master of Science from the School of Information Science at the University of Illinois. Prior to joining the law library faculty, she served as Visiting Assistant Professor and Copyright and Reserve Services Librarian at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) where she researched and developed best practices for copyright and fair use for instruction for the UIC campus. In 2013, she led the initiative to create Fair Use Week, an annual celebration that highlights the fair use doctrine and its significance to artists, students, faculty, librarians, journalists, and all users of copyrighted content. Sara: Welcome to a live recorded episode of Copyright Chat today. I am so excited to bring you the wonderful Pia Hunter. Welcome, Pia. Pia: Thank you, Sara. It's a pleasure to be here. Sara: So if you didn't know, Pia is a law librarian at the University of Illinois College of Law and a founder of Fair Use Week. Tell us about that Pia. Pia: Oh, gosh. Fair Use Week is, first of all, it's so wonderful that it's, we're coming up on a 10 year anniversary in February, 2023. I'm truly excited about that, but it is the result of a, a meeting of librarians back in 20 12, 20 13, and we were talking about the significance of fair use and not only how important it is to academics and scholars, but to everyone, to, to artists, to people every day who create content, everyone. And so we were discussing how wonderful it would be to set some time aside each year to acknowledge fair use, why it's significant in our everyday lives, and promote it to everyone so that we can take up the banner and protect this, right? Because I know that it's an affirmative defense in terms of the Copyright Act, but there are things we can do under fair use, and we, we use fair use every day. And so Fair Use Week is designed to promote and, uh, inform people about that. Sara: That is really exciting. I keep forgetting, we're coming up on the 10th anniversary, and this is a really interesting time p to be talking about fair use because as we know, the Supreme Court is addressing transformative fair use right now. Pia: I am, I'm not afraid to admit that I am a bit nervous about this case. I Sara: Think I, I think I said that in a nervous tone, , Pia: I think you said, I think your tone certainly reflects my, my feelings on the subject. And I'm looking forward to our discussion because a lot's been happening lately. Sara: Yes, a lot has been happening. So if you haven't been paying attention, let's get you up to speed. There is a very exciting case involving the Andy Warhol Foundation and a photographer and the late great singer Prince. So this is a really fun case that is up at the Supreme Court. Of course, it started below and in the lower court, um, the Warhol Foundation had one on its fair use claims where Andy Warhol borrowed, I say borrowed in a nice way. Um, the photograph of this famous photographer who took a photo of Prince, and he originally had, had permission through licensing to use the photo for an inspiration in a magazine article. But later on they, they, he had another reproduction and he did not have permission, and he claimed fair use. And in, in the Second Circuit Court of appeals, they reversed and said, Nope, it was not a fair use. And the issue at the Supreme Court was all about purpose and character of the use and whether it was transformative, which is, oh, scary to me because the last time Supreme Court addressed this was 1994. Pia, tell us some more about kind of what the arguments are on both sides. Pia: Okay. The arguments from the Goldsmith side, that's the original photographer, the artist, is that basically the Warhol Foundation has not produced this content in any way that is transformative. And when we went into oral arguments, there was a great deal of discussion about factor one, what is the purpose and character of the use? And the justices were really clued into fi trying to determine how the photograph was diff different in what ways from the Warhol piece, which is an artistic rendering and has been produced many, many times in several prints and sold over and over again. There's also, and on the Warhol side, they're claiming that it's a transformative use, that even though the commercial purpose of is the same and similar, that Warhol by taking the photograph and creating a painting from it. And from that painting came several other prints that were licensed and sold and so forth and so on, that this is a completely new work. Pia: And the justices seem early on to be pushing back against that because if you look at the photograph and you look at the paintings and the prints and the reproductions, you can s it's obvious that those come directly from the photograph. And this is what's troubling to me because I think for so many years there's been a lot of talk about transformative use in terms of a fair use argument. And quite frankly, I think transformative use has dominated to the fact that it has overshadowed some of the other factors that are just as important. So this case may bring some balance back to looking at all four factors, because if you consider all four factors, then this could very well be a fair use. But if you're basing it solely on whether the, the level of transformative, then we run into, into some difficulties. Sara: That's an interesting perspective. I think, um, I agree with you that on one side they're arguing that, um, it was just the same use, right? So I think that the, the thing that troubled the court here was that on the one hand, this photographer was in the business of licensing her works to, um, vanity Fair and other magazines. And that was the purpose that Andy Warhol also used his work for in this instance. Now, to me though, Andy Warhol in general has very different uses for his works, right? His works hang in many mag in many, um, museums, people come to see his works. They're not only used in magazines. Now, I'm certain that this photographer also could have her work in a fine art museum, but I do think that there are broader uses for a Warhol work. Um, and a lot was brought up about the other Andy Warhol case, the famous soup can case, right? Sara: Where the judges said, oh, well, this is not as hard a case in that instance because the soup cans were used for a different purpose, right? And normally the logo on Campbell's soup cans was used to market the brand. And of course, um, the use by Warhol was to show mass consumerism. Um, one point that the, the, uh, uh, photographers, lawyers made was that he had to have some necessity to use that particular photo. I wonder what you make of that argument, Pial, because the justices seem to be kind of buying into that a little bit. Pia: They did seem to buy into that a little bit. And the necessity argument is one that I find fascinating because it was ne it was necessary to use the Campbell soup can in its entirety, it's, it's it's logo, it's symbol. You look at that automatically and you recognize that it is Campbell's soup. So the necessity argument and Warhol's subsequent series of that discussion sparked a discussion of consumerism. When you, when I look at the Prince photo, I'm a little . It's funny, I am such a huge Prince fan that when I look at the Prince photo, I think that it's Prince. So it has to be necessary . And I know that's not a legal argument. It's more than mentality, I think for me than anything else. But looking at this, it's, it's, it seems that the justices are buying into that, that philosophy. I'm not sure how sustainable that really is in the long term. Pia: He could have picked any number of photos or images to do that exact same thing. It didn't not necessarily have to be prints, but because it was print, I think that lends itself to the argument about the fourth factor and commercial use and market for the work, because he's doing what is considered a reproduction. And I know that the, uh, Martinez, Mr. Martinez, who's the Warhol's attorney, used the term follow up work. And in my mind, that is the same as a derivative work, which falls to the bundle of rights that is reserved for the owners. So as this goes on, it'll be interesting to note how they, they, they parse out each factor and really examine what's happening in terms of the original content. Is it truly a derivative work? What's the difference between a follow up work and a derivative work? I mean, I think it's, it's a subtle nuance there, if there is a difference at all. And they're gonna have to examine each of these factors closely. So this, this may be something that, that justices appear to embrace now in the early stages, but I think that, that, that may change as time goes on. 1: Yeah, I think that's interesting. And I, I agree with you that one of the cruxes of the, the issue here was what is the line, or where is the line between a derivative work and a transformative work? Although to me, that's always been the question, right? That's always been the million dollar question in these types of cases. It just was made even more salient here because one of the things that they were pointing out is if you have a film, for instance, a movie that is an adaptation of a book, you would never say, oh, sure, that's a fair use. You would always think they need to get a license because the natural progression of a best seller is, oh, yes, let's make a movie. And of course, you want the person to be encouraged to make the book in the first instance. And so they need a piece of that economic pie, right, to incentivize creation. Sara: But, um, in this instance, was the photographer ever going to make a print, a painting print of her photo? I don't think so. So I really discouraging her in any way. Um, but of course she would be happy to take that license, right? I mean, she would be happy to take a license, especially for her work in a magazine, which I think is where they got caught up a lot during this case. And I wish they had not stuck to only that part, because I know Warhol's attorney pointed out this was a series, right? Yes. Warhol did not make just one print. He made a series of prints and the copyright was claimed in the entire series. And so only one of those photos, I think it was called Orange Prints, was used in the actual magazine article. And so maybe they could even find, okay, well, that one wasn't all right, but the other ones were is that, can you split the baby that way? Pia: I'm not sure that you can. And that's, that's an excellent point that you make. And that's a part that's been troubling me for so long. Also, the original license, Goldsmith did this painting, took the photograph, licensed the photograph to the magazine for an artist. It did not say Warhol for an artist to make a a, a rendering from the photograph. So he was licensed to do the work. However, in the process, he actually created additional pieces. The Silk Screen Painting series is what it's called. There were two screen prints on paper and two drawing, and all of these are referred to as the print series. Some of the originals were sold, some reproductions were printed and sold and licensed and sold to other people. So it we're looking at, it's, it's fascinating because I'm still always coming back to the, or the terms of the original license. Pia: How much leeway did he have in the original license that the magazine purchased from Goldsmith to make a derivative work? Because that's really what it is. They license access, a use of the photo for someone else to build something upon that. That's the first thing. And then the second thing, the Goldsmith attorneys are arguing that this case is significant because it's really fighting about the individual rights of the creator versus someone who has the power and the, the name recognition of Andy Warhol. So because, uh, someone who's famous decides to take and, and use a work and create something out of it in their own fashion, then that would give those people who are in a financial position or famous artists, uh, more power and authority to use people's works than say, someone like me who would come along and make a stick figure derivative or something like that. So that's another issue that I'm, I'm curious to, to see how that's gonna go. Sara: Yeah, I think that the argument goes, you know, Warhol makes it, and it's a piece of art. I make it, and it's what just not great, right? Pia: , it's just a photo. So the question becomes how does, how, how are artists able to protect their derivative uses while still leaving fair use on the table for other creators to come and use as well? Because otherwise, what we're doing is we're going to squash creativity and people's desire to create new content. Sara: Yeah. And that also leads me to think about appropriation art, right? Pia: Oh, yes. A favorite topic of mine Sara: Is a whole other variety of art. And is, would this, I mean, if they rule that it has to be some necessary purpose, like with, um, the, the attorneys who are protecting the photographer, does that just quash any kind of appropriation art? Pia: The potential for that is so great that that is really another part that, that I find troubling. I am not a fan, as you well know of the Richard Prince series, uh, he's an appropriation artist, started many years ago with the Marlborough ads. He's done some things with, uh, catcher and the Rye, taking a, a copy of Catcher and The Rye, leaving the print on the cover, the exact same except in place of the author. He's put his own name. There's the Instagram v prince that's going on right now, Cariou v Prince, back from the early two thousands. So this is an artist who specifically takes people's work and either displays his name on it or does something really, really different. Not different in terms of maybe size, but an exact replica. So a case like this would have a direct effect on the current case that's working its way through the courts now, gram v prints and, and other sorts of things. And it would, I'm thinking about memes and other derivatives that we take for granted and things that pop up across the internet that people find funny and creative. What happens with those? Sara: Yeah, what does happen with those? I mean, I think, I think with memes you can make a stronger argument that you're not usually trying to make any money off of them. Exactly. You might, you might win more on a factor four analysis. And that was one of the things that they pointed to quite a lot, uh, at least, um, the Warhol Foundation attorneys, when they were asked about, well, what about, you know, some really creative new film that is based on a book, but it's so different, right? Why isn't that a fair use? And the response was, well, you know, look at factor four. It's still highly commercial, so that even if it is different, it might still be a derivative. So I wonder if the part of the challenge here was that they were really trying to narrow in on the first factor, but, but we always try to weigh them together, right? Always in my mind, they go together. And so trying to parse them out makes it really hard. Pia: That's absolutely correct. And I, in this instance, parsing them out seems necessary because the first cat factor we know is, uh, what's under discussion now. But then you move on to the, the second factor. This is highly creative, uh, purpose in nature of the work, and, and you're moving through the factor. You get to factor three, you're looking at the amount, well, it was used in its entirety. So the, the, the second and third factors are almost sort of, uh, settled. And that brings us back to one in four. How is it being used? How is it the Campbell soup, uh, series that Andy Warhol created? It was an obvious commentary to many. I'm not sure the commentary in this respect is so obvious. Goldsmith claims that the photograph was showing Prince in a, in a sensitive way, a way that he's not frequently depicted in album covers and other sorts of, uh, photo shoots and different things. Pia: So she was capturing a certain vision of the artist in vulnerability. And the Warhol claim, I believe, if I remember correctly, is that they were not, they were exploiting that in different ways and, and making, uh, a different rendering of that original work. But I had a discussion with someone who is not into copyright law at all, and showed them the pictures because they'd been hearing so much about the case, and they made a very interesting point. Uh, when you look at the Wizard of Oz in black and white, and my mother in particular is a fan of, uh, old film Warren movies and so forth and so on. And she says, I don't like the color. I don't like it when they add color to it, it's, it's different to me. And that argument swings both ways because when I showed the, the port the photograph to someone and they looked at the color, uh, that that Warhol added, and the creativity that he placed upon the photograph, that person said, I don't see much of a difference. They just added color. It's the same thing. But someone else would look at that same rendering and say, it's completely different. It's, it's different. To me, there's an aesthetic. So when you're looking at art in this way, do we have to become art critics to make this type of assessment? And I think that's why this case is so troubling to me because there, it, some of this really is subjective. Sara: Well, I think that the Supreme Court justices also were troubled by that. And, and we're asking, you know, how do we decide this? Right? And, um, do we need expert testimony? Are we supposed to be asking what the artist intended? Right? Some of the early fair use cases kind of looked at the artist's intent. And then of course, in this case, Andy Warhol's deceased, so no one can look at his exact intent. Um, so it, it does get pretty troubling because do we want the Supreme Court justices to start guessing and becoming art critics? And the other thing that they were mentioning was, which level of generality are we looking at in terms of the comment? Are we looking at that this was used as magazine cover, and so was this one okay, done, right. That's the level of generality. But if that were the case, I think that that many of the cases, including the Supreme Court cases, would've come out differently, right? Sara: Because we had the two live crew song. If you look at the Campbell case, um, Campbell versus Acuff Rose from 1994, we had a two live crew song, and we had a pretty woman song. They're both songs. Okay, we're done. I mean, that level of generality doesn't work. But in that case, they said it was a parody of the song and that was why it was fair use. Um, and so what is, what is the, the conclusion here, right? Is it that it's, uh, different in the way that it is portraying prints? Because it is fine art. I mean, the, the second circuit below seemed to say they were transforming fine art into fine art, therefore we're done here. Pia: That, that, that seems to be, that's how I took it as well. And the other part about the Campbell case is that not only was it recognized as an obvious parody, the commercial use was the same, but the audience was significantly different. So your Roy Orbeson fans are not going to be listening to Luke Skywalker and two live cruise rendition of a song with the same title. So the, the impact on the, the effect upon the market is limited because we're looking at different audiences. Whereas here, it's the same sort of thing. It's going to a magazine and the types of, and the same type of magazine, if not the exact same magazine that was used for the Sara: Original, I think it was, I think it was, I think it was just the the parent company Pia: Conde Nast, Sara: Yes. Yeah, it was the same one because it was Vanity Fair and then Conde Nast. But here's the thing, uh, it sounds like then you're, you're almost getting into the fourth factor and the commercial, um, impact. However, if you read factor one carefully, it says purpose and character of the use, including whether it was a non-profit or commercial use. And so the commercial use can impact factor one as well. So technically the, the court could say, well, maybe it does comment somehow, but it's the same commercial impact or the same commercial use for the same exact audience. Um, I still wish they would address the other works in the series though, because I don't think they were aimed at, you know, magazines. I think they were just aimed at the fine art community. And I do think that's a different audience than people who are interested in that particular photographer's work. There are a lot more people who are interested in Warhol's work and his comments on commercialism and society, unfortunately than this artist. I mean, I think that's just the truth of, you know, what Warhol's work sell for. And one of the things they briefed was, yes, her work doesn't sell for as much as his work does, which to me it means they have different audiences, don't they? I mean, maybe not for this particular magazine, but in general they do Pia: In general that I agree in general, they have very different audiences. But here there's not going to be an opportunity for Goldsmith to recover for renderings of this paint of her photograph that Warhol created that are hanging in museums now, that are in people's private homes now because there is a series of silk screens and then there are the various reproductions, it's the orange prince reproduction in published in the magazine that people purchase at a newsstand or got, or however way they get their content. That's what sparked this controversy. And because she, I don't believe that she would've, she wasn't even aware that this had happened. And so you're right, the audiences are completely different. Uh, people who paid to have Andy Warhol's Warhol's version hanging in their living rooms or museums that are, are, are holding this work now, would not have paid for that photograph. And that's, that's, that's, that's a great case for the audiences being different, but it's this one single use in a magazine that could upend the way we are able to look at fair use in terms of these types of works. Sara: Will it? Because here's the other thing, couldn't they just, I mean, to me, bad facts make bad law. Okay? And these are bad facts. Pia: These are bad facts. These are terrible facts. They're Sara: Terrible facts. So couldn't the Supreme Court just say, okay, we agree that, that, you know, Warhol did comment in a different way, but you know, we still agree ultimately that it was a derivative because of this, this, and this based on these particular facts, right? And so could they, shouldn't they limit it to this case? Cause the facts are so bad, Pia: You are making my argument . I want them to limit it to this case. The facts here are terrible. Any, any move to make this case new precedent would be devastating for artists everywhere, uh, for creators, for for, for, for people who have existing works, think of how many things would unravel based on this, uh, a radical decision of that nature. And I can see, I'm optimistic because when you hear the oral arguments, you, you listen, I, I, I actually, I listened the first time with my eyes closed, and then I'd used your method, which was very good. Thank you very much. And I read the transcript while I listened a second time, and you can see them wrestling with all of these pieces and really trying to come to an accord and a deep understanding of, uh, the artist's rights, the rights of the Warhol Foundation. And I can see that they're casting an eye to a fu to the future to understand how this is going to ultimately affect creators and, and, and people who are trying to make content. Because this case has the potential to, uh, stifle so much creativity and so many new works that, uh, the public will be deprived of having. So I'm hoping that that, is that what you suggest? I'm, I'm gonna call that the most reasonable compromise. I'm hoping that that's the end result. Sara: Well, I am too. And I think, um, you know, given the last Supreme Court case, the Google versus Oracle case, you know, I do have hope. I understand that the Supreme Court has overturned lots of precedent, very long standing precedent, even very recently in the abortion case. So I mean, they are, they can do it. I don't think they're going to, in this case, I, I'm hopeful that they're gonna limit it. And if they do, um, decide that, you know, maybe this wasn't a fair use, that it won't be as sweeping and terrible, um, as it could be. That's my hope. But I, I, and I did see them wrestling with the creativity and the free kind of speech issues in the oral argument. And I saw some of the even conservative justices, you know, asking questions along those lines, which made me a little bit hopeful. Pia: That's exactly right. And they're, they're, they're looking at all of these different factors necessary or least useful. I, I know that the Goldsmith side is, is presenting almost a new sort of test. That's the part that I wanted to say mm-hmm. . And that test, if adopted would be devastating. So I'm really hoping that your, your, your recommended compromise is something that the justices can, can, can use to find some sort of middle ground. Sara: I don't think there's any basis, I'm sorry, all due respect to the Goldsmith's, um, lawyers here, but I don't think there's any basis for coming up with some new test based on these terrible facts. It's, it's just a bad, it's a bad way to go. And, and we have lots of precedent out there building on the Campbell case and the Campbell case in, in no respects, as anything has to be necessary, it does say you have to avoid the drudgery if you're only creating the new thing to avoid the drudgery of coming up with something new. It does say that, but that doesn't say it has to be necessary. Pia: It doesn't. And, but, but facts this bad required some creative and quite frankly, brilliant individual to come up with a new test. That's the first thing. Otherwise, there's no argument to make. And the second thing that I wanted to mention is that the government requested leave to argue, and they were granted leave to argue. So now you have the, uh, solicitor general sitting at the table with Goldsmiths. So the government has a vested interest in this. And I wonder how that looks to people who are examining this case from the outside, the fact that the government has taken up the argument on the Goldsmith side. What does that do for, uh, copyright law moving forward? Yeah, what does that say? Sara: That's curious, right? Yes. Because, um, it's, it's a little bit strange. And what is their interest necessarily? I mean, I, I'm assuming they're saying our interest is to correct is to protect authors, but you know, we also have the interest of the other side, which is, you know, the limitation on the rights of the authors, which is guaranteed by fair use. And as pointed out, even in the definition of derivative works, it still says as limited by fair use. So where's the government's involvement here? Why are they involved in the first place? Pia: That's the question I'd like answered. , back to the constitution. We go for the creativity and make sure ensuring that people are able to consume this content. That's where we need to start. Yeah, back to basics. Sara: We really do need to get back to basics. And I I will expect this, um, decision to come out soon. They haven't been taking a whole lot of time deciding cases. It's already been a little while since the oral argument. So, uh, we will definitely keep you posted and maybe we'll have a, a, a debrief after the opinion. We Pia: Can have another conversation. I think we have to, don't Sara: We? I think we do. So I, um, I hope this, you found this useful and interesting, and I will link to the oral arguments from this, um, podcast episode so you can follow along and listen yourself and come up with your own decisions about where you think this might be headed. I think the Supreme Court sounded pretty rigorous on both sides, so it wasn't obvious to me who they were favoring. Um, but I'm, I'm, I just hope they don't do anything drastic. , Pia: I concur. . Sara: Well, Pia thank you so much for joining and, um, we'll, we'll speak again soon. Pia: Yes, thank you for having me. And, uh, fingers crossed. Sara: Fingers crossed.
You can listen to the oral arguments yourself here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2022/21-869 Pia M. Hunter is a Teaching Associate Professor at the University of Illinois College of Law and the Associate Director for Research and Instruction at the college's Albert E. Jenner Jr. Law Library. She holds a J.D. from the University of Illinois College of Law […]
Episode Notes On today's show, we talk about a wonderful honor renaming the Law Library in the name of a wonderful man that took place this week in Hernando. We then discuss what the new inflation numbers mean, and how confusing the stats being used can be. In our Shoutouts, we cover a plethora of events taking place in September and the beginning of October. And in Sports, we review the girl's sports from this week before breaking down our one game taking place this weekend Under the Water Tower. Please subscribe where you listen and on Apple iTunes, and please follow us on Facebook at UTW Podcast; on Instagram at UTW Podcast; on Twitter @UTWpod; or contact us at underthewatertowerinfo@gmail.com. You can honor us by giving us that 5-star review on iTunes and we will be happy to give you a shoutout on air. Please listen to the latest episode of our Brother Podcast OBpod here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ob-pod/id1552315835 Finally, visit and support our sponsors: Team Couch of Burch Realty Holland Insurance Desoto Family Dental Care Williams Services Mobyl Car and Van Rental Hernando's Farmer's Market Check out our podcast host, Pinecast. Start your own podcast for free with no credit card required. If you decide to upgrade, use coupon code r-11f99c for 40% off for 4 months, and support Under the Water Tower.
15 minute study with me featuring whispering talking about study methods and the highlighting system by Averie Bishop on youtube (asmr law library how I brief cases in law school)
Goodbyes are hard. In this episode, we sat down with outgoing Temple Law Library Director Michelle Cosby to reflect on her time here at Temple. From the pandemic to creating a podcast, there is much to look back on. We extend a big thank you to Michelle for all that she has done at Temple Law, and we wish her the best in her new position!
1 hour study with me using the pomodoro technique by Averie Bishop on youtube (live study session, asmr in library, no music)
The Clark County Law Library this week announced the addition of a replevin kit to its array of self-help kits. Replevin is a legal action someone takes to seek the return of personal property wrongfully taken or held by the defendant. https://loom.ly/PCJ2WMs #ClarkCountyWa #ClarkCountyCourthouse #LawLibrary #PersonalProperty #SelfHelpKit #FormsAndInstructions #ReplevinKit #LegalAction #LawLibrarian #MariaSosnowski #VancouverWa #ClarkCountyNews #ClarkCountyToday
Do you come from a non-legal professional background? Wonder how you can build a practice that draws from that knowledge you have? Our guest this week is Boyd Shepherd, founder of Legal Dental. Boyd started his career as a dentist, and eventually transitioned to practicing law, focusing his specialty on helping dental professionals with their particular legal issues. Sitting in the Venn diagram overlap of attorneys and dental practice, he's found a successful niche practice, and has launched a repository of information and related paid courses designed exclusively for the dental profession. Boyd tells us how he's structured his online courses as part of the LegalDental.com Law Library, and how that's making it easier to better engage with his specific clientele. This is not just a great bonus income stream, but one that cements Boyd as an expert in his particular niche. Ultimately, this is a great case study on how you can come from a wildly different professional background, deeply specialize, and thrive as an attorney. Find Boyd at https://www.legaldental.com, email him at boyd@legaldental.com, or give him a call at 832-788-4100. ----- FiveStarCounsel.com Get our FREE client service whitepaper! Join the Five Star Counsellors FB Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1575616019297055 Here's a link for you to get 20% off your first year of using TextExpander! - https://fivestarcounsel.com/textexpander
The Clark County Law Library will increase in-person service hours beginning Mon., May 2 when it will open for in-person assistance from 9 am to 2 pm Mondays through Fridays. https://loom.ly/jHwnWf0 #ClarkCountyLawLibrary #ClarkCountyCourthouse #IncreasedInPersonServices #Residents #LegalCollection #CourtProcess #LegalNeeds #LibraryResources #VancouverWa #ClarkCountyWa #ClarkCountyNews #ClarkCountyToday
This is a topic we've wanted to discuss since early 2019, but teaching stints in Helsinki, and a global pandemic pushed it back almost three years. But we did not forget about the topic of The Right to Be Forgotten! However, in that time, even the phrasing of the topic has changed to The Right to Erasure. Our guest, Anne Klinefelter, Director of the Law Library and Henry P. Brandis Distinguished Professor of Law, catches us all up on the current issues surrounding data privacy and the Internet both here in the US, as well as in the EU. Klinefelter's view of privacy is that while we haven't done a great deal of work to protect individual's privacy in an economic model based on surveillance capitalism, we have done some things. Her vision of the future is that the Internet still has the capability of being the Utopia we once hoped it would be, but it will probably get far worse before it gets better. And those who benefited from the weak data privacy regulations may end up being the very people who come in and change it for the better. We also talked with Molly Huie from Bloomberg Law about the 2022 DEI Framework survey which is now open for law firms. Molly lists out a number of new data points included in the framework, including neurodiversity, origination credit, and partnership tracking topics in law firm diversity efforts. Links discussed in this episode: "Google LLC v. CNIL: The Location-Based Limits of the EU Right to Erasure" by Sam Wrigley and Anne Klinefelter (unc.edu) Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Framework for Law Firms | Bloomberg Law The Geek in Review Ep. 135 - Results of the Bloomberg Law DEI Framework with Molly Huie | 3 Geeks and a Law Blog (geeklawblog.com) Contact Us Twitter: @gebauerm or @glambert. Voicemail: 713-487-7270 Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com. Music: As always, the great music you hear on the podcast is from Jerry David DeCicca. Transcript available on 3 Geeks and a Law Blog page.
Please join Temple Law in celebrating its 125 Year Anniversary with a podcast episode that dives into the history of Temple Law, and the legacy it continues to create. A special thank you to the many Temple Law faculty and staff who contributed to this episode: Rachel Rebouché, Interim Dean, James E. Beasley Professor of Law Michelle Cosby, Director of the Law Library, Associate Professor of Law Noa Kaumeheiwa, Head of Collections and Assessment Librarian Julie Randolph, Head of Outreach and Instructional Services, Law Library Donald Harris, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Liaison, Professor of Law Jon Smagula, Assistant Dean, Graduate & International Programs Jennifer Lee, Associate Clinical Professor of Law Marian Braccia, Director of the LL.M. in Trial Advocacy Program, Practice Professor of Law James Shellenberger, Professor of Law Jane Baron, Professor of Law Robert Bartow, Laura H. Carnell Professor of Law, Senior Advisor to the Dean Laura Little, James G. Schmidt Professor of Law Allison Healy, Director of Instructional Design Trang (Mae) Nguyen, Assistant Professor of Law Noeleen Urmson, Associate Director of Academic and Professional Success If you would like to know more about these wonderful faculty and staff, their profiles are on the law school directory: https://law.temple.edu/directory/. For more resources check out the Law Library's Webpage: https://law.temple.edu/library/find-a-resource/ **Special Note: A bonus episode featuring Professors Abreu, Baron, Bartow, and Little will be airing in the near future. The episode will be an extension of the history of Temple Law through the eyes of faculty who have been around for a few decades! Stay tuned!**
All the way from South Central, I got my guy Ecko kicking it with me on the podcast dropping all types of knowledge, stories, and truth in this week's episode. Find out how he became Freeway Rick Ross's manager, his rise as the local mixtape man in the barbershops to creating his own entertainment company and being behind the scenes of many ventures along the way. (6:00) Mixtape Pirate: When Ecko caught his first case, that was all the motivation he needed to turn up his business acumen. Being in the Law Library taught him brand new business terminology. (17:30) Xclusive Music: From selling music and DVDs in the barbershops, with the help of Fred Walker, Ecko got his first storefront and that place changed the game in his city. Lost Opportunities and Transitions: Little do many people know, Ecko had exclusive access to a well known local venue but that ended due to an ill-advised conversation. Then when his music store essentially became obsolete he had to make some new moves happen for himself. (38:20) Bobby Shmurda/Rap On Trial: Bobby came home and hasn't lived up to his pre-incarceration hype. In the NY Senate politicians work with rappers to pass a law that prevents rapper lyrics to be used against them in court. Is this a great idea? Or simply a way to protect rappers that don't make good decisions? (53:10) Freeway Rick Ross: After being reluctant to meet him, Ecko tells the story of how he became Freeway Rick's road manager. After being gone and traveling the country for the past 5 years, he doesn't regret it one bit. (1:1100) Battle Rap World/Plug: After attending Smack/URL's Super Fight 6 event at the top of the year, Ecko was up to his networking ways and might have something up his sleeve in battle rap culture after spending years in Hip-Hop as an event promoter. Ecko Rollup - Check out Ecko's latest venture into the legal cannabis industry as he kicks some game for those interested in learning and investing! #FreewayRickRoss #Music #BattleRap #WestCoast #California #Pennsylvania #NewYork #Wisdom #OG Follow Ecko on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/ecko717/ Follow 280+ Podcast on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/280plus_pod/ Spotify https://open.spotify.com/show/14xx8ofNUq9JmJUCmY0l78?si=dc198edecf1a4aad --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/los-def/message
Papoose sat down with Ebro, Laura Stylez, & Rosenberg to discuss his successful 2021, his Law Library freestyle series, relationship with Kendrick Lamar, ideas of a husband/wife Verzuz with Remy Ma and who he would like to face, being underrated and more! (1-22) Activist Patrisse Cullors challenges our understanding of care, breaking down how to change culture in the world, and how to share the ideas and have dialog with those who don't believe. (22-43) Felicia 'Snoop' Pearson discusses the career of the late rapper, how he will be remembered, how Williams changed her life, and the impact of the Vice TV show 'Black Market.' (43-end) See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Hosts Adam and Avory speak with Kenton Brice from the University of Oklahoma College of Law about a TV monitor slide project at the school's library, which is designed with micro flizz® and drylin® hybrid systems from igus®. The slides make it easier for faculty and students to quickly and easily reconfigure the visual layout of their classroom.
Need to start a paper but don't know where to get your sources from? This is the episode for you! In this episode, we sat down with Law Librarian Noa Kaumeheiwa about the online resources the Law Library has to offer. Noa gives us the rundown of all the possible resources you could need for your papers, regardless of what the topic is, along with some advice for how to use these resources in a professional setting. Links to Resources: Law Library Web Page: https://law.temple.edu/library/find-a-resource/ Email: tulawlib@temple.edu Tags: #templelaw #templeuniversity #tulawlibrary #templelawlibrarypodcast #podcast #philadelphia #law #lawschool #lawprofessor #studentresources #lawstudentresources #lexus #westworld #barjournals #bloomberglaw #courts #proquest #federaldevelopments
All too often questions and disputes regarding access for persons with disabilities are not settled until they wind up in a courtroom. Some of the best lawyers who address these issues have disabilities themselves and thus bring a strong personal commitment to the debate. Meet David Shaffer, a blind civil rights lawyer who will tell us about his own commitment to the law and to the rights of persons with disabilities. As you will hear, David did not start out litigating civil rights cases and he didn't even begin his life as a blind person. He has a fascinating journey we all get to experience. From his beginning as a Stanford law student through his work today on internet accessibility and inclusion David Shaffer's story will help us all see more clearly how we all can work harder to include nearly %25 of persons with disabilities in the mainstream of society. Some directories do not show full show notes. For the complete transcription please visit https://michaelhingson.com/podcast About the Guest: David Shaffer is a blind attorney with over 35 years of legal practice experience in the Metro area of Washington DC. He currently specializes in ADA Consulting for tech companies using his previous work as a Section 508 coordinator and lead counsel in defending the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority in a class action under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. David says “my goal is to ensure the world wide web is accessible to anyone and everyone as I am legally blind, hard of hearing and have learned to understand the extreme necessity of this issue for all persons with disabilities”. In 2006 David began losing his eyesight due to Glaucoma. As is so often the case, his ophthalmologist did not confront his increasing loss of sight. As David described it, “it was after I totaled two cars in 2009 that I finally recognized that I was blind”. He received blindness orientation and training through the Virginia Department of Rehabilitation and the Columbia Lighthouse for the Blind in Washington DC. In addition to his work on internet access cases, David specializes in civil rights cases for women, minorities, and individuals with disabilities, and have represented hundreds of women and minorities in nation-wide class actions against federal law enforcement agencies, such as the FBI, DEA, ICE, and the Secret Service. He also represents individuals with disabilities in seeking accessible accommodations in the workplace and represents them in employment litigation. About the Host: Michael Hingson is a New York Times best-selling author, international lecturer, and Chief Vision Officer for accessiBe. Michael, blind since birth, survived the 9/11 attacks with the help of his guide dog Roselle. This story is the subject of his best-selling book, Thunder Dog. Michael gives over 100 presentations around the world each year speaking to influential groups such as Exxon Mobile, AT&T, Federal Express, Scripps College, Rutgers University, Children's Hospital, and the American Red Cross just to name a few. He is Ambassador for the National Braille Literacy Campaign for the National Federation of the Blind and also serves as Ambassador for the American Humane Association's 2012 Hero Dog Awards. https://michaelhingson.com https://www.facebook.com/michael.hingson.author.speaker/ https://twitter.com/mhingson https://www.youtube.com/user/mhingson https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelhingson/ accessiBe Links https://accessibe.com/ https://www.youtube.com/c/accessiBe https://www.linkedin.com/company/accessibe/mycompany/ https://www.facebook.com/accessibe/ Thanks for listening! Thanks so much for listening to our podcast! If you enjoyed this episode and think that others could benefit from listening, please share it using the social media buttons on this page. Do you have some feedback or questions about this episode? Leave a comment in the section below! Subscribe to the podcast If you would like to get automatic updates of new podcast episodes, you can subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts or Stitcher. You can also subscribe in your favorite podcast app. Leave us an Apple Podcasts review Ratings and reviews from our listeners are extremely valuable to us and greatly appreciated. They help our podcast rank higher on Apple Podcasts, which exposes our show to more awesome listeners like you. If you have a minute, please leave an honest review on Apple Podcasts. Transcription Notes Michael Hingson 00:00 Access Cast and accessiBe Initiative presents Unstoppable Mindset. The podcast where inclusion, diversity and the unexpected meet. Hi, I'm Michael Hingson, Chief Vision Officer for accessiBe and the author of the number one New York Times bestselling book, Thunder dog, the story of a blind man, his guide dog and the triumph of trust. Thanks for joining me on my podcast as we explore our own blinding fears of inclusion unacceptance and our resistance to change. We will discover the idea that no matter the situation, or the people we encounter, our own fears, and prejudices often are our strongest barriers to moving forward. The unstoppable mindset podcast is sponsored by accessiBe, that's a c c e s s i capital B e. Visit www.accessibe.com to learn how you can make your website accessible for persons with disabilities. And to help make the internet fully inclusive by the year 2025. Glad you dropped by we're happy to meet you and to have you here with us. Michael Hingson 01:22 Hi, welcome to another episode of unstoppable mindset. And today we have I think, a person who's pretty unstoppable, at least I tend to think so he he can make his own comments and judgment about that. But I'd like you all to meet David Shaffer. David is a blind civil rights attorney has lots of stories to tell I'm sure about all of that. And I think has a lot of interesting things that will inspire all of us, but also a lot of things to make us think David, welcome to Unstoppable Mindset. David Shaffer 01:57 Welcome, thanks for the great introduction. I'm happy to be on here I look forward to discussing issues involving accessibility and adjustment to blindness. Michael Hingson 02:11 Well, let's see what we can what we can do. So you, um, you are not blind when you first were growing up, as I understand. David Shaffer 02:22 That's right. I always had horrible vision and was tremendously nearsighted. But until I got to about in my late 40s, it was I could still get by with glasses or hard contact lenses. And that was about the time that I acquired a guy comma. And the comma went undiagnosed for about a year due to some idiosyncrasies in my eye, which misread eye pressure on a standard test. And so by the time I went to a specialist figured out that I had glaucoma, even though the pressure test didn't show it, I was I was gone, I was legally blind my visions about 2800 But it's the closest they can measure it. But I still see some I can see shapes and things and it depends a lot on light and in various issues. But I'm pretty much reliant upon my cane and, and my technology these days to practice law. Michael Hingson 03:42 So you sort of had to go through an adjustment process, obviously about becoming blind and being blind and acknowledging that how did all that go? What kind of training did you have? Or when did you decide that you really didn't see like you used to see? David Shaffer 03:58 A, I realized that after I totaled two cars, that kind of was the wake up solution for me. It started off with night, severe night blindness. And so they tried to accommodate me by letting me go home at three in the winter, going home before dark, while I can still drive but quickly ended up at a point where I couldn't see the drive I couldn't see across the street. That was a tough adjustment because I was in the middle of practicing law at the time. I was a general counsel at the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. Just finished up huge ADA class action, kind of reforming the agency's paratransit system. And then I started realizing that I couldn't see my notes anymore that I couldn't see Oh, The face of witnesses on the witness stand. And suddenly, litigation, which was my primary focus became extremely difficult, if not impossible. It was it was very difficult because my employer had no idea how to adjust to somebody who was blind, until there's only one other blind person or organization. And she had a totally different role. So it was a mismatched series of attempts to accommodate me, that pretty much all failed, just try it. It started out with magnifiers and ZoomText and all that. But it finally became evident that I needed to learn to use the screen readers properly, and not try to just magnify things 20 times and get by. That was that was very challenging, because I was trying to keep up the practice a lot at the same time, while no longer be able to see what I was doing. Fortunately, I finally, through Columbia Lighthouse for the Blind, got hooked up with the Virginia's rehab agency. And they gave me initial, you know, training jaws and things like that on them. basic survival. But the problem is that these state agencies are so low on funding that I was expected to practice law with a total of six hours of God's training. And that's all that they would allocate to me. Obviously, that was not adequate. To become proficient enough to practice law, I can barely read a website or a document. So I just had to go out and get my own training and pay for it myself. And I still do to this day, due to lack of resources that Virginia had. I understand it's much better in Maryland, where I live now. But now that I've taught myself and paid for my own lessons, and I'm pretty advanced jobs user and, and, and Diane Tasker. So what happened next was I began a campaign at at Metro to make technology accessible was once I learned to use JAWS, I realized I couldn't use their website, because the public website wasn't accessible. I couldn't look up things for people on the phone. I couldn't use our internet at all. I couldn't even do my own timesheets anymore, because none of that was accessible. And that was a big problem. Because we'd struggled over that organization organization's initial reaction was, we're not covered by 508. Because we're not part of the federal government, despite the fact that we're a federal contractor, and therefore required to comply with 508. Anyway. So after four years of fighting, and complaining, I finally got them to adopt an accessibility policy. They made me the section 508 officer. And then again, I taught myself accessibility, I taught myself web accessibility through DQ University online, enough so that I could start guiding the, the team that that made up the website on how to make it accessible. So that was kind of how this all developed, that I went from zero competence to now being a fairly recognized David Shaffer 08:57 web caster and user of this technology. Michael Hingson 09:02 Let's go back a little bit. So you, you have been in law all your life. What What got you into that? Why did you decide to choose law in the first place? Because obviously, you didn't have some of the same causes that you do now like blindness and accessibility and so on. David Shaffer 09:21 Well, I grew up in a town of 1000 people, or Ohio. My stepfather was a lawyer. He'd been a former state senator and Majority Leader of the Ohio Senate. So he was of course the only lawyer in town and the only way or pro for a while around nearby, but I saw how he helped people from anything from a divorce to a car accident DWI to a criminal offense to any sort of state funding. I mean, he did everything And, you know, clients are constantly coming to our house in the evening and not just to his office, and it was just like part of our life was what we do we help people with legal problems. I remember I was so curious about the law that we get a decent Law Library in my house. And so if I would ask him a legal question, at 12 years old, he'd make me go into his office and look it up in American jurisprudence, or how jurisprudence, bring him back the answer, and then we discuss it. So I was doing legal research from 12 years old, onward. And I, I guess, I just got hooked up with a plus the political angle I would, because we were all very active in politics. And my stepfather ran campaigns for the Democratic Congress, in our district and things like that. So politics law was kind of in my blood from from very early on. Michael Hingson 11:06 Well, clearly, you had a good teacher, because he made you go do the research and the work. And of course, there's nothing like discovering things for yourself. But you've had other you've had other good teachers, haven't you? David Shaffer 11:18 I have, I would, you know, at law school at Stanford, I had a interesting teacher, former Justice Scalia, for common law. That was a fascinating experience and frustrating, but boy did I learn his side of the law, and his points of view and, and his philosophy. And the rest of that I have read the camera itself, I learned on my own, but we had to listen to his philosophies quite a bit. But he was a very good teacher. And then after I graduated from Stanford, I was lucky enough to work for an incredible woman on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals at Carter appointee, who was also tremendously liberal and, and taught me more in that year than I'd learned in three years of law school. And so throughout, I guess, my career, I've been lucky to have mentors. After the clerkship, I went to Gibson, Dunn, and Crutcher in California, a large law firm and had a litigation partner they are kind of take me under his wing and, and, you know, let me go out and my first week, I was in court, of course week on the job. And, you know, there was that gets it throughout your life, you've got to take advantage of mentors and people that really are looking out for you and then to them learn from. It's really the most valuable way to learn than trying to do everything on your own. As I learned when I lost my budget, it would have been really nice to have a lot of training fast rather than having to take a year to get up to speed on the technology. Michael Hingson 13:18 Yeah, I mean, we we all have to take things as they come. I remember in my involvement with the law, from a legal standpoint, comes from the other side being a consumer. And I had a situation that happened, I think, in 1981, it was 80 or 81. I think it was 81. But I was denied access to an aircraft with my guide dog. And they actually, they they insisted that I had to sit in the front seat, even though the airlines policy did require that. But we went to court with it. And eventually it was appealed and it went to the ninth circuit. We had a judge in LA Francis Whalen. I don't know whether you ever encountered him here. He was pretty old. cielo or her but that's that was my closest experience to dealing with the with the appellate court directly. I've been involved in seeing other appellate cases. But it's it's it was it was interesting. David Shaffer 14:24 How'd it come out? Michael Hingson 14:27 The case was settled. It actually had to go back for a second trial because Francis Whalen was on the ninth, actually not the appellate court. He was in the Ninth Circuit. But when it went to appellate court the he didn't like it but the the appellate court found that he had erred and went back for a second trial and we ended up settling it which is unfortunate because it it was certainly a case that could have been a little bit more of a landmark than it was but you It was interesting. One of the things that happened at the beginning of the the case was that when the ruling went when when motions were being heard at the beginning, one of the motions that the airlines lawyer put out was, well, yeah, it's our policy that people don't have to sit in the front row with their guide dog. But that's just our policy. And so it shouldn't be allowed in as evidence and the judge allowed them, which was horrible. But you know, we all face, face those kinds of things. But Judge Whalen did what he did, and then it went to appellate court, and it and it did get settled. And, of course, overtime, the law change, there's a growth time for all of us. The Air Carrier Access Act was passed in 1986. And it needs to be strengthened. And then of course, in 1991, the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed, which you have, obviously, as a lawyer now, a lot of involvement with when when you were going through training, well, let me put it this way, when you were becoming blind and discovering you were blind, how did all of that affect you in terms of your practice of law, and your view about what you were going to do with the law and how you would do it? David Shaffer 16:20 Well, it seriously affected my ability to practice law for about a year, it was a good time was was a government agency, because they couldn't get rid of me too easily with the disability. But after that, it really made me I mean, I'd done it, I've been doing ADEA law since before the ADEA, since I started practicing in California under the unrack. But it really hit home to me this whole feel of digital accessibility. I mean, of course, I knew about it. And, and, and, but I'd never had any cases on it in my entire practice. Until these days, so I, what I ended up doing was, first off, they switched me to internal advice from litigation. And the department, one of the departments that gave me was Ada, in addition to human resources, because I'd spent my previous 20 years as a Labor Employment lawyer, advising large corporations. So doing that, let me start trying to make some impact from within those organizations. So I get a DEA office and the human relations office to understand accessibility. And that was the first step was was an education, it really, it's something that had to go on person by person one at a time. Because just talking about it, never made an impression till I brought somebody in my office and showed them how I use JAWS, how a screen reader works, now, it doesn't work, when something's not accessible. In the minute you give them a visual and hearing example of how important it says to a blind person, you've converted them, okay? Obviously, we need to make this work for you. Because that's their obligation. But it's a person by person thing, then they take it back, and the other people don't understand it. So then they got to come down to my office and get shown, and, like, did a lot of internal training and advocacy, and force them to, you know, form the position of section 508 Officer, which by then was given all of my other jobs and make a commitment to accessibility. You know, company wide and to the public and within, and that was a long battle. But I did it from within, instead of without, probably would have been quicker if I just turned around and sued them. But lawyers generally don't like to sue on behalf of themselves. It's just not pleasant. So I worked from within and made changes, and left when I left that organization, their website was 95%, double A 2.1 compliant. And that was due to four years of work by me manually with the web department. I had three people there working for four years to fix a 15,000 page website manually. Of course, we use software level access at the time But it's all there is out there that are equally as good. But that just goes to show how difficult accessibility can be when you start from ground zero. And part of the thing that I'm into, as well as presenting people with disabilities, and advocating on behalf of people with disabilities and trying to make the ADEA stronger, and Congress, working with Congress and various issues, David Shaffer 20:33 to educate them. And now I'm finding that as I talked to people in Congress and the staff members, again, it's just, it's an education thing, once you've shown them an example and explained how important accessibility is to 20% of their constituents who have disabilities, then it clicks, and then they're interesting. But it's really got to be a strong education effort by the blind community. And we just got to, we have to reach out and explain ourselves to others, and not feel embarrassed about being blind, but show them what we can do when we're bind, if we have the right technology. And I think, demonstrating on a daily basis that you can do the same job as anybody else can do with with as long as you got the right technology and an accessible source to read it from. You're just the same as anybody else. And and I think that's the education effort that the blind community really needs to work harder on. Because you got to change people's minds about this, and they can't view accessibility as simply an expense. That's mandated by law. Michael Hingson 21:56 Do you think it's all about technology? Do you think that the technology Oh, David Shaffer 22:00 it's not? I mean, it, obviously, I deal with more than just digital accessibility, you know, I was also responsible for the physical accessibility of the buses, trains and stations, and so forth. But it's an overall understanding of the concept of accessibility to the 20% of the population who has some sort of disability. And that's the hard part. To shine them, okay, well, they think, oh, there's only you know, three to 5% of the people that are blind, that need a screen reader. They're not that important to me, but about the other 15% with other disabilities, you know, almost 40% of which are cognitive. Those people are currently being left out of the world. They're being left out of jobs or being left out of information technology. And, you know, the studies show that people with IDD issues often make up the most best and loyal and valuable employees. Study after study has shown that if we simply know how to accommodate them, and that's not so easy as it is to fix a website to make it five a weight or with gag compliant. That is much more even more of an education effort. I would say the other project that I'm working on is also football people with disabilities and that we are working with a company called way map, UK company and a partnership with Verizon. And we're mapping the whole DC Metro and DC metropolitan area for the for the blind with step by step navigation. That process also has separate options for people using wheelchairs. And I was the major drafter of the US standards for this technology, as well as to 1.1 which is the standards for cognitive wayfinding which will be the next phase. So technology there is technology out there to help people with disabilities other than just blindness in its in its infancy. But some very good pilots have been done with FTA with whom I worked quite a bit Federal Transit Administration that we can make much more of the world accessible to people, not only who are blind but with other types of disabilities that make it difficult for them to navigate or to use technology. Michael Hingson 24:47 So the the way we met was actually through as you know, accessiBe where does that fit into what is happening to make the whole internet And website access available. David Shaffer 25:04 Well, what it's going to help do is guide people to accessible locations. If your website's accessible, then we can put you on to this app, and people can find you and not only find you, but read the menu in your restaurant. And so can tourist find you. So, by encouraging people, you know, by expanding this project, into convention centers into other places, museums galleries, where there's a ton of information, we can integrate the accessibility of the web, the original website, to, for example, the descriptions on a picture in the National Gallery to be, you know, read to you, and explained, and all that it's going to be 100% WCAG compliant. So these, I think, these all work together, it might vary his projects, to show people that there's overall issue of accessibility websites, of course, are one of the major ones. But we've got to integrate this awareness concept with not just websites, but with how do we make this world safe and accommodating for all people with disabilities, so that everybody can achieve their full potential. Michael Hingson 26:46 So I know that you also in addition to doing the web map project, though, do or have become involved with accessor be specifically so website access in general, but accessiBe in specific, why did you choose accessiBe to work with? David Shaffer 27:03 That's anotherInteresting story. I was do when I was the byway officer at macro, I was deep into manual coding, fixing, you know, analysis of police reports, and how to deal with them. And that's what took four years to get that website compliant. That was four years of daily work by a team of people. I was against layered approaches that first. Some of the ones that had been proposed to us at macro simply didn't work. So I just figured, okay, I'm not interested in layered approaches, when somebody gives me something that doesn't even work on their own website, then, you know, forget it. But, you know, I was introduced to accessiBe with some skepticism. And then I started trying and testing it. And I found that it made websites accessible and usable, to really the greatest extent feasible by AI technology. So, I was convinced that accessiBe is better than the other ones. Plus, what really impressed me most about accessiBe was in fact, it's not just for the blind. And it has significant settings for cognitive disorders, ADHD, seizure disorders, various types of color, vision issues, and cognitive. And I think that this is the comprehensive approach that I've been preaching that we need to accommodate all disabilities. We can't just focus on the blind community, we can just focus on the deaf community, or the IDD community. This has got to be an overall attitude about how we approach all of our technology, how we approach shopping, how we approach going into a store, getting down the street, getting on a train or bus, that we've got to bring together these concepts of Universal Design for everybody, so that the entire population has the same opportunity, as everybody else Michael Hingson 29:23 do you think accessiBe is having success in this arena? David Shaffer 29:28 Yeah, I do. Continue to outreach to the blind community to talk to us and give input. I give both legal and technical input to accessiBe and and that's because I can see both sides of this. I can see how the courts developing the law as well as how the technology is developing and how it's been used. And it's a fascinating place to be and I'm you know enjoying working with them. quite a bit as we try to bring more education accessibility to the 20% of the population that's left out these days. Michael Hingson 30:09 It's interesting the society in the times that we live in. We are in such a technological era. Yet, more and more we see everything being oriented or most things being oriented toward a visual process. So websites, for example, that that put more visual stuff in. And what prompts me to mention that is, we were watching my wife and I were watching a commercial this morning on a television. And it was just some people singing a song. And there was nothing to say that it was Google talking about all the ways that it protects us. And I, and there are a lot of those kinds of commercials that do nothing but play music or Yeah, or sounds, but that have nothing to do with anything, how do we get people to recognize that they are leaving out a significant amount of the population? And oh, by the way, what about the person who gets up, I guess the marketing people don't think that that will be a big problem, and I'll come back to it. But don't think that'll be a big problem, because they'll saturate the air with the commercial. So eventually, people will see it, but they don't even deal with the people who get up during a commercial and go do something else get a slide or whatever, never see it. David Shaffer 31:36 Right. I don't understand that either. Myself, many times I turn to my significant other and I say, what was that commercial about? I'd like the music. Cuz I don't know what they're trying to sell. I don't know why they think this is useful. Especially like you said, half the people get up and go the bathroom and commercials 12 The toilet flush at once. But yeah, I don't get it. It's just like they think all this has impact. You don't have Flash, big name, at the end, after the beautiful pictures didn't have an impact on me. So they're losing 5% of their potential customer base, do they may Michael Hingson 32:22 be losing more, because again, anyone who doesn't see the commercial, blind or not, has the same challenge. David Shaffer 32:32 And this is the fault of the people that look only at the visual side of things. And that's all they can think or think about these people that are creating the commercials, people that are creating websites, whatever creative people are doing this. They're looking at it. And they're deriving their impact from what they see and not what they hear. And this frustrates me, but I figure, okay, well, I'll never buy that product, and I can't tell what they're advertising. So that's one down the drain. They won't get my business. You know, what else can you do? Except deprive them of their business? If they're not going to make this commercial accessible? Michael Hingson 33:21 How do we break into their psyche? And get them to recognize what they're doing? Which is, of course, a general question that deals with the whole visual or non disability aspect of society in general. How do we how do we get the the public at large, the politicians, the visible people of large, to bring us into the conversation? Maybe it's a good way to start that, why aren't we part of the conversation? David Shaffer 34:00 I think we're not because we're not thrusting ourselves into it. We can just sit back and wait for these people to call us up and say, Hey, we were just thinking about whether blind people can see our commercials got any advice? No, we have to, we have to get out to you know, write, like we're doing with Congress, get out to them, and explain to them what we're seeing or not seeing. We need to get to the advertising community with some sort of education. If they really are interested in selling us products, so the the blanket, I mean, we're going to 24 million people in the United States. That's a tremendous market. We just need to get people to understand that they're losing 24 million potential customers every time they put an ad up like that. Michael Hingson 34:54 But in general, whether we deal with the advertisement part of it or whatever you deal with the whole population of persons with disabilities. How do we get into the psyche of people into the conversation? I mean, I hear what you're saying about getting Congress and showing Congress what we do. But here's a perfect example of the problem. Several years ago, I went to a congressman who I knew to talk about the fact that at that time, and still, as part of the Javits, Wagner eau de act, it is possible for organizations and agencies to apply for an exemption. So they do not have to pay a person with a disability a minimum wage, who they bring in. And that typically is in the case of some sheltered workshops that that number has diminished a great deal, because there's been visibility, but it's still there. And the law is still there. And what this congressman said is, well, we're opposed to minimum wage in general. And so I can't possibly support this bill had nothing to do with the fact that it's still the law of the land. But we're not considered an important and I mean, all persons with disabilities, we still are not really considered part of, of society in the same way. Now, we're not hated like, some, some people probably hate different races. And and we certainly don't face some of the challenges that that women do, although bind women probably do, but but the bottom line is we as a collective group, and not just blind women, but people, women with disabilities, but we are as as a, as a total group, not included. Really, in the conversation. We see it all the time. Last year's presidential elections are a perfect example. But you could you can go anywhere and cite anything. That that looks at all of the different things that go on COVID websites were not accessible last year. So you know, how do we get into that conversation? Collectively, David Shaffer 37:10 like, well, that is how we do it is collectively, I think, but I think we're doing too much of is that, you know, you've got the blind community doing advocating for this, you've got the people with physical disabilities advocating for their thing, that people cognitive advocating for those things. And they're all just focusing on what they need. What we all need to be focusing on together is what we need as a group of people with disability grant, granted, each of each type of disability has different needs. But if we can get everybody to understand the concept of universal design, and start applying that didn't everything we build to, from buildings to websites to whatever, then we'll be taking, we'll be including this population. But even the phrase universal design is not even fully under widely understood. But that is where we have to be gone. And we have to be doing it as the entire disability community. That is numbers, but lots of numbers of people. Michael Hingson 38:29 Sure, since 20%, to 25% of all persons in the United States have a disability. That's a pretty large group, and it's 100 David Shaffer 38:40 million people. Michael Hingson 38:41 Yeah, you're talking about a minority second only to depending on who you want to listen to men or women, probably they're more women than men. So men may be the minority, although they don't think so. But But the bottom line is it's a very large group of people, David Shaffer 38:56 or it's not significant. You know, it's the most significant thing size, protected group there is under the law. Michael Hingson 39:06 But the protections aren't always there. So for example, the other problem, yes, the other problem, David Shaffer 39:12 which is the courts, the courts are slow to catch up to the courts don't understand this. You file a web accessibility lawsuit and find your typical federal district judge. I mean, they don't have a clue what this case is about. And then we're down to the Battle of competing experts, you know, and where does that put a judge? Where does that put a jury where they mean, the legal system is not the right place to be solving this problem. Unfortunately, it's the only place we have left to go to. Michael Hingson 39:46 Well, I guess that's of course part of the I'm sorry, go ahead. David Shaffer 39:49 No, go ahead. Michael Hingson 39:50 Well, that's, that's of course part of the problem. But, you know, is it the only place to go to so for example, you wrote an article earlier this year. which I found to be very interesting and very informative the talk about web accessibility. And that article described a lot, a lot of the issues, a lot of what's being done. And maybe you want to talk a little bit about that and where people can see it, but also should should we work to be finding more people who will publicize in the world. Part of the the issues that we have when I talked about being part of the the conversation frame, frankly, I think we need to be putting out more more writings, more articles, more missives, more whatever. And as you said, we need to be putting ourselves in the conversation. David Shaffer 40:53 We go and, you know, I, I'm, I listened mostly to NPR. And what I do notice there is they do a lot of stories on disability issues. Really impressed by the way they cover disabilities. I don't see that on mainstream media. Occasionally, you'll you'll have a feel good story on the evening news, then which one you're watching, you know, they they're tagged at the end of the last two minutes. But really, dealing with this as a societal issue. It's so low on the priority of things these days after COVID and, and overseas wards and foreign policy and everything else that's going on. We're, we're just faded where we fade into the background, or unnoticed. It's just like when, when when you when you walk into a store with somebody who's with you, they will talk to the other person and ask them what does he want to order? Instead of asking you were invisible? Michael Hingson 42:01 Yeah. And of course, also part of the problem today, is that with everything that's going on, we face it, too. And it kind of beats you down. David Shaffer 42:12 It does. It's, it's depressing. I mean, I my usually, my usual answer is I can order for myself in that sort of tone. But, you know, it's like we walk, walk into a dark, so up till the day with my white king, trying to find my way because they don't allow visitors now so that I can't bring him by with me to guide me. So I'm, you know, stumbling around the place trying to find the front desk and all that. And then they shove a piece of paper in front of me saying, Can you please sign in. And they've seen me walking around that reception area trying to find the reception desk with a white cane. And they turned around and asked me to sign something. They'll get Michael Hingson 42:59 it. It's, it's all education. And I think you said much earlier is very important. We have to as hard as it is as frustrating as it is, as trying as it is on our patients. Sometimes. We have to be teachers, we have to help. But we do need to speak out, we do need to be pushing ourselves in the conversation. There are there's a lot of mainstream media that as you said, doesn't cover us much. And somehow we need to get more people to reach out to mainstream media saying Why aren't you talking about the fact that blind people and other persons with disabilities are exempt? In some situations from receiving minimum wage? Why aren't you talking more about the lack of appropriate information provided to us? Why aren't you talking about the fact that when one flies on an airplane, the flight attendants don't necessarily give us the same information that that people who can see or people who can can read don't have they already have. And I got like, the fact that people like with dyslexia also have issues. David Shaffer 44:25 Yeah, well, pointing to the emergency exits doesn't help a lot. Michael Hingson 44:28 Right, exactly. But they but you know, it would be so simple for flight attendants to say when they're doing their pre flight briefing. Emergency exits are located at overwing. Exits are located at rows, x and y. David Shaffer 44:47 Row number you can, that's assuming that's a row number that you can read with your fingers. Michael Hingson 44:53 Except when you are when you go on, you know what seat you're at. So you know what right So your count? Yeah, you can count. Yeah, they could, they could do something to make the row numbers also more accessible. But again, you do know what seat you go to. And if they know that, then you can easily count and get at least a much better sense, then what you do. I heard once somebody explained that when the preflight briefings are being given, what flight attendants are trained to do, and I don't know if it's true, but it could be, what flight attendants are trained to do is to look to see who's really paying attention to the briefings. Because those are the people that they may be able to call on to help if there really is an emergency, because they're the ones that tend to be collecting the information. I don't know if that's really true, but it certainly makes sense. And, and it is also something that more of us should do, and more of us should be demanding that they do the appropriate things to provide the access that we need to be able to pay attention. David Shaffer 46:05 Yeah, you know, Michael, it's just, it's such an overwhelmingly huge job. I mean, we're talking about everything from websites to we haven't even talked about apps on phones, to physical accessibility to how you're, how you're treated in a doctor's office, or on an airplane or at a restaurant, or, I mean, it's, it's, it's all throughout society, that the people with disabilities face these obstacles. And courts, you know, I think websites are a fantastic place to start. But that's not the end of the accessibility discussion. We need to have much broader discussions about that. And we need to be doing it more publicly. Michael Hingson 47:03 Right. And, and I think we can, I don't think that we need to always use civil disobedience, as our solution, although there certainly have been times in the past when that has been what people feel they need to do, and it can be successful, but it still, ultimately is about education. And if people refuse to listen, then obviously there are other actions that need to be taken. You mentioned, what happened with you with Metro and Metro, at least, was interested in working with you and allowing you to help them fix their website issue, by the way, how is it now? David Shaffer 47:46 Oh, it's pretty good. They actually, they brought in consultants to do the remainder of the remediation and I wasn't able to finish. So they're trying to get as close to 100% compliant as possible. Michael Hingson 48:02 And, obviously, that's, that's pretty important to do. I don't know whether accessiBe is a part of that or whether you know, have they used accessiBe in any way I'm just curious. David Shaffer 48:12 I they I don't know who the outside consultants using right now but they haven't seen it says to be put on the site yet. I know they use accessiBe's testing tool. Michael Hingson 48:24 Right? And can you tell us about that the test David Shaffer 48:29 accessiBe has a very quick and free testing tool, which is one of the better ones out there on the market, including some of the ones you paid $10,000 for. And if you go to ace.accessible.com there's it's really simple, you just plug in the website name, you hit get a report, you get an immediate report within like 10 seconds of all the errors it reads it from compliant to semi compliant or non compliant. And then you can email yourself the report in a PDF form and and read all the details about what the issues are on the website. You know, and some of my own personal battles I've had recently with our county government kind of forced them to provide me with accessible materials as required by federal law. You know, I finally just sent them a report of their website or encountered entire county website is non compliant. And they said they know it. Let baffled me and what they're getting me my documents on your threat of a federal lawsuit. Michael Hingson 49:49 You It's amazing. I recently upgraded we were talking about it before we started this. I also upgraded to Windows 11 and And there are some real challenges from an access standpoint. Or example, for example, and I, and I'm saying this after having called and spoken to Microsoft's disabilities answer desk, I needed to map a network drive. And the instructions say, click on the three dots on the toolbar, the three dots. So that's inaccessible to me, I am going to try some other experiments to see if I can access them. But in Windows 10, there were ways to do it. Why would they? And could they? And should they have updated to a new version of Windows without dealing with the access issues, and I know what they're gonna say, they did it with Microsoft Edge years ago, when Microsoft Edge came out, they knew it wasn't accessible. And they said, well, we'll get to it. Well, you know, that's, that's immediately sending the message that some of us are not as important as everyone else. We are, and I'm David Shaffer 51:09 so sorry, I upgraded to Windows 11, I would never recommend that any visually impaired person right now until they get it fixed. It makes your life so much more difficult. Michael Hingson 51:21 Well, but it's going to take a while to to happen. And the problem is that more and more things will become unsupported. So upgrading needs to be done. But there should be a real outcry to Microsoft, from a large number of people about the accessibility issues that they face in Windows 11. And that is something that gets back to what we discussed earlier. Microsoft should have made it accessible right from the outset right out of the gate, right. And they have the team, they have the people, they have the knowledge, it's a priority. David Shaffer 52:02 While the priority for them is to get the product out the door, and then worry about, you know, the details later. Michael Hingson 52:11 But still, the priority is to get the product out the door. So as many people can sort of use it as possible and the people who are marginalized well, we'll get to them eventually. Yeah, right, which is a problem. If people want to read your article, how can they do that? David Shaffer 52:32 It's on my website, David Schaefer. lawn.com. Under the add a tab, Shaffer is spelled s AJ FF er. Michael Hingson 52:43 So David Schaefer Law comm under the ADEA tab. Right. So what's next for you? Where do you go from here? David Shaffer 52:53 Well, I'm, I'm also been retained by another organization, to do some congressional lobbying on behalf of ADA, making ADA explicitly include websites, and also to work to make work with them to make Congress itself accessible, working with how, with the congressional Select Committee on modernization, and, you know, we got to start somewhere, your congress has got to set the example for the country. And it's really pathetic, that the studies I've shown are that approximately 80 to 90% of congressional websites are inaccessible. And where there were their constituents to, and we have an equal right to communicate with our representatives, under the First Amendment as anybody else, and we're being deprived. And I think it's a serious issue for Congress that they've got a face, that they're not making themselves available to the entire population that's supposed to serve. Michael Hingson 54:14 Good point. And hopefully, you'll be able to make some progress on that. We certainly want to hear from you as to how that's going. And you are welcome to come back here anytime and tell us what's happening and keep us all up to date. We really appreciate your time today. In sitting down with us and talking about a lot of these issues. Are there any kind of last minute things that you'd like to say? David Shaffer 54:43 Oh, I just I just want to be treated the same as everybody else. And I think that's what all of us want. You know, you treat treat me like you would anybody else. with courtesy, and if it's an older person, you, you're courteous to them in a different way than you are a blind person or a deaf person. Just I'd like to see people treat people as people, and not according to what they look like, or are able to do is hear, see or or think. Michael Hingson 55:23 Well, clearly, that's that's a goal. I think that all of us share. And I hope that we'll be able to, to see more of that happen. Excuse me, I know, being involved with accessiBe. It's an accessiBe goal. And I'm, I'm glad that accessiBe is really growing in its understanding of the issues, and that it intends to do more to try to do what it can to educate people in society about all of this. Okay, so that's part of what this podcast is about. David Shaffer 56:00 Right. And I think we're well on our way there. We have more work to do. But we've made a lot of progress. Since I came on board and I think February I think you came on board just a little bit before that. Right. So we've, we've done a lot this year, and next year, it's gonna be even better. Michael Hingson 56:22 Well, I hope people have enjoyed listening to this and that they've learned something. We're always interested in hearing from listeners, you are welcome to reach out to me directly at MichaelHI@accessibe.com. accessiBe, You spelled A C C E S S I B E. So michaelhi@accessibe.com. David, if you want people to be able to contact you. How do they do that? David Shaffer 56:50 I'm david.shaffer@davidshafferlaw.com Michael Hingson 56:57 is easy as it gets. Yeah, David Shaffer 56:59 I try to make things easy. Michael Hingson 57:01 Yeah, absolutely. So well, I want to thank you for being with us. We've been working to get this set up for a while you've had a pretty, pretty busy schedule. And so we're finally able to do we're able to do it. But seriously, we'd like to keep hearing from you as to what progress you're making and your thoughts. So don't hesitate to reach out and let us know if you'd like to come back on and we will chat some more. And in the meanwhile, again, if people want to reach out you can reach me at Michael Hingson. That is michaelhi@accessibe.com. And if you would like to consider being a guest on our podcast because you have some things to say, email me and we'll see what we can do. I want to thank you all for joining us on another edition of unstoppable mindset. And David, thank you as well for doing that Michael Hingson 58:01 You have been listening to the Unstoppable Mindset podcast. Thanks for dropping by. I hope that you'll join us again next week, and in future weeks for upcoming episodes. To subscribe to our podcast and to learn about upcoming episodes, please visit www dot Michael hingson.com slash podcast. Michael Hingson is spelled m i c h a e l h i n g s o n. While you're on the site., please use the form there to recommend people who we ought to interview in upcoming editions of the show. And also, we ask you and urge you to invite your friends to join us in the future. If you know of any one or any organization needing a speaker for an event, please email me at speaker at Michael hingson.com. I appreciate it very much. To learn more about the concept of blinded by fear, please visit www dot Michael hingson.com forward slash blinded by fear and while you're there, feel free to pick up a copy of my free eBook entitled blinded by fear. The unstoppable mindset podcast is provided by access cast an initiative of accessiBe and is sponsored by accessiBe. Please visit www.accessibe.com. accessiBe is spelled a c c e s s i b e. There you can learn all about how you can make your website inclusive for all persons with disabilities and how you can help make the internet fully inclusive by 2025. Thanks again for listening. Please come back and visit us again next week.
“I inspire and motivate them to get back up off the canvas, re-engage in that competitive game of life, and give it another shot.” Jeff Martinovich Sometimes life throws us carved balls which may seem too hard to take. Yet it is during those moments when your mindset has to remain optimistic and tough in order to work through the hardships. Our guest today, Jeff Martinovich, has made through some of the toughest times and says that it is about taking deliberate actions to remain strong not only mentally, but physically and spiritually as well. Jeffrey A. Martinovich is a First Gulf War Veteran, MBA, and CEO of JAM Accelerator, LLC, a business consulting and incubation firm. Previously, Jeff was Founder and CEO of MICG Investment Management, a billion-dollar wealth management firm. After the 2008 Financial Crisis, Jeff rejected three government plea offers, resulting in a 14-year prison sentence. Yet the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed twice, two U.S. District Court Judges were removed, and after nearly 7 years, he was released to home confinement in May 2020 to begin rebuilding his life. His book is Just One More: The Wisdom of Bob Vukovich. In this episode, Jeff talks more about his life as he went through the most difficult moments of his life and the motivation to rebuild after his released. Listen in! Social Media Twitter:(2) Jeffrey Alan Martinovich (@JeffMartinovich) / Twitter Amazon Author Page: Amazon Author YouTube Channel Jeff Martinovich - YouTube https://linkedin.com/in/jeff-martinovich/ https://jeffreyamartinovich.blogspot.com Facebook: (4) Jeffrey Martinovich | Facebook Facebook (4) Jeffrey Martinovich, Author | Facebook It was a very traumatic challenge to one day be running a billion-dollar organization, and the next day be in the throes of defending everybody. [3:02] We all have these pivotal points in our life, where all of our training and experiences comes into play. [3:16] I was sentenced to 14 years in prison and I went to a pretty higher security violent prison. [4:41] I went into the Law Library and started to teach myself federal criminal law. [4:59] I was incredibly lucky to reverse my case twice, removed two federal judges, and get back home after seven years. [5:15] I decide that every day I was going to get up and be stronger physically, intellectually and emotionally and I worked in these three areas every day. [7:49] When you have had a lot of leadership positions, the key is to fix it situations. [8:11] Now I'm working day and night to rebuild the world and I'm helping a lot of the people in organizations that were hurt through this with me. [8:24] I am also trying to help a ton of other people, not let what happened to me happen to them. [8:48] Most people, especially entrepreneurs don't realize that the more successful you get, the more visible you are. [9:01] At the Academy in the military, we always say that if you're not scared, you're stupid but courage is what you do when you're scared. [10:53] Jam accelerator is a combination consulting and coaching business that we have where we help business owners do better. [13:05] I love to help business owners and we do it in a consulting or in a coaching model and we do in the defense industry as well as a pretty broad array of commercial business. [13:35] I really like mostly getting immersed with our clients and we try to take on projects where we could have Uber dramatic impact on the organization. [15:31] Commercial Break. [16:02] I've made more mistakes than anyone who could possibly be listening to this show right now. [17:42] My secret sauce is culture because I believe everybody wants to be part of something that inspires them. [18:05] To do that, we have to be different and be better in everything that we do because that is what separates us from everybody. [18:58] I get scared every day because I still feel these things hanging over me, but I slap myself and keep moving. [24:56] Through all these occurrences and tragedy, I definitely cemented that theory that the more people we help, it comes back to us 100,000 times over. [25:20] I'm just trying every day to lead the best life that I can lead physically, intellectually and emotionally, spiritually, believing that tomorrow will be a better day. [25:33] Everybody goes through these terrible times and you never know what's going on with the person next to you. [26:30] I just want to try to inspire and motivate people to get back up off the canvas, reengage in that competitive game of life, and give it another shot. [26:52] We pray in our time and God answers in his time so it never happens when we think it will but eventually it does. [27:10] ………………………………………………… Thank you to our December sponsor! KukuaBiz can provide dedicated and affordable talent from Kenya to help you grow and scale your business. Virtual employees are skilled in administrative functions, sales, podcast management, video editing, marketing, social media marketing, website design and management, and more. Learn more: https://www.kukuabiz.com
We're excited to share this episode about the work that Temple faculty, students, and alumni are doing to help asylum seekers and asylum attorneys. The Temple Law Asylum Project offers students research opportunities in the field of asylum and refugee law. Hear from current participants on their experiences meeting with practicing lawyers, using an annotated table of contents, keeping a research log, and more. Email Dean Jaya Ramji-Nogales at jayarn@temple.edu to get involved. Dean Ramji-Nogales is the Associate Dean of Research and the I. Herman Stern Research Professor. Her current work focuses on contemporary challenges to asylum and refugee law in the United States. In 2018, she helped create the Temple Law Asylum Project, which provides tailored research on country conditions for asylum seekers and their lawyers. For more about Dean Ramji-Nogales, visit the Law School Directory and Advocacy Is Portfolio. Julie Randolph is the Head of Outreach and Instructional Services at the Law Library. She is a reference librarian and provides research instruction and assistance for students and faculty. Listen to more great research advice from Julie in our previous episodes Accepting a Research Assignment at Work and Copyright Debunked: A Guide to Copyright Law. For more about Julie, visit the Law School Directory. Special thanks to our current Temple Law student Emily Alvarez and Temple Law alumnus Linh Nguyen for sharing their experiences working on the Temple Law Asylum Project. Links to Resources: Temple Law Asylum Project: law.temple.edu/csj/atoc/ Law Library Web Page: law.temple.edu/library Email: tulawlib@temple.edu Tags: #templeuniversitylawlibrary #law #templelaw #templeresources #tulawlib #lawresources #refugeeandasylumlaw #lawprofessor #alumni #studentresources
We all know the metaphor that the best place in the workplace to meet people and learn the what's what is the water cooler! That is exactly what the Temple Law Library can be for you! In this episode, Prof. Little discusses using the Law Library as a resource for your school work, as well as how she uses it for her professional work. Professor Little is a highly distinguished author and professor. She has been awarded the University Great Teacher award, and has taught internationally about law and humor. Links to Resources: Law Library Web Page: law.temple.edu/library Email: tulawlib@temple.edu Tags: #templeuniversitylawlibrary #law #templelaw #templeresources #tulawlib #lawresources
In the middle of a divorce, custody battle, or name change? Did you know you can get help finding the right form? Join us as we talk to the Superior Court Law Library as they talk about what services they offer to the community for help with your legal issues.
Did you know what Access to Justice means or why you should even care? Join us as we introduce the Maricopa County Superior Court Law Library and talk about how people access the legal system, barriers they face, and how libraries help overcome that. Bonus content, find out what the Law library offers and how you can get help.
This new podcast series from the Law Library delivers bite-sized episodes with helpful information from experts. Each five- to seven-minute discussion covers a different area which will help students to become better legal researchers.
The State of Georgia was one of the last states to restrict movement and one of the first states to announce plans for reopening for business. I talk with DeKalb County Law Librarian, Sarah Mauldin, about her experiences over the past two months as her county went into lockdown, and is now looking to gradually reopen. Remember, we may all be In Seclusion, but we're in this together. Host: Greg Lambert (@glambert) Producer: Janice Anderson Artwork: Dean Lambert Music: Jerry David DeCicca Twitter: @InSeclusionPod --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/inseclusion/message
One of the bright spots of this pandemic, when it comes to the legal industry, is that many of us are realizing that the important thing we provide is tied to our services rather than our physical location. Law Librarians have been saying this for well over a decade, and now other parts of the industry are realizing that we are much more than an office in a tall building. Today I talk with Amy Small, Assistant Director of the Texas State Law Library, who is coordinating efforts across the state to provide services to a public who is in need. Amy sees the future of her services as being focused on how do we create services that focus on providing help to those who are far away. Remember, we may all be In Seclusion, but we're in this together. Host: Greg Lambert (@glambert) Producer: Janice Anderson Artwork: Dean Lambert Music: Jerry David DeCicca Twitter: @InSeclusionPod --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/inseclusion/message
May 1st began phase one of the reopening efforts for the State of Texas. Governor Abbott's order specifically lists libraries as one of the businesses which can open at a 25% capacity rate (and social distancing), but not all libraries are ready to open right away. I talk with Joe Lawson, Deputy Director of the Harris County Law Library about how he and the staff in Texas' largest metropolitan area are preparing to open later this month, and how they are providing vital services to the courts, the bar, and the general public. Remember, we may all be In Seclusion, but we're in this together. Host: Greg Lambert (@glambert) Producer: Janice Anderson Artwork: Dean Lambert Music: Jerry David DeCicca (check out Jerry's new EP release on Bandcamp.) Twitter: @InSeclusionPod --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/inseclusion/message
#HOMEloans The New Normal was coined to define the changes after the Lehman Brothers collapse. There is another New Normal that is already happening around the legal industry. Today's guest, Michelle Cosby, has double-duty as the Director of the Law Library at Temple University, and as the President of the American Association of Law Libraries. She has to help her law students, student workers, law professors, and association members handle this remote work environment. There's a need for leaders to be transparent and make sure that those who rely upon them, know what is going on. Michelle says that she is focused upon that need and letting everyone know what is happening, and what her plans are for both the Temple law library and AALL's immediate future. Remember, we may all be In Seclusion, but we're in this together. Host: Greg Lambert (@glambert) Producer: Janice Anderson Artwork: Dean Lambert Music: Jerry David DeCicca Twitter: @InSeclusionPod --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/inseclusion/message
How has technology changed the way that historians and educators tell stories about the past? What does it mean to do "digital history" and how can one get started? On today's episode, Dr. Loren Moulds of the University of Virginia Law Library sits down with Jim Ambuske to explore how technology is enhancing our ability to interpret the past. A historian of 20th century America, Moulds's work on backyard barbecues and federal housing policy shapes the way he thinks about the role technology can play to recover hidden voices from obscure sources. You'll hear about the Law Library's latest projects, including those that deal with early America, and others that reveal some of the darkest moments of the 20th century. About our Guest: Loren Moulds leads the University of Virginia Law Library's efforts to develop online research tools and to promote, create and preserve its digital collections. Moulds received his bachelor's in English and American studies from Kalamazoo College in 2004 and earned a Ph.D. in History at the University of Virginia. He served as the director of the Project for Technology in History Education at the University of Virginia's Corcoran Department of History as well as the technology coordinator for UVA's Digital Classroom Initiative. About our Host: Jim Ambuske, Ph.D. leads the Center for Digital History at the Washington Library. A historian of the American Revolution, Scotland, and the British Atlantic World, Ambuske graduated from the University of Virginia in 2016. He is a former Farmer Postdoctoral Fellow in Digital Humanities at the University of Virginia Law Library. At UVA Law, Ambuske co-directed the 1828 Catalogue Project and the Scottish Court of Session Project. He is currently at work on a book about emigration from Scotland in the era of the American Revolution as well as a chapter on Scottish loyalism during the American Revolution for a volume to be published by the University of Edinburgh Press.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
