Podcasts about law politics

Today we delve into the world of Title VII by looking at the pending case in Carter v. Transp. Workers Union of Am. Local 556. The focus of our discussion will be on the paper from Blaine Hutchison in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, entitled Title VII's Religious Liberty Rules in Carter (here). Blaine is joined by one of the premier experts in the field of employment law and also my old professor, Bruce Cameron. As part of this conversation, we lay out some history for Religious Accommodation claims, the importance of protecting the conscience, the freewheelin' accommodation claim (for more, see this), the background in Carter, and more. Professor Bruce Cameron (profile) teaches employment discrimination law at Regent University School of Law and has been litigating religious accommodation cases for the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation for four decades. Blaine Hutchinson (profile) is a staff attorney with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Cross & Gavel is a production of CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY. The episode was produced by Josh Deng, with music from Vexento.

Jon Wright sits down with Stephen Wolfe (author of The Case for Christian Nationalism) to discuss politics, anthropology, natural law, Christian Nationalism, and the role of eschatology in politics.Watch all of our videos and subscribe to our channel for the latest content >HereHere

Dr Josh Howard, filmmaker Nathan Anderson, and pastor and podcaster Cory Wing cover the recent interview by Jon Wright and Dr Stephen Wolfe, including critiques on the importance of eschatology in politics, natural law and its limitations and more

Dr Josh Howard, filmmaker Nathan Anderson, and pastor and podcaster Cory Wing cover the recent interview by Jon Wright and Dr Stephen Wolfe, including critiques on the importance of eschatology in politics, natural law and its limitations and more

Jack Goldsmith sits down with Keith Whittington, David Boies Professor of Law at Yale Law School, to discuss his new book, “The Impeachment Power: The Law, Politics, and Purpose of an Extraordinary Constitutional Tool.” They discuss what the Constitution says about the impeachment power, how we should think about high crimes and misdemeanors, why impeachment shows that Congress is the preeminent branch of government, and the goals and values of impeachment. They also discuss the abuse of the impeachment power given current politics and what can be done about it, as well as whether Trump should have been convicted and disqualified in the second impeachment.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode Stephen sits down for a wide ranging chat with Barrister Ghassan Kassisieh. The discussion is lengthy and covers lgbt rights, international politics, refugees, the politicisation of gay rights in the Israeli / Palestinian conflict and comparative law, among other things. Ghassan is a Barrister at 12 Wentworth Selbourne chambers in Sydney after being called to the Bar in September 2024. He has a public and commercial law practice. Ghassan was previously Legal Director at Equality Australia where his legal policy advocacy contributed to over 16 LGBTIQ+ legislative reforms, including Australia's first scheme regulating medical procedures performed on intersex people without capacity to consent. Ghassan also has over 13 years' experience working as a solicitor in commercial litigation and regulatory matters at Gilbert + Tobin in Sydney and Freshfields in London. We hope you enjoy the chat!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

God created governmental authorities to serve his purposes and the Scriptures provide wisdom for navigating these contentious political moments.

God created governmental authorities to serve his purposes and the Scriptures provide wisdom for navigating these contentious political moments.

Attorney James Smith is back for another insightful episode! This time, we dive into the complex world of political criticism, starting with Kamala Harris's time as a prosecutor. We break down the misinformation campaigns—many fueled by foreign actors like Russia—aimed at distorting her record and influencing U.S. opinions. We also discuss the ongoing federal case in Tampa involving the Uhuru Movement, debunking exaggerated claims about Kamala's role, including the myth that she jailed 1,200 men for nonviolent marijuana offenses. By examining probation violations and judicial decisions, we reveal the truth behind these allegations.   Next, we tackle gender bias in political criticism, highlighting the double standards faced by women in politics. Our conversation touches on Donald Trump's handling of the transition process and his lack of preparedness for crises like the global pandemic. We contrast this with the need for experienced leadership. Finally, we explore economic policies like the childcare tax credit and the importance of universal healthcare, drawing comparisons to systems like Germany.   Join us for a packed episode full of clarity and real talk!   Watch Full Episode and Subscribe on YouTube ‌ Thank you to our Sponsors: BetterHelp - Get 10% off your First Month www.betterhelp.com/pwp Idea to Launch Podcast - Get $100 Off our signature course using code 'PIVOT' - LAUNCH YOUR PODCAST IN 30 DAYS Ready to start your own podcast? Schedule a clarity call today Carla Wilmaris ‌ ___________ Follow Carla Wilmaris on social media: Instagram @‌carlawilmaris Twitter @‌carlawilmaris TikTok @‌carlawilmaris ‌ Email the show to get advice and questions answered Ask@carlawilmaris.com

Join us on this eye-opening episode of "Pivot With Purpose Y'all" as we reunite with our favorite legal expert and dear friend, Attorney James Smith. Together, we peel back the layers of our early podcast memories while James demystifies the often convoluted legal language. You'll gain fascinating insights into the future of law, where AI might handle consultations, yet some human aspects of legal practice could remain irreplaceable.   Ever wondered how elections shape the Supreme Court? We tackle the weighty influence of upcoming elections on the Court's conservative majority, revisiting the contentious 2000 presidential election and the butterfly ballot debacle in Florida. Our discussion takes a dramatic turn as we investigate the shadowy financial ties between Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and billionaire Harlan Crow. The ethical implications of such relationships come to light, illustrating how they might sway judicial decisions and erode public trust.   We wrap up with a hard-hitting analysis of media biases and political corruption, scrutinizing how billionaire-owned news outlets prioritize clicks over substance. From Amazon's labor practices to the pharmaceutical industry's deregulation, we expose how these corporate actions affect everyday Americans. Our conversation drives home the urgency of reclaiming political power from the donor class and stresses the importance of active participation in democratic processes. Don't miss this compelling discussion that underscores the power of informed voting and the need for a renewed democratic impulse.       Watch Full Episode and Subscribe on YouTube ‌ Thank you to our Sponsors: BetterHelp - Get 10% off your First Month www.betterhelp.com/pwp Idea to Launch Podcast - Get $100 Off our signature course using code 'PIVOT' - LAUNCH YOUR PODCAST IN 30 DAYS Ready to start your own podcast? Schedule a clarity call today Carla Wilmaris ‌ ___________ Follow Carla Wilmaris on social media: Instagram @‌carlawilmaris Twitter @‌carlawilmaris TikTok @‌carlawilmaris ‌ Email the show to get advice and questions answered Ask@carlawilmaris.com

Join Ben and Rahul for their interview of famed Los Angeles trial lawyer, Arash Homampour. Arash has perfected the ability to trial difficult liability and damages cases to outlier high verdicts. Arash explains how he channels his innate connection with his clients and abilities as a trial lawyer to achieve these results. Arash discusses his upbringing as the child of first-generation Iranian immigrants and how he went from failing the bar examination to being one of the most accomplished and successful trial lawyers in California and the United States. You don't want to miss this episode!  About Arash Homampourhttps://www.homampour.com/ Arash Homampour Has Obtained Over $1 Billion Dollars in Settlements, Verdicts and Judgments for His Clients.He is a trial attorney who in the last five years alone has obtained many successful trial results (ranging from $2.5 million to $60 million) against Sunbeam Products, the State of California, Costco Stores, Farmers Insurance Exchange, Allstate Insurance, and Louisville Ladder in a wide array of cases involving dangerous roads, dangerous ladders, dangerous premises, and unlawful employment practices.In 2023, he has been named one of Daily Journal's Top Plaintiff Lawyers In California.In 2023, he has been named one of Daily Journal's Top 100 Lawyers In California.In 2023, he has been named one of the Top 10 Southern California Super Lawyers, 3 consecutive years.In 2023, he has been named the Best Lawyers® 2023 Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs “Lawyer of the Year” in Los Angeles.In 2023, he has been recognized by the Los Angeles Times as a legal visionary.In 2022, Homampour Law Firm was honored to be one of Top Verdict's Top 10 Verdicts in California.In 2002, Homampour Law Firm was honored to be one of Top Verdict's Top 20 Verdicts in California.In 2022, Homampour Law Firm was honored to be one of CVN's Top 10 Most Impressive Plaintiff Verdicts of the year.In 2022, he recovered a verdict of $60 million.In 2022, he recovered a verdict of $34 million.In 2022, he recovered a verdict of $36 million (wrongful death)In 2022, he recovered a settlement of $23 million (dangerous condition of public property)In 2022, he recovered a settlement of $15.92 million (dangerous condition of public property)In 2022, he recovered a settlement of $10 million (dangerous condition of public property)  In 2022, he recovered a settlement of $8 million (dangerous condition of public property) In 2022, he has been named one of the Top 10 Southern California Super Lawyers.In 2022, he has been named one of Law360°'s Titans Of The Plaintiffs Bar.In 2021, he recovered settlements of $24 million (dangerous condition of public property) and $8 million (dangerous condition of public property)In 2021, he has been named one of the Top 10 Southern California Super Lawyers.In 2021, he has become an Entrepreneur Leadership Network Contributor.In 2020, he recovered verdicts of $32 million (single plaintiff settlement premise and product liability case), $5.3 million (confidential settlement) and $5 million (disputed policy limits settlement).In 2019, he recovered a verdict of $30 million (wrongful death of driver that hit improperly parked truck), $12 million (wrongful death) and $5 million (liability and damages settlement)In 2018, he received the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles (CAALA's) Ted Horn Memorial Award presented to the lawyer who has provided outstanding service to the Association and the legal community.In 2018, he received the Orange County Trial Lawyers Association Top Gun/Trial Lawyer of the Year award in Products Liability.In 2018, he recovered verdicts of $12.25 million (wrongful death of man at swap meet) and $10 million (fatal vehicle versus motorcycle) and was named in the Top 100 Southern California Super Lawyers for the 7th year in a row.In 2017, he recovered settlements & verdicts of $14.5 million (insurance bad faith), $14.25 million (wrongful death of a motorcyclist) $4.5 million (auto vs. truck).In 2016, 2018 and 2019, he has been named one of the Top 30 Plaintiff's attorneys in the State by the Daily Journal.In 2016, he was awarded the Ventura County Trial Lawyers Association Trial Attorney of the Year award.In 2015, he recovered verdicts of $16.2 million (motorcycle rider suffered a head injury), $5.6 million (wrongful death of 83 year old), $60 million (wrongful death of mother in fire started by a defective space heater),  $14.2 million (dangerous condition wrongful death case for lack of warning signs against Caltrans) and $14 million (bad faith claim against Allstate Insurance Co.).  In 2010, he was named by the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles (CAALA) as its Trial Attorney of the Year. CAALA is the largest plaintiff attorney group in the country.In 2007, he was named one of the Top 20 Attorneys Under the Age of 40 in the State of California by the Los Angeles Daily Journal. Every year since 2004, he has received nominations for Trial Attorney of the Year by the Consumer Attorneys of California and/or CAALA.Since 2005, he has been designated a Super Lawyer by Los Angeles Magazine and Law & Politics.Since 2010, he has been recognized as one of the Top 100 Southern California Super Lawyers which is based on the lawyers who received the highest point totals in the Southern California nomination, research and blue ribbon review process.He has also successfully briefed and argued many appeals, including a recent California Supreme Court victory in Cortez v. Abich (2011) 51 Cal. 4th 285.Arash frequently lectures throughout the state on all matters related to trial practice and has published many articles. You can find copies of those articles or videos of his presentations at www.caala.org or www.caoc.org Areas of PracticeLitigationInsurance Bad FaithPersonal InjuryEmploymentBusiness Litigation Percentage100% of Practice Devoted to Litigation Bar AdmissionsCalifornia, 1993U.S. District Court Central District of California, 1993 EducationSouthwestern University School of Law, Los Angeles, CaliforniaUniversity of Southern California, Los Angeles, CaliforniaB.S., Bachelor of Science – June, 1989Major: Economics/Finance

The Supreme Court today granted interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the Delhi Excise Policy case till the end of the ongoing Lok Sabha elections. In Episode 1448 of Cut The Clutter, Editor-in-Chief Shekhar Gupta along with editors Bhadra Sinha and Ananya Bhardwaj, discuss SC's bail order & its conditions, why it is 'unprecedented' and the complexities and legalities of the case.----more----Read Supreme Court order copy here: https://webapi.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2024/16350/16350_2024_2_50_53083_Judgement_10-May-2024.pdf

Nearly four months after 10/7, uncertainty, loss, and pain continue unabated in Israel and antisemitism is on the rise in North America and around the world. As the war continues and hostages are still held in Gaza, the ICJ is hearing a case against Israel for Genocide, and calls for ceasefire are increasing. How has this war reshaped our Jewish identity? What are the roles of law and politics in Israel, the US, and internationally? And what are the ways for American Jews and Israelis to move forward, both as separate communities and together as a people? These subjects and more are part of this talk by Dr. Masua Sagiv at KI on February 8. 2024. Dr. Dr. Sagiv is Scholar in Residence of the Shalom Hartman Institute based in the San Francisco Bay Area and the Koret Visiting Assistant Professor of Jewish and Israel Studies at the Helen Diller Institute, U.C. Berkeley. Masua's scholarly work focuses on the development of contemporary Judaism in Israel, as a culture, religion, nationality, and as part of Israel's identity as a Jewish and democratic state. Her research explores the role of law, state actors and civil society organizations in promoting social change across diverse issues: shared society, religion and gender, religion and state, and Jewish peoplehood. Special Guest: Dr. Masua Sagiv.

Hot

Former CJI Ranjan Gogoi, now a nominated MP, made a very interesting point during the debate on the Modi government's Delhi services law. He said the ‘basic structure doctrine' — which renders some portions of the Constitution beyond amendment, and is the grounds on which some critics have challenged the law — has a very debatable jurisprudential basis.  As a judge, however, Gogoi had cited the basic structure doctrine and its wisdom in more than one judgment. In episode 1286 of #CutTheClutter, Editor-in-Chief Shekhar Gupta discusses the doctrine with ThePrint's resident legal eagles — Legal/Courts Editor Bhadra Sinha and Assistant Editor Apoorva Mandhani. Tune in for an illuminating discussion on how the ‘basic structure doctrine' evolved and what it means.

Friday's "Connecticut Today" with host Paul Pacelli wrapped up the week looking at President Biden's visit to Connecticut regarding gun safety laws (0:24). Former Bridgeport State Rep. Chris Caruso stopped by with his weekly update (13:43), while Cory Doctorow, author of, "Red Team Blues: A Martin Hench Novel, chatted about his new book that has many real-world parallels (23:54). Image Credit: Getty Images

Randall Kennedy is a law professor at Harvard and author of many seminal books on race, law, history, culture, and politics. Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors: - Eight Sleep: https://www.eightsleep.com/lex to get special savings - Linode: https://linode.com/lex to get $100 free credit - InsideTracker: https://insidetracker.com/lex to get 20% off EPISODE LINKS: Randall's Website: https://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/randall-l-kennedy N*****: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word: https://amzn.to/3MbrXSC Say It Loud!: On Race, Law, History, and Culture: https://amzn.to/3MfQWUT For Discrimination: Race, Affirmative Action, and the Law: https://amzn.to/3BASZxZ Race, Crime, and the Law: https://amzn.to/3pVtVyU PODCAST INFO: Podcast website: https://lexfridman.com/podcast Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2lwqZIr Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8 RSS: https://lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/ YouTube Full Episodes: https://youtube.com/lexfridman YouTube Clips: https://youtube.com/lexclips SUPPORT & CONNECT: - Check out the sponsors above, it's the best way to support this podcast - Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/lexfridman - Twitter: https://twitter.com/lexfridman - Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lexfridman - LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lexfridman - Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lexfridman - Medium: https://medium.com/@lexfridman OUTLINE: Here's the timestamps for the episode. On some podcast players you should be able to click the timestamp to jump to that time. (00:00) - Introduction (06:11) - The N-word (41:55) - The three N-words (1:08:28) - Education (1:21:31) - Critical race theory (1:32:05) - Racism and policing (1:39:25) - Racial profiling (2:08:57) - Racism in US history (2:26:55) - Affirmative action (3:10:22) - Martin Luther King Jr.

Join us on this episode of The DeWitt Law Review, as we navigate the latest developments in alimony news, exploring the complexities of spousal support legislation and questioning whether the new law will face another veto. In addition, we dive into the ongoing dispute between Disney and Governor Ron DeSantis, analyzing the legal battles and political maneuverings shaping the entertainment industry.  And why was it a good idea to carry around a disposable camera in your glovebox? Listen in to find out. If you are in need of any questions being answered, feel free to send them to ask@dewittlaw.com!

“Valamiehistö myönsi itseään meedioksi nimittäneelle Judith Haimesille maaliskuussa 1986 lähes miljoona dollaria vahingonkorvauksia, kun hän oli väittänyt TT-kuvauksen Temple University Hospitalissa tuhonneen hänen psyykkiset kykynsä.” Tämä on yksi totuuspohjaisista vitseistä, joita käytettiin Yhdysvalloissa villitsemään moraalipaniikkia turhanpäiväisistä oikeusjutuista. Mutta kuinka turhanpäiväinen Judithin oikeusjuttu todellisuudessa oli? Kaiken takana oli jutusta kirjoitetuista otsikoista huolimatta hyvin tavallinen ison perheen äiti. Miten murhenäytelmää muistuttavasta tarinasta muodostui vitsi? * Jaksossa mainittuja kirjoja: Haltom & McCann: Distorting the Law – Politics, Media, and the Litigation crisis Katherine Fair Donnelly: Recovering from the Loss of a Child Allen Haimes: Judith Linkkejä: Adam Ruins Everything -videosarjan sketsi toisesta samankaltaisesta tapauksesta, "The Truth About The McDonald's Coffee Lawsuit" https://youtu.be/KNWh6Kw3ejQ

In a world awash in “fake news,” where public figures make unfounded assertions as a matter of course, a preeminent legal theorist ranges across the courtroom, the scientific laboratory, and the insights of philosophers to explore the nature of evidence and show how it is credibly established. In the age of fake news, trust and truth are hard to come by. Blatantly and shamelessly, public figures deceive us by abusing what sounds like evidence.  In The Proof: Uses of Evidence in Law, Politics, and Everything Else (Harvard University Press, 2022), preeminent legal theorist Frederick Schauer proposes correctives, drawing on centuries of inquiry into the nature of evidence. Evidence is the basis of how we know what we think we know, but evidence is no simple thing. Evidence that counts in, say, the policymaking context is different from evidence that stands up in court. Law, science, historical scholarship, public and private decisionmaking—all rely on different standards of evidence. Exploring diverse terrain including vaccine and food safety, election-fraud claims, the January 2021 events at the US Capitol, the reliability of experts and eyewitnesses, climate science, art authentication, and even astrology, The Proof develops fresh insights into the challenge of reaching the truth. Schauer combines perspectives from law, statistics, psychology, and the philosophy of science to evaluate how evidence should function in and out of court. He argues that evidence comes in degrees. Weak evidence is still some evidence. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but prolonged, fruitless efforts to substantiate a claim can go some distance in proving a negative. And evidence insufficient to lock someone up for a crime may be good enough to keep them out of jail. This book explains how to reason more effectively in everyday life, shows why people often reason poorly, and takes evidence as a pervasive problem, not just a matter of legal rules. Prof. Frederick Schauer is a David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia. He is also a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a corresponding fellow of the British Academy and a past recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship. Dr. Rine Vieth is a researcher studying how the UK Immigration and Asylum tribunals consider claims of belief, how claims of religious belief are evidenced, and the role of faith communities in asylum-seeker support. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In a world awash in “fake news,” where public figures make unfounded assertions as a matter of course, a preeminent legal theorist ranges across the courtroom, the scientific laboratory, and the insights of philosophers to explore the nature of evidence and show how it is credibly established. In the age of fake news, trust and truth are hard to come by. Blatantly and shamelessly, public figures deceive us by abusing what sounds like evidence.  In The Proof: Uses of Evidence in Law, Politics, and Everything Else (Harvard University Press, 2022), preeminent legal theorist Frederick Schauer proposes correctives, drawing on centuries of inquiry into the nature of evidence. Evidence is the basis of how we know what we think we know, but evidence is no simple thing. Evidence that counts in, say, the policymaking context is different from evidence that stands up in court. Law, science, historical scholarship, public and private decisionmaking—all rely on different standards of evidence. Exploring diverse terrain including vaccine and food safety, election-fraud claims, the January 2021 events at the US Capitol, the reliability of experts and eyewitnesses, climate science, art authentication, and even astrology, The Proof develops fresh insights into the challenge of reaching the truth. Schauer combines perspectives from law, statistics, psychology, and the philosophy of science to evaluate how evidence should function in and out of court. He argues that evidence comes in degrees. Weak evidence is still some evidence. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but prolonged, fruitless efforts to substantiate a claim can go some distance in proving a negative. And evidence insufficient to lock someone up for a crime may be good enough to keep them out of jail. This book explains how to reason more effectively in everyday life, shows why people often reason poorly, and takes evidence as a pervasive problem, not just a matter of legal rules. Prof. Frederick Schauer is a David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia. He is also a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a corresponding fellow of the British Academy and a past recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship. Dr. Rine Vieth is a researcher studying how the UK Immigration and Asylum tribunals consider claims of belief, how claims of religious belief are evidenced, and the role of faith communities in asylum-seeker support. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

In a world awash in “fake news,” where public figures make unfounded assertions as a matter of course, a preeminent legal theorist ranges across the courtroom, the scientific laboratory, and the insights of philosophers to explore the nature of evidence and show how it is credibly established. In the age of fake news, trust and truth are hard to come by. Blatantly and shamelessly, public figures deceive us by abusing what sounds like evidence.  In The Proof: Uses of Evidence in Law, Politics, and Everything Else (Harvard University Press, 2022), preeminent legal theorist Frederick Schauer proposes correctives, drawing on centuries of inquiry into the nature of evidence. Evidence is the basis of how we know what we think we know, but evidence is no simple thing. Evidence that counts in, say, the policymaking context is different from evidence that stands up in court. Law, science, historical scholarship, public and private decisionmaking—all rely on different standards of evidence. Exploring diverse terrain including vaccine and food safety, election-fraud claims, the January 2021 events at the US Capitol, the reliability of experts and eyewitnesses, climate science, art authentication, and even astrology, The Proof develops fresh insights into the challenge of reaching the truth. Schauer combines perspectives from law, statistics, psychology, and the philosophy of science to evaluate how evidence should function in and out of court. He argues that evidence comes in degrees. Weak evidence is still some evidence. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but prolonged, fruitless efforts to substantiate a claim can go some distance in proving a negative. And evidence insufficient to lock someone up for a crime may be good enough to keep them out of jail. This book explains how to reason more effectively in everyday life, shows why people often reason poorly, and takes evidence as a pervasive problem, not just a matter of legal rules. Prof. Frederick Schauer is a David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia. He is also a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a corresponding fellow of the British Academy and a past recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship. Dr. Rine Vieth is a researcher studying how the UK Immigration and Asylum tribunals consider claims of belief, how claims of religious belief are evidenced, and the role of faith communities in asylum-seeker support. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

In a world awash in “fake news,” where public figures make unfounded assertions as a matter of course, a preeminent legal theorist ranges across the courtroom, the scientific laboratory, and the insights of philosophers to explore the nature of evidence and show how it is credibly established. In the age of fake news, trust and truth are hard to come by. Blatantly and shamelessly, public figures deceive us by abusing what sounds like evidence.  In The Proof: Uses of Evidence in Law, Politics, and Everything Else (Harvard University Press, 2022), preeminent legal theorist Frederick Schauer proposes correctives, drawing on centuries of inquiry into the nature of evidence. Evidence is the basis of how we know what we think we know, but evidence is no simple thing. Evidence that counts in, say, the policymaking context is different from evidence that stands up in court. Law, science, historical scholarship, public and private decisionmaking—all rely on different standards of evidence. Exploring diverse terrain including vaccine and food safety, election-fraud claims, the January 2021 events at the US Capitol, the reliability of experts and eyewitnesses, climate science, art authentication, and even astrology, The Proof develops fresh insights into the challenge of reaching the truth. Schauer combines perspectives from law, statistics, psychology, and the philosophy of science to evaluate how evidence should function in and out of court. He argues that evidence comes in degrees. Weak evidence is still some evidence. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but prolonged, fruitless efforts to substantiate a claim can go some distance in proving a negative. And evidence insufficient to lock someone up for a crime may be good enough to keep them out of jail. This book explains how to reason more effectively in everyday life, shows why people often reason poorly, and takes evidence as a pervasive problem, not just a matter of legal rules. Prof. Frederick Schauer is a David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia. He is also a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a corresponding fellow of the British Academy and a past recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship. Dr. Rine Vieth is a researcher studying how the UK Immigration and Asylum tribunals consider claims of belief, how claims of religious belief are evidenced, and the role of faith communities in asylum-seeker support. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/communications

In a world awash in “fake news,” where public figures make unfounded assertions as a matter of course, a preeminent legal theorist ranges across the courtroom, the scientific laboratory, and the insights of philosophers to explore the nature of evidence and show how it is credibly established. In the age of fake news, trust and truth are hard to come by. Blatantly and shamelessly, public figures deceive us by abusing what sounds like evidence.  In The Proof: Uses of Evidence in Law, Politics, and Everything Else (Harvard University Press, 2022), preeminent legal theorist Frederick Schauer proposes correctives, drawing on centuries of inquiry into the nature of evidence. Evidence is the basis of how we know what we think we know, but evidence is no simple thing. Evidence that counts in, say, the policymaking context is different from evidence that stands up in court. Law, science, historical scholarship, public and private decisionmaking—all rely on different standards of evidence. Exploring diverse terrain including vaccine and food safety, election-fraud claims, the January 2021 events at the US Capitol, the reliability of experts and eyewitnesses, climate science, art authentication, and even astrology, The Proof develops fresh insights into the challenge of reaching the truth. Schauer combines perspectives from law, statistics, psychology, and the philosophy of science to evaluate how evidence should function in and out of court. He argues that evidence comes in degrees. Weak evidence is still some evidence. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but prolonged, fruitless efforts to substantiate a claim can go some distance in proving a negative. And evidence insufficient to lock someone up for a crime may be good enough to keep them out of jail. This book explains how to reason more effectively in everyday life, shows why people often reason poorly, and takes evidence as a pervasive problem, not just a matter of legal rules. Prof. Frederick Schauer is a David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia. He is also a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a corresponding fellow of the British Academy and a past recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship. Dr. Rine Vieth is a researcher studying how the UK Immigration and Asylum tribunals consider claims of belief, how claims of religious belief are evidenced, and the role of faith communities in asylum-seeker support. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

In a world awash in “fake news,” where public figures make unfounded assertions as a matter of course, a preeminent legal theorist ranges across the courtroom, the scientific laboratory, and the insights of philosophers to explore the nature of evidence and show how it is credibly established. In the age of fake news, trust and truth are hard to come by. Blatantly and shamelessly, public figures deceive us by abusing what sounds like evidence.  In The Proof: Uses of Evidence in Law, Politics, and Everything Else (Harvard University Press, 2022), preeminent legal theorist Frederick Schauer proposes correctives, drawing on centuries of inquiry into the nature of evidence. Evidence is the basis of how we know what we think we know, but evidence is no simple thing. Evidence that counts in, say, the policymaking context is different from evidence that stands up in court. Law, science, historical scholarship, public and private decisionmaking—all rely on different standards of evidence. Exploring diverse terrain including vaccine and food safety, election-fraud claims, the January 2021 events at the US Capitol, the reliability of experts and eyewitnesses, climate science, art authentication, and even astrology, The Proof develops fresh insights into the challenge of reaching the truth. Schauer combines perspectives from law, statistics, psychology, and the philosophy of science to evaluate how evidence should function in and out of court. He argues that evidence comes in degrees. Weak evidence is still some evidence. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but prolonged, fruitless efforts to substantiate a claim can go some distance in proving a negative. And evidence insufficient to lock someone up for a crime may be good enough to keep them out of jail. This book explains how to reason more effectively in everyday life, shows why people often reason poorly, and takes evidence as a pervasive problem, not just a matter of legal rules. Prof. Frederick Schauer is a David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia. He is also a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a corresponding fellow of the British Academy and a past recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship. Dr. Rine Vieth is a researcher studying how the UK Immigration and Asylum tribunals consider claims of belief, how claims of religious belief are evidenced, and the role of faith communities in asylum-seeker support. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In a world awash in “fake news,” where public figures make unfounded assertions as a matter of course, a preeminent legal theorist ranges across the courtroom, the scientific laboratory, and the insights of philosophers to explore the nature of evidence and show how it is credibly established. In the age of fake news, trust and truth are hard to come by. Blatantly and shamelessly, public figures deceive us by abusing what sounds like evidence.  In The Proof: Uses of Evidence in Law, Politics, and Everything Else (Harvard University Press, 2022), preeminent legal theorist Frederick Schauer proposes correctives, drawing on centuries of inquiry into the nature of evidence. Evidence is the basis of how we know what we think we know, but evidence is no simple thing. Evidence that counts in, say, the policymaking context is different from evidence that stands up in court. Law, science, historical scholarship, public and private decisionmaking—all rely on different standards of evidence. Exploring diverse terrain including vaccine and food safety, election-fraud claims, the January 2021 events at the US Capitol, the reliability of experts and eyewitnesses, climate science, art authentication, and even astrology, The Proof develops fresh insights into the challenge of reaching the truth. Schauer combines perspectives from law, statistics, psychology, and the philosophy of science to evaluate how evidence should function in and out of court. He argues that evidence comes in degrees. Weak evidence is still some evidence. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but prolonged, fruitless efforts to substantiate a claim can go some distance in proving a negative. And evidence insufficient to lock someone up for a crime may be good enough to keep them out of jail. This book explains how to reason more effectively in everyday life, shows why people often reason poorly, and takes evidence as a pervasive problem, not just a matter of legal rules. Prof. Frederick Schauer is a David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia. He is also a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a corresponding fellow of the British Academy and a past recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship. Dr. Rine Vieth is a researcher studying how the UK Immigration and Asylum tribunals consider claims of belief, how claims of religious belief are evidenced, and the role of faith communities in asylum-seeker support. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/journalism

In a world awash in “fake news,” where public figures make unfounded assertions as a matter of course, a preeminent legal theorist ranges across the courtroom, the scientific laboratory, and the insights of philosophers to explore the nature of evidence and show how it is credibly established. In the age of fake news, trust and truth are hard to come by. Blatantly and shamelessly, public figures deceive us by abusing what sounds like evidence.  In The Proof: Uses of Evidence in Law, Politics, and Everything Else (Harvard University Press, 2022), preeminent legal theorist Frederick Schauer proposes correctives, drawing on centuries of inquiry into the nature of evidence. Evidence is the basis of how we know what we think we know, but evidence is no simple thing. Evidence that counts in, say, the policymaking context is different from evidence that stands up in court. Law, science, historical scholarship, public and private decisionmaking—all rely on different standards of evidence. Exploring diverse terrain including vaccine and food safety, election-fraud claims, the January 2021 events at the US Capitol, the reliability of experts and eyewitnesses, climate science, art authentication, and even astrology, The Proof develops fresh insights into the challenge of reaching the truth. Schauer combines perspectives from law, statistics, psychology, and the philosophy of science to evaluate how evidence should function in and out of court. He argues that evidence comes in degrees. Weak evidence is still some evidence. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but prolonged, fruitless efforts to substantiate a claim can go some distance in proving a negative. And evidence insufficient to lock someone up for a crime may be good enough to keep them out of jail. This book explains how to reason more effectively in everyday life, shows why people often reason poorly, and takes evidence as a pervasive problem, not just a matter of legal rules. Prof. Frederick Schauer is a David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia. He is also a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a corresponding fellow of the British Academy and a past recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship. Dr. Rine Vieth is a researcher studying how the UK Immigration and Asylum tribunals consider claims of belief, how claims of religious belief are evidenced, and the role of faith communities in asylum-seeker support. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In a world awash in “fake news,” where public figures make unfounded assertions as a matter of course, a preeminent legal theorist ranges across the courtroom, the scientific laboratory, and the insights of philosophers to explore the nature of evidence and show how it is credibly established. In the age of fake news, trust and truth are hard to come by. Blatantly and shamelessly, public figures deceive us by abusing what sounds like evidence.  In The Proof: Uses of Evidence in Law, Politics, and Everything Else (Harvard University Press, 2022), preeminent legal theorist Frederick Schauer proposes correctives, drawing on centuries of inquiry into the nature of evidence. Evidence is the basis of how we know what we think we know, but evidence is no simple thing. Evidence that counts in, say, the policymaking context is different from evidence that stands up in court. Law, science, historical scholarship, public and private decisionmaking—all rely on different standards of evidence. Exploring diverse terrain including vaccine and food safety, election-fraud claims, the January 2021 events at the US Capitol, the reliability of experts and eyewitnesses, climate science, art authentication, and even astrology, The Proof develops fresh insights into the challenge of reaching the truth. Schauer combines perspectives from law, statistics, psychology, and the philosophy of science to evaluate how evidence should function in and out of court. He argues that evidence comes in degrees. Weak evidence is still some evidence. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but prolonged, fruitless efforts to substantiate a claim can go some distance in proving a negative. And evidence insufficient to lock someone up for a crime may be good enough to keep them out of jail. This book explains how to reason more effectively in everyday life, shows why people often reason poorly, and takes evidence as a pervasive problem, not just a matter of legal rules. Prof. Frederick Schauer is a David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia. He is also a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a corresponding fellow of the British Academy and a past recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship. Dr. Rine Vieth is a researcher studying how the UK Immigration and Asylum tribunals consider claims of belief, how claims of religious belief are evidenced, and the role of faith communities in asylum-seeker support. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day

This week we're replaying a classic episode where your hosts Steve Lowry and Yvonne Godfrey interview Christine Spagnoli of Greene Broillet & Wheeler LLP (https://www.gbw.law/).   Remember to rate and review GTP in iTunes: Click Here to Rate and Review   Episode Details: Santa Monica, California attorney Christine Spagnoli of Greene Broillet & Wheeler LLP shares how she advocated for injured church members and their grieving families after a Ford E350 15-passenger van overturned following a tire tread separation. In April 2004, four members of Fair Oaks Presbyterian Church traveled on Sacramento's I-5 in a van equipped with Goodyear Load Range E tires. Due to known tread separation problems, Goodyear conducted a voluntary replacement program on these tires, but Ford failed to notify its dealers. The tread on the church van's factory-mounted Goodyear tires separated, causing the van to flip four times, killing the driver William Brownell and front-seat passenger Tony Mauro and injuring passengers Marlene Shirley and Alexander Bessonov. Ford knew the E350 15-passenger van was susceptible to overturning, given professional driver tests that indicated oversteering and handling issues, but the company allowed the vehicle to go to market without modifying the design. In 2011, a Sacramento jury found Ford Motor Company negligent and returned a $73 million verdict, including $50 million in punitive damages against Ford in favor of the plaintiffs. View/Download Trial Documents   Guest Bio: Christine D. Spagnoli Christine D. Spagnoli is a partner of Greene, Broillet & Wheeler in Santa Monica, specializing in representing plaintiffs in product liability, personal injury and legal malpractice actions. She has obtained many multimillion-dollar verdicts, including the 1999 General Motors case in which a defective fuel tank was found responsible for the burn injuries of two adults and four children. The jury returned with a landmark $4.9 billion verdict. She was co-counsel in the largest personal injury verdict in California, which resulted in a $58 million verdict for a man severely burned by a defective O-ring. Chris is one of the state's most trusted legal leaders as a member of the Los Angeles Judicial Selection Advisory Committees (JSACs). In January 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom named Ms. Spagnoli to the influential committee that reviews judicial candidates under consideration for nomination and appointment and will provide important feedback before forwarding their names to the Governor for review. The awards and honors bestowed on Chris by these various organizations include the Consumer Attorneys of California's 2014 Robert E. Cartwright Award and its 2010 Marvin E. Lewis Award as well as the Consumer Attorneys of Los Angeles 2005 Ted Horn Memorial Award. These awards recognized Chris for her excellence in trial advocacy and her dedication to teaching trial advocacy to her colleagues as well as her selfless gift of her talents in service to the organizations and consumers. She was honored as one of Loyola Law School of Los Angeles' Champions of Justice in 2013. In May 2017, Consumer Watchdog, a non-profit consumer advocacy group, bestowed on Chris its Rage for Justice Lifetime Legal Achievement Award. On June 7, 2018, the Consumer Attorneys of Los Angeles inducted Chris into its Hall of Fame, honoring CAALA members with distinguished legal careers who have made significant contributions to the legal profession and society. In 2018 Chris was named as one of California's Top 30 Plaintiff attorneys by the Daily Journal, which also has ranked her as one of the Top 100 Most Influential Attorneys in California and one of the Top 50 Women Litigators since 2004. She has also been named a “Super Lawyer” in the Southern California Super Lawyers peer-nominated listings compiled and published by Law & Politics, and one of the Best Lawyers in America by Woodward/White, Inc., based on a survey of her peers. As a frequent lecturer and author, Chris has shared her expertise on various trial techniques including demonstrative evidence, direct and cross-examination methods, written discovery and demonstrating head trauma injury in children. Among the organizations she has addressed are CAALA, CAOC, AAJ, the American Bar Association, the Los Angeles County Bar Association, and Trial Lawyer associations in Colorado, Connecticut, Missouri, Washington, and the Western Trial Lawyers Association. Read Full Bio   Show Sponsors: Legal Technology Services - LegalTechService.com Digital Law Marketing - DigitalLawMarketing.com Harris Lowry Manton LLP - hlmlawfirm.com   Free Resources: Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 1 Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 2

A cynic might argue that a Venn diagram of good legal compliance, good politics, good strategy, and, morally good behavior has no space where all four elements intersect. This week's guests on Horns of a Dilemma argue that these virtues coincide in the protection of civilians from harm during war. Sahr Muhammedally and Dan Mahanty, both of the Center for Civilians in Conflict, are the authors of The Human Factor: The Enduring Relevance of Protecting Civilians in Future Wars, which appears in Vol 5/Iss 3 of the Texas National Security Review.  The authors join TNSR executive editor Doyle Hodges to discuss their article, the law and policy of civilian harm mitigation, and best practices that can help to protect civilians without sacrificing military effectiveness. This discussion is especially relevant the news is filled with stories and images of attacks against civilians by Russian forces in Ukraine.

On 15 August, the convicts in the Bilkis Bano's rape & murder case walked free, In Episode 1059 of Cut The Clutter, Shekhar Gupta looks at the 1992 Remission policy which led to this decision & the dark implications that follow the release of the 11 convicts.

For Educational Purposes and Inspirational Materials. The Artists, Authors, Creators and Producers own their music/songs and content. ☆☆Brother Michael Imhotep, Professor of History, The African History Network Creator, and Radio Host, brings insightful analysis into the history, law and politics of the past and in contemporary times. ☆☆Bible selections and recitations. Meditation. ☆☆

Dr Iacovos Kareklas, Visiting Fellow at the Changing Character of War Centre (CCW), presents a strongly argued thesis that there is a legal and moral right to unilateral humanitarian intervention which dates back to the Peloponnesian War. The presented paper adopts a fresh approach on unilateral humanitarian intervention, and purports to demonstrate that, in certain cases, not only is permissible, but also legally and morally imperative. This academic venture is predominantly based on authoritative state practice, which in the view of the author should constitute reliable international legal custom, as well as theoretical groundwork; namely the well-established notion that violation of human rights necessitates intervention for the restoration of moral order, and applicable theories of deterrence (and just retribution) rendering humanitarian military intervention unobjectionable on grounds of the possibility of imminent humanitarian catastrophes. Iacovos Kareklas got his B.A. and M.A. Degrees (Honours) in Law from Cambridge University, Magdalene College. He holds a Ph.D. in International Law from London University (London School of Economics and Political Science). He specialized in all fields of Public International Law and every aspect of the Cyprus problem. He conducted sustained and in depth research in the United Kingdom Foreign Office Archives with regard to the critical phases of the Cyprus Question. In the academic year 2003-2004 he was a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Department of Government, Harvard University. He did postdoctoral studies in International Relations Theory with special reference to the Use of Military Force under the worldwide distinguished political scientist, Professor Stanley Hoffmann. At Harvard, he also taught the course Classical Theories of International Relations. In the year 2004-2005, Dr. Kareklas was appointed Postdoctoral Fellow at Harvard's Center for Middle Eastern Studies. In 2006 and 2007 he was elected Fellow of the Faculty of Law in the University of Oxford, where he specialized in the Philosophy of Law. From 2013 to 2020 he was Associate Professor at the European University Cyprus, where he taught Public International Law, Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, and International Politics. He spent a year as researcher in the Institute of Commonwealth Studies (ICS) of London (2001-2002), the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (2003), the Oxford Centre for Criminology (2006), and has been a member of the Royal Institute of International Affairs. Iacovos is the author of numerous books and articles in the fields of his specialization. His latest book entitled Thucydides on International Law and Political Theory was published in New York by Rowman and Littlefield: Lexington Books, in 2020. As a Visiting Research Fellow at CCW, he is conducting further research on the Law of War with emphasis on military humanitarian intervention.

Erik J. Olson chatted with Angel L. Reyes, III, the Managing Partner at Reyes Browne Reilley Law Firm. They deal with cases that include business disputes, life-altering personal injury, defective products, dangerous prescription drugs and more. Angel Reyes was named to the Super Lawyers list for 2008 - 2019 by Law & Politics magazine, a supplement to Texas Monthly. This honor is bestowed upon the top 5% of all lawyers in Texas. —- Array Digital provides bold marketing that helps managing partners grow their law firms. arraylaw.com Follow us on Instagram: @array.digital Follow us on Twitter: @thisisarray Call us for a FREE digital marketing review: 757-333-3021 SUBSCRIBE to The Managing Partners Podcast for conversations with the nation's top attorneys.

Season 2 starts explosively! Lola OJ & Mandy are joined by a special guest, outspoken Falz aka Folarin Falana, they discuss a topic that gets constant airtime here, politics. Nothing is held back in this episode, they discuss the importance of the #EndSars movement, the up and coming elections, and why we should all have our PVCs. With the right balance of seriousness and banter, it's an episode you don't want to miss! Make sure you rate, share and leave a comment wherever you listen to the podcast telling us how much you enjoyed the episode!. Always use the hashtag LegalAvenuePodcast to let us know what you think of the episode, we love hearing from you... Follow Us on Social Media Instagram @legalavenuepodcast @mandyuzoagba @lolaoj Twitter @legalavenue_pod @mandyuzoagba @lola_oj --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/legal-avenue-podcast/message

Jeffrey Bachman's edited volume Cultural Genocide: Law, Politics, and Global Manifestations (Routledge, 2019) asks where the boundaries between genocide and other kinds of mass atrocity violence rest and what the stakes are in locating them here rather than there. Bachman, Senior Professorial Lecturer at the American University and a co-host of this podcast, has assembled a wide-ranging set of scholars to consider how and why the label 'cultural genocide' has been so contentious over the past decades. Bachman's own essay (co-written with Lauren Carasik) explains how and why the term was eliminated from early drafts of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. Other essays range from theoretical examinations to contemporary case studies to inquiries about redress and reconciliation. Many highlight little known conflicts or disputes. Collectively, they will challenge the reader to reconsider earlier understandings of genocide and its causes and consequences. Kelly McFall is Professor of History and Director of the Honors Program at Newman University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jeffrey Bachman's edited volume Cultural Genocide: Law, Politics, and Global Manifestations (Routledge, 2019) asks where the boundaries between genocide and other kinds of mass atrocity violence rest and what the stakes are in locating them here rather than there. Bachman, Senior Professorial Lecturer at the American University and a co-host of this podcast, has assembled a wide-ranging set of scholars to consider how and why the label 'cultural genocide' has been so contentious over the past decades. Bachman's own essay (co-written with Lauren Carasik) explains how and why the term was eliminated from early drafts of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. Other essays range from theoretical examinations to contemporary case studies to inquiries about redress and reconciliation. Many highlight little known conflicts or disputes. Collectively, they will challenge the reader to reconsider earlier understandings of genocide and its causes and consequences. Kelly McFall is Professor of History and Director of the Honors Program at Newman University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Jeffrey Bachman's edited volume Cultural Genocide: Law, Politics, and Global Manifestations (Routledge, 2019) asks where the boundaries between genocide and other kinds of mass atrocity violence rest and what the stakes are in locating them here rather than there. Bachman, Senior Professorial Lecturer at the American University and a co-host of this podcast, has assembled a wide-ranging set of scholars to consider how and why the label 'cultural genocide' has been so contentious over the past decades. Bachman's own essay (co-written with Lauren Carasik) explains how and why the term was eliminated from early drafts of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. Other essays range from theoretical examinations to contemporary case studies to inquiries about redress and reconciliation. Many highlight little known conflicts or disputes. Collectively, they will challenge the reader to reconsider earlier understandings of genocide and its causes and consequences. Kelly McFall is Professor of History and Director of the Honors Program at Newman University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Jeffrey Bachman's edited volume Cultural Genocide: Law, Politics, and Global Manifestations (Routledge, 2019) asks where the boundaries between genocide and other kinds of mass atrocity violence rest and what the stakes are in locating them here rather than there. Bachman, Senior Professorial Lecturer at the American University and a co-host of this podcast, has assembled a wide-ranging set of scholars to consider how and why the label 'cultural genocide' has been so contentious over the past decades. Bachman's own essay (co-written with Lauren Carasik) explains how and why the term was eliminated from early drafts of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. Other essays range from theoretical examinations to contemporary case studies to inquiries about redress and reconciliation. Many highlight little known conflicts or disputes. Collectively, they will challenge the reader to reconsider earlier understandings of genocide and its causes and consequences. Kelly McFall is Professor of History and Director of the Honors Program at Newman University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/genocide-studies

Jeffrey Bachman's edited volume Cultural Genocide: Law, Politics, and Global Manifestations (Routledge, 2019) asks where the boundaries between genocide and other kinds of mass atrocity violence rest and what the stakes are in locating them here rather than there. Bachman, Senior Professorial Lecturer at the American University and a co-host of this podcast, has assembled a wide-ranging set of scholars to consider how and why the label 'cultural genocide' has been so contentious over the past decades. Bachman's own essay (co-written with Lauren Carasik) explains how and why the term was eliminated from early drafts of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. Other essays range from theoretical examinations to contemporary case studies to inquiries about redress and reconciliation. Many highlight little known conflicts or disputes. Collectively, they will challenge the reader to reconsider earlier understandings of genocide and its causes and consequences. Kelly McFall is Professor of History and Director of the Honors Program at Newman University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

Jeffrey Bachman's edited volume Cultural Genocide: Law, Politics, and Global Manifestations (Routledge, 2019) asks where the boundaries between genocide and other kinds of mass atrocity violence rest and what the stakes are in locating them here rather than there. Bachman, Senior Professorial Lecturer at the American University and a co-host of this podcast, has assembled a wide-ranging set of scholars to consider how and why the label 'cultural genocide' has been so contentious over the past decades. Bachman's own essay (co-written with Lauren Carasik) explains how and why the term was eliminated from early drafts of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. Other essays range from theoretical examinations to contemporary case studies to inquiries about redress and reconciliation. Many highlight little known conflicts or disputes. Collectively, they will challenge the reader to reconsider earlier understandings of genocide and its causes and consequences. Kelly McFall is Professor of History and Director of the Honors Program at Newman University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

Jeffrey Bachman's edited volume Cultural Genocide: Law, Politics, and Global Manifestations (Routledge, 2019) asks where the boundaries between genocide and other kinds of mass atrocity violence rest and what the stakes are in locating them here rather than there. Bachman, Senior Professorial Lecturer at the American University and a co-host of this podcast, has assembled a wide-ranging set of scholars to consider how and why the label 'cultural genocide' has been so contentious over the past decades. Bachman's own essay (co-written with Lauren Carasik) explains how and why the term was eliminated from early drafts of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. Other essays range from theoretical examinations to contemporary case studies to inquiries about redress and reconciliation. Many highlight little known conflicts or disputes. Collectively, they will challenge the reader to reconsider earlier understandings of genocide and its causes and consequences. Kelly McFall is Professor of History and Director of the Honors Program at Newman University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Jeffrey Bachman's edited volume Cultural Genocide: Law, Politics, and Global Manifestations (Routledge, 2019) asks where the boundaries between genocide and other kinds of mass atrocity violence rest and what the stakes are in locating them here rather than there. Bachman, Senior Professorial Lecturer at the American University and a co-host of this podcast, has assembled a wide-ranging set of scholars to consider how and why the label 'cultural genocide' has been so contentious over the past decades. Bachman's own essay (co-written with Lauren Carasik) explains how and why the term was eliminated from early drafts of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. Other essays range from theoretical examinations to contemporary case studies to inquiries about redress and reconciliation. Many highlight little known conflicts or disputes. Collectively, they will challenge the reader to reconsider earlier understandings of genocide and its causes and consequences. Kelly McFall is Professor of History and Director of the Honors Program at Newman University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day

Justice Stephen Breyer heads into a new supreme court term soon, facing a docket of hot-button issues and pressure from progressives to retire. The court's senior liberal justice, Breyer joined Judy Woodruff to talk about his role and new book, "The Authority of the Court and the Peril of Politics." PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Justice Stephen Breyer heads into a new supreme court term soon, facing a docket of hot-button issues and pressure from progressives to retire. The court's senior liberal justice, Breyer joined Judy Woodruff to talk about his role and new book, "The Authority of the Court and the Peril of Politics." PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Mike tells Sarah how a tragic story became a national punchline and a decades-long moral panic. Digressions include a sympathetic psychic, a paternalistic principal and a manure mishap. Mike appears to be unaware of the difference between a cousin and a nephew. Support us:Hear bonus episodes on PatreonDonate on PaypalBuy stickers, magnets, T-shirts and moreWhere else to find us: Sarah's other show, You Are Good Mike's other show, Maintenance PhaseLinks!Distorting the Law: Politics, Media, and the Litigation Crisis Java Jive: Genealogy of a Juridical IconNewsweek's “Lawsuit Hell” storyRetro Report's “The Misunderstood McDonald's Hot Coffee LawsuitAdam Ruins Everything's “The Truth About the McDonald's Coffee Lawsuit”Swindled's “The Lawsuit”Susan Saladoff's "Hot Coffee" documentaryMcTorts: The Social and Legal Impact of McDonald's Role in Tort SuitsLegal Urban Legends Hold SwayRevisiting The United States Application Of Punitive Damages: Separating Myth From RealitySix Myths of Capping Pain and Suffering DamagesThe Monster In The Television: The Media's Contribution To The Consumer Litigation BoogeymanThe Beginning And The Possible End Of The Rise Of Modern American Tort LawDebunking Medical Malpractice Myths: Unraveling the False Premises Behind "Tort Reform"Blocking the Courthouse Door: How the Republican Party and Its Corporate Allies Are Taking Away Your Right to SueSupport the show (http://patreon.com/yourewrongabout)

On Thursday night, the US Attorney General Merrick Garland announced that the US Justice Department would launch a federal lawsuit against Texas over the extreme abortion law that the state introduced last week. Jonathan Freedland speaks to Moira Donegan about what all of this means for Roe v Wade. Help support our independent journalism at theguardian.com/politicspod

Ken makes a visit to Carla's home. They share lunch and conversation about democracy in jeopardy - President Biden's strong speech. The Memory Law brings Carla to a new, hard truth about segregation, equal rights, and wedding gowns. They reflect on Ken's podcast with Ken Fong and the effect of political and religious growth and change on marriage and friendship. The Surfside tragedy brings us to the Secretary Pete (Buttigiege) update and the need for infrastructure. Carla's daughter share lunch and the anticipation of a grandchild's arrival this coming December. Support the show (http://thebeachedwhitemale.com)

Full transcription available at http://heartsofgoldpodcast.com/ Aria created a documentary and educational campaign to educate regarding the dangers of vaping. More about Aria: My name is Aria Chalileh and I'm a high school senior from New Jersey! I have been involved with Girl Scouts since the 2nd grade, and I have received both my Bronze & Silver Awards before achieving my Gold Award. Outside of Girl Scouts, I am co-captain of my high school's debate team, community outreach leader for my robotics team, a member of various vaping prevention & awareness campaigns, and more! I will be attending college next year, and I look forward to majoring in Political Science on the Pre-Law track; I may also double major with Computer Science. My future career goals involve Law & Politics, whether that be running for public office or working as an attorney! Project Instagram Page: @ditchthevape Vaping Prevention Campaign Materials & Links Pascack Press: https://issuu.com/thepressgroup/docs/pascackpress_3.1.21 Please see page 20 for article. Pascack Press: https://thepressgroup.net/join-ph-senior-for-ditch-the-vape-on-zoom-march-2/ Pascack Press: https://thepressgroup.net/golden-girl-versus-vaping/ Montvale in Motion Television Program https://montvaletv.viebit.com/player.php?hash=bLoiAt3tTjGa Incorruptible: Vaping Documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIYoBvi3h5A The Anatomy of the Vaping Epidemic Articlehttps://hillsvalleycoalition.org/post/753/   Join our Facebook Community https://www.facebook.com/sherylmrobinson/ Instagram https://www.instagram.com/sherylmrobinson/?hl=en Please subscribe to Hearts of Gold on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/sherylmrobinsonor on your favorite podcast app. Support future Hearts of Gold episodes at https://www.patreon.com/heartsofgold Editing by https://www.offthewalter.com/ Walter's YouTube channel is https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCt0wFZRVaOpUd_nXc_8-4yQ

On this episode of We Chat Divorce we welcomed Grace C. Roessler, Esq. Grace is an associate at Mirick O'Connell's Family Law and Divorce Group in Boston. She concentrates her practice in the areas of divorce and family litigation, including pursuing and defending the following actions: divorce, custody, child support, modification, contempt, request to permanently remove children out of the Commonwealth, paternity, restraining orders, department of children and family investigations, and elder divorce. In short, Grace is a busy person. She has experience serving as a third-party neutral including court-appointed discovery master and is a certified mediator. While she aims to settle cases amicably and efficiently, including attending voluntary mediation or conciliation, Grace is prepared to litigate the matter in the best interest of the client. She regularly appears before probate and family court judges, promotions, and trials to litigate on behalf of her clients. She volunteers for the Middlesex Probate and Family Court lawyer for the day program, is an active member and contributor to the Boston Bar Association, and serves as co-chair of the Boston Bar Association Family Newsletter. Grace was selected by her peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America: Ones to Watch© 2021 and The Best Lawyers in New England: Ones to Watch© 2021 in the field of Family Law.  In 2019 and 2020, Boston Magazine and Law & Politics named Grace a Massachusetts “Rising Star.” Prior to joining Mirick O’Connell, Grace was an associate at the firm of Brick, Sugarman, Jones & McBrien, LLP. Here are her Bar & Court Admissions: Massachusetts Wisconsin Certified Mediator Hosts, Karen, and Catherine sit down with Grace Roessler to discuss how to navigate life insurance during divorce. Learn More >> https://www.mirickoconnell.com/grace-c-roessler Connect with Grace on LinkedIn >> @Grace Roessler   ----more---- The We Chat Divorce podcast (hereinafter referred to as the “WCD”) represents the opinions of Catherine Shanahan, Karen Chellew, and their guests to the show. WCD should not be considered professional or legal advice. The content here is for informational purposes only. Views and opinions expressed on WCD are our own and do not represent that of our places of work. WCD should not be used in any legal capacity whatsoever.  Listeners should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter. No listener should act or refrain from acting on the basis of information on WCD without first seeking legal advice from counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. No guarantee is given regarding the accuracy of any statements or opinions made on WCD. Unless specifically stated otherwise, Catherine Shanahan and Karen Chellew do not endorse, approve, recommend, or certify any information, product, process, service, or organization presented or mentioned on WCD, and information from this podcast should not be referenced in any way to imply such approval or endorsement. The third-party materials or content of any third-party site referenced on WCD do not necessarily reflect the opinions, standards or policies of Catherine Shanahan or Karen Chellew. WCD, CATHERINE SHANAHAN, AND KAREN CHELLEW EXPRESSLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR OTHER DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF ANY INDIVIDUAL'S USE OF, REFERENCE TO, RELIANCE ON, OR INABILITY TO USE, THIS PODCAST OR THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THIS PODCAST ----more---- Karen: Welcome to We Chat Divorce. [Catherine] and I are honored to welcome attorney Grace Roessler to our podcast. Hello, Grace. Grace Roessler: Hello. Karen: In this episode, we're going to discuss the different roles life insurance plays in a divorce. But first, let me take just a couple of minutes to introduce Grace. Grace is an associate at Mirick O'Connell's Family Law and Divorce Group in Boston. She concentrates her practice in the areas of divorce and family litigation, including pursuing and defending the following actions: divorce, custody, child support, modification, contempt, request to permanently remove children out of the Commonwealth, paternity, restraining orders, department of children and family investigations, and elder divorce. Grace is a busy person. She has experience serving as a third-party neutral including court-appointed discovery master and is a certified mediator. While she aims to settle cases amicably and efficiently, including attending voluntary mediation or conciliation, Grace is prepared to litigate the matter in the best interest of the client. Karen: Grace regularly appears before probate and family court judges, promotions, and trials to litigate on behalf of her clients. She volunteers for the Middlesex probate and family court lawyer for the day program, is an active member and contributor to the Boston Bar Association, and serves as co-chair of the Boston Bar Association Family Newsletter. Look for more of Grace's credentials and the bio attached to this podcast. It's quite impressive. Welcome, Grace. Grace Roessler: Thank you very much. Thank you for having me. Catherine: Holy cow. That's awesome. Well, life insurance and divorce. That's a topic rarely discussed, and I'm really excited to have you on today and talk to us about it. So let's start by discussing life insurance and why it's so important not to overlook it in divorce. And then let's end our conversation today and talk about what are some options available if life insurance is not accessible to people if they're in divorce, if they can't qualify for it. Grace Roessler: Absolutely. Absolutely. So the life insurance with respect to divorce, a lot of the time, it is essentially there or ordered to be in effect in order to make sure that a surviving spouse and any children are financially taken care of in the event that the family member who is currently paying child support or an alimony award predeceases the end of their obligation. And so that's probably one of the main reasons why life insurance becomes part of your separation agreement in a divorce. Catherine: Yeah. So a lot of people have whole life policies or they have term policies, and they don't understand the difference between the two. Grace Roessler: Right. And so the whole life policy carries with it... Obviously there is some kind of a cash benefit if the individual that's holding the policy were to die, but the whole life policy also carries with it a cash value that's associated with it. And that's something that we always ask people to put on their financial statements as well because it is actually a marital asset. The term policies do not, and the term policies end at certain periods of time. And so when you have a term policy, you might have to renew it as part of your divorce agreement or it's something to consider when you are crafting life insurance provisions, to make sure that if you know that a term policy is ending in say the next year or two, that part of the language that you have in your separation agreement is to ensure that that coverage continues or that it's renewed for another period of time. Karen: So I believe we come across a lot of agreements that say they're supposed to produce the policy to make sure it's in full force and effect. I doubt a lot of people do that, but are there other provisions or language that could be an agreement that would help to keep that policy in full force and effect without having to track down those statements? Grace Roessler: Yeah. I think there are a few ways that I usually deal with that in my separation agreements. The first is actually, yes, you can certainly put the person that's holding the policy in charge of pursuing or making sure that you're providing that information to the other parent at least once a year. Grace Roessler: But another good way to check in on that is actually to make sure that the other person contacts the provider every year or every quarter and makes sure that it is in effect. It's ironic that if you're the person that has the policy in your benefit, yes, once a year, you're supposed to go give it to the other side, but there's a good chance that the other side should be the person coming after you to make sure. I think it's really important for people to follow up on those provisions in their separation agreements. And I agree with you that doesn't always happen. And what you don't want to happen is for that life insurance policy to not be in existence when it should have been or in the event that someone untimely passes. Catherine: So let me clarify what you're saying. So if I'm receiving support from my ex-spouse and I'm the beneficiary on his life insurance policy, you're saying that it's my responsibility or I should take ownership in going to, let's say MetLife to get the proof that I'm still the beneficiary. So will MetLife really give me that proof just as the beneficiary or do I have to be listed as the owner on that policy, or do I have to bring my divorce decree stating that I'm entitled to get that information? Grace Roessler: Right. So I guess two answers to that. You certainly can be the listed owner of the policy and make sure that your ex-spouse is the one paying for the policy. That is one way to ensure that a policy will exist. In terms of getting that proof, generally speaking, no, MetLife would not necessarily give you the proof of the policy. But in that situation. And in my case, what I normally do is notify the carrier of the person that has the policy, give them some kind of letter that says, "As you know, per our separation agreement, you are supposed to carry this life insurance policy. Please give me a most recent copy of the policy existence and the beneficiary determination page so that I can confirm and keep it in my records." And if that person doesn't respond to you within a week or two, I always recommend to clients that we need to file a complaint for contempt because you don't want that policy to lapse. Grace Roessler: If it has lapsed, the other person might have to go back to the drawing board to obtain an entirely new policy, which does take a while, especially in COVID where the physicals that are associated with that life insurance policy are hard to schedule. There's just a backlog of people, since they weren't doing in-home visits for a period of months. So I always say you should file the contempt. You can always withdraw it once you are in receipt of proof of that insurance policy and the correct beneficiary designation, but it is totally worth it to make sure that you have that on the books, to make sure that it's there. Catherine: Can you put language in the agreements to read that if a policy lapsed that I would have the right to sue his estate? Grace Roessler: Yes, absolutely. And in those situations, it would be what we call a complaint in equity against the estate because technically, if the other person is deceased, you're not going to file that complaint under your divorce agreement docket number. It would get a new docket number with the probate and family court and you would be suing the estate. And as part of that... And I always put that language in there, that if you fail to have that life insurance policy at the time that you die, and if it was supposed to be intact, that your ex-spouse could come after your estate. Grace Roessler: The interesting part about that is sometimes there is an estate to be had, and that's when the parties will fight or their estate will fight with you about what is left and what you should have received. In some cases, there won't be much of an estate left, and that's where people are really left with not much. And again, that's why it's so important to make sure that that life insurance policy is intact, to do the check-in once a year because you could be very left with a situation where the estate is maybe only a vehicle and a few thousand dollars in cash, depending upon how the person lived their life. So you just never know what's going to be left over. Karen: So are there times when it's just better to pay that policy yourself or have that... It seems like that would just cut to the chase. And I know financial wherewithal would factor into that, but- Grace Roessler: Yeah. I think that sometimes it is better, especially if you've been married to them, you know what their habits are, if they're not really reliable, or if they haven't necessarily spent money wisely during the course of your marriage. You can bet that that person's probably going to continue those same bad habits. And so I agree. I think in some instances, if you have the financial capability to take the life insurance policy out on the person, you should. I think that there should still be some consideration for having to do that. Grace Roessler: So one way that I have done it in the past is we can calculate how much the premiums are on that policy every year for duration of the life insurance term or how long the policy is supposed to be in place and we can cut that out of the other person's share of the assets. So essentially, they have prepaid you for the premium cost for the entire amount of time that the policy is supposed to be in place, and that person has prepaid you from his or her assets that are being divided at the divorce. So it's a very clean break. Catherine: Yeah. So the best way to control the policy is to become the owner because the owner is the one who gets all the notifications and can change anything on the policy. The insured is just the insured. The owner is the one who has the control over it. So I always recommend you being the owner of the policy, but you also can buy paid-up policies. It's just we always hear a lot of attorneys say, "You can't make them get a policy if they don't already have a policy in place." So I like hearing this version of it, except that there's support for... Even with equitable distribution, sometimes it takes a while to get your assets divided. I mean, I don't see a lot of policies being put in place if they're not in place, Karen, do you know? Karen: No. As a matter of fact, when we ask about that, we usually get shut down. To your point, you can't force them to purchase a policy. You have to use the coverage already in existence. Grace Roessler: I think to some extent, it's true that if you are doing an agreement and it is agreed upon by the parties, I don't think that you can force people to do that. I think a judge has the authority to issue that kind of an order. And if you continue to bring this up at a pretrial conference or at a trial, I think that the judge certainly has the ability, and in my experience, has ordered individuals to either obtain life insurance and/or obtain additional life insurance to supplement whatever their employer-sponsored policy is or a temporary policy is, especially if we know that temporaries might expire in a year or two or three after a divorce. Grace Roessler: All of that information certainly would be presented to the judge at a trial for the judge to be able to order that because it is a form of security and the courts are certainly going to care about that security, especially if you have young children. If you have a five-year-old or a six-year-old or a seven-year-old, you've got 20-some years 19 years worth of support that you would be paying. And if you die three years or four years after that judgment, that is a whole lot of money that the surviving parent is short that you would have paid. You would have paid that as part of the child support order. Most of that money probably could have also gone to college. And so I think the judges are very... especially in light of COVID where we just don't know what's going to happen to people's health if they do get sick, I think the courts are very aware of the need for the security blanket, if you will, for the life insurance. Catherine: A lot of times, it should be pointed out, in insurance policies, if you don't change the beneficiary, they're irrevocable. So even though your divorce order might state that you're the beneficiary, if your actual policy states that somebody else is the beneficiary, what are the chances of it reverting back to you? Grace Roessler: I'll tell you that the answer is a court has to order it. And so I've been on all three sides of that equation. I have represented the insurance company, and I have to tell you, they are neutral in that. Most of the time, the insurance companies are able to get out of a case by simply being able to agree that whatever the court decides, we will implement, because the insurance company does not want to be involved in this battle. On its surface, though, they will do exactly what that beneficiary designation says. So unless it's altered by the court, you're right. They're going to just stick to their guns and say, "This is what it said." It really does. It takes a court to be able to alter that determination. Grace Roessler: And I've been successful in doing that by proving that someone had this obligation to their first spouse. They clearly willfully did not put their first spouse on as the designee. The second spouse received all 500-some million-some. And to show why that was inappropriate, and to show that there might be still minor children here, or the person had an alimony obligation that was still not fulfilled. Grace Roessler: And that is a contract. And so under contract law, that individual breached their own contract. And therefore, as a result, the court is able to come in and swipe that money for whatever was due for that ex-spouse at the time of death. But it takes an equity action. It takes a court action to do that, which can be expensive, which is another reason why in terms of avoiding these kinds of issues, that's why either, as you said, owning the policy yourself to make sure that it's intact, or regularly checking in with your ex-spouse every year to make sure it's intact because on the backend, it's a lot of work to try to get the money back once it's been either distributed or once the person dies. Karen: Yeah. Can you imagine being a spouse and not knowing that that other obligation existed? That would be insane. Grace Roessler: When people come to me for let's say a modification... maybe it's a child support modification; maybe it's a contempt... one of the first things I actually look at in their agreement is whether or not there's a life insurance obligation. I just did it yesterday. And I say before I take the client, before I file anything with this new action, I look at that and I ask them, "I see you have a life insurance policy you're obligated to have. Do you still have it? Let me see it. I want to see it." Because every time that you reentered the court system, you're going to be looked at again for everything that you're doing under this contract. And that life insurance policy, that's going to be raised no matter what you file. It will be raised. And it's very important to still have it in place. Karen: Yeah. Incredible. Catherine: I'm so glad that you're so upfront with everyone or with your client, and you set it out there. You set out there for them so there's no running around. There's no trying to get around it. It just sets out the intention so that if they want to try to get around it, they're the ones that are hurting themselves. Grace Roessler: That's right. Catherine: You have an obligation. I always say if people would just know you're getting married, if you get divorced, this is what it is, just bite the bullet and move on. Grace Roessler: Right. Yeah. And I think to that extent, the life insurance provisions, it's usually later in the separation agreement. It's exhibit E, it's D, it's F. It's somewhere in the back. And it really should be A. It should be right there in the front because it is your protection. It is the backup plan. And so much of what we do is what is the consequence of X, Y, Z? And the consequence of not having this life insurance policy in place is really disastrous for a child, for the ex-spouse. That's still left holding the bag, trying to either help themselves or raise a child. It's just the impact is so great that it really should be top-of-mind for anybody who is either thinking about going back into litigation, or as I said, on a yearly basis, doing that check-in to make sure it exists because you're going to need it. It's expensive to live, and there's a reason that you negotiated for it in the first place. Catherine: It's changed the dialogue, changed this from an emotional conversation to a factual one. And then is, "Why did we acquire this life insurance?" Even when we compile people's portraits and we bring up the life insurance, "Well, we're not keeping that because if anything happens to me, my ex's boyfriend or girlfriend is not getting that money. Or if anything happens to me, my kids are getting enough money that they don't need this money." And it's even when people are married and why they don't buy life insurance. "If anything happens to me, my kids will have enough insurance." But what they're not doing is really doing the number-crunching and realizing that they're buying pennies on the dollars when they're buying life insurance. And they're not [crosstalk] the real cost for what your estate's really going to be worth and why you have in place. And that's the conversation that needs to be had. Grace Roessler: Right. If I could just share, I had a case a couple of years back where I had represented a woman in her paternity suit, and then I represented her in a contempt. She had asked her ex for proof of the life insurance policy. And a few weeks went by. He hadn't responded. And so I told her, "We need to file a contempt just to make sure." At the time, they had a little daughter who was three and he was supposed to carry a $300,000 life insurance policy. We ended up taking him to court. He was found in contempt. The judge gave him 30 days to get a new life insurance policy because he had, in fact, allowed the other one to lapse. And we came back to court. He had the life insurance policy, 300,000. Everything was fine. Grace Roessler: A few months later, he died. He died of cancer. It was very quick. He was young. He was a professional. You never would have known, but it happened. And if it hadn't been for filing that initial contempt and following through and spending the $2,000 in legal fees to make sure that it existed, she would never have had the $300,000 that she received from the life insurance policy, which I can tell you has now grown to almost $500,000 in the last seven years, 10 years since we've had this action, and her little girl is going to be able to go to college with that money. And that's something you don't always think about at the time, but that's really what this is about, is planning ahead into the future so that you're not the only one that's financial responsible and that your ex-spouse in his or her own way continues to support your child or you depending upon what you negotiated. Catherine: Yeah. That's life-changing. Karen: Absolutely. So what about if a person's not insurable? Grace Roessler: There have been cases where people aren't insurable. If you've had certain types of cancer, some mental health diagnoses. The insurance companies shy away from depression, history of depression, that kind of thing. I think in years to come, there won't be as much of an issue with that. But for now, there is. And so one of the other things that we can bargain for is to be beneficiary of existing assets. So if you have a retirement account, that you still remain the beneficiary of the retirement account. If you have a home, you could put the home in trust and be the beneficiary of the trust on the home. Those are things that exist already. You don't have to pay for them per se, but it's an additional safety net, and sometimes it's easier for people to do that. And there's no premium associated with that particularly, so it's also a cheaper option for people that if you use your existing assets, you can figure out what's there and be able to save those for the ex-spouse. Catherine: That's a great idea. And also, if you're listening and you have current term renewable and convertible policies, we see them when they come in with our portrait, we look at the dates, and some of them are convertible to whole life policies without proving insurability. So even though you're going through a divorce, you might want to call your insurance agent and have that converted now to a permanent policy. Grace Roessler: That's a great idea. I just got the envelope for one of my own, actually. Yeah. But yeah, it happens, and it's a good thing. [crosstalk] good record with your current insurer, they'll do that for you. So you can always ask too. Divorce is hard to talk about sometimes, but it's better for more professional people in your life to know what you're going through so that if you have that conversation with your insurance broker, they also still might be able to help you. I think that it's time to get creative with your solutions, and that's one thing that I like to pride myself on is just trying to be creative with what we can do for someone. Catherine: Absolutely. Three minds are always better than one. Grace Roessler: Absolutely. Karen: So do you have any other final tips for people as it relates to life insurance before we conclude? Grace Roessler: Like I said, my only other tip is if it seems like you're not getting a response from your ex-spouse, that's usually not a good sign and you should not be afraid to take quick action to go to court to fix it, because generally, people do cure the issue before you have a hearing, and that's the entire point of filing anything. It's not to get even. It's not to spend a ton of money. It's to fix a problem and to make sure that everyone is doing what they're supposed to do. And so I guess my final tip is don't ever be afraid to make that first step of filing something about life insurance because if you're looking at trying to save a $300,000 policy or a $500,000 policy, in the long run, if you file a contempt and you spend a grand or two on that issue, it is still completely worth it to make sure that that policy exists. Karen: Yeah. I agree. Yeah. So all of you out there who've been divorced and you're still receiving some type of payments or whatever from your spouse, check your agreement. If there's life insurance obligations, make sure you have yourself protected. That's incredibly valuable. Well, Grace, thank you so much for being with us today. This concludes this episode on the many roles life insurance plays in the divorce process. Thank you for a great conversation. Grace Roessler: You're very welcome. Thank you very much for inviting me on. And I hope that everyone learned a little something this afternoon. Catherine: Thank you, Grace. Karen: [crosstalk] did. Grace Roessler: Thank you.

In this episode, hosted by Kelley Humber, we hear from the recently elected Green Party Leader, Annamie Paul, who discusses her journey from law school to federal politics. A proud University of Ottawa Faculty of Law alumna, Annamie Paul answers questions about being a change-maker in Canada and abroad, the value and challenges of increasing diversity in politics, and the need for incorporating climate justice into how we work towards social justice. Note: This interview was recorded on February 12, 2021. As such, references to recent events refer to those in early February.

Meet Meredith Taylor, a 25-year-old second-year law student at Samford University. She shares how having time off between undergrad and law school helped her to realize her larger goals and solidify that law school would help her achieve them. Meredith also interned at the Capitol one summer and shares how her law school responded to the horrific events that took place and her personal view as someone who once worked there.

This week, your hosts Steve Lowry and Yvonne Godfrey interview Christine Spagnoli of Greene Broillet & Wheeler LLP (https://www.gbw.law/).   Remember to rate and review GTP in iTunes: Click Here To Rate and Review   Episode Details: Santa Monica, California attorney Christine Spagnoli of Greene Broillet & Wheeler LLP shares how she advocated for injured church members and their grieving families after a Ford E350 15-passenger van overturned following a tire tread separation. In April 2004, four members of Fair Oaks Presbyterian Church traveled on Sacramento's I-5 in a van equipped with Goodyear Load Range E tires. Due to known tread separation problems, Goodyear conducted a voluntary replacement program on these tires, but Ford failed to notify its dealers. The tread on the church van's factory-mounted Goodyear tires separated, causing the van to flip four times, killing the driver William Brownell and front-seat passenger Tony Mauro and injuring passengers Marlene Shirley and Alexander Bessonov. Ford knew the E350 15-passenger van was susceptible to overturning, given professional driver tests that indicated oversteering and handling issues, but the company allowed the vehicle to go to market without modifying the design. In 2011, a Sacramento jury found Ford Motor Company negligent and returned a $73 million verdict, including $50 million in punitive damages against Ford in favor of the plaintiffs. Click Here to Read/Download the Complete Trial Documents   Guest Bios: Christine D. Spagnoli: Christine D. Spagnoli is a partner of Greene, Broillet & Wheeler in Santa Monica, specializing in representing plaintiffs in product liability, personal injury and legal malpractice actions. She has obtained many multimillion-dollar verdicts, including the 1999 General Motors case in which a defective fuel tank was found responsible for the burn injuries of two adults and four children. The jury returned with a landmark $4.9 billion verdict. She was co-counsel in the largest personal injury verdict in California, which resulted in a $58 million verdict for a man severely burned by a defective O-ring. She has also spear-headed litigation to protect consumers from injuries and deaths involving 15 passenger vans including:   A March 2018 jury verdict of $25.9 million awarded to the family of a church volunteer in New Port Richey, Florida who died in a rollover of a Ford 15 passenger van after the left rear tire tread separated. (Named by National Law Journal as one of the Top 100 Verdicts of 2018) A November 2011 jury verdict of $73 million (including $50 million in punitive damages) awarded to the family of a church volunteer in Sacramento who died in a rollover crash of a Ford 15 passenger van following a tire tread separation. In that case, the jury found that the van's defective design led to the loss of control and that Ford knew about the dangers of tread separations but failed to warn consumers to remove recalled tires that were prone to separation. A July 2010 jury verdict of $5 million for a man injured when the roof of his Ford 15 passenger van crushed in a rollover causing permanent spinal cord injuries. Her achievements cover the full range of personal injury and product liability cases. Recently, Chris served as the Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel in the Federal Express Vehicle Collision Cases resulting from the May 2015 crash involving a FedEx tractor-trailer that crossed a median in Orland, California colliding with a charter bus full of high school students, killing 10 and injuring dozens. The cases settled in October of 2017 on the eve of trial after Chris and her team successfully fought efforts by FedEx to exclude the driver's cell phone records from the trial. She has also served as the Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel in coordinated cases involving defective Cooper Tires as well as on the California Plaintiffs' Steering Committee for cases involving defective Firestone tires on Ford Explorers. Chris earned widespread recognition for her work as co-lead trial counsel in the 2001 negligence case against Southern California Edison, which resulted in a $21 million verdict for an electrocuted avocado picker. Among her other noteworthy cases are Brezovec v. State of California – $8.8 million, a brain/motor vehicle injury case, Ogden v. Hamm Brothers Construction – $6.4 million, a personal injury matter, and McGee v. The City of Alameda – $25 million, an electrocuted construction worker. In 2017 Chris was honored by the American Association of Justice with its prestigious Harry M. Philo Award which recognizes an individual who has made an outstanding contribution to the civil justice system and whose work has advanced the safety and protection of American consumers. In 2012, the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles recognized Chris as its Trial Lawyer of the Year, the first time in the history of the organization that a woman trial attorney received that honor. In 2001 she was named Most Outstanding Young Trial Lawyer, the F. Scott Baldwin Award, by the American Association for Justice (AAJ), New Lawyers Division. She also received Loyola Law School's 2001 Trial Lawyer of the Year Award. She has also been nominated as a finalist for the Consumer Attorneys of Los Angeles Trial Lawyer of the Year and the Consumer Attorneys of California Trial Lawyer of the Year on multiple occasions. Within professional organizations, Chris has assumed numerous leadership positions and received many honors for her service. She served as the President of the Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC) in 2009 and was the 2002 president of the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles (CAALA). In 2011 – 2013 she served as the President of the Attorneys Information Exchange Group, a national organization of attorneys specializing in automotive product liability cases. She is a member of the Board of the American Association for Justice, the International Academy of Trial Lawyers and is also a member of the International Society of Barristers and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA) where she holds the rank of Associate. In 1998, she was appointed by the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court to the Civil Jury Instructions Committee (CACI), where she still serves. Chris also serves as a member of the Board of Overseers for the Rand Institute for Civil Justice as well as the Board of Overseers of her alma mater, Loyola Law School of Los Angeles. Chris is one of the state's most trusted legal leaders as a member of the Los Angeles Judicial Selection Advisory Committees (JSACs). In January 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom named Ms. Spagnoli to the influential committee that reviews judicial candidates under consideration for nomination and appointment and will provide important feedback before forwarding their names to the Governor for review. The awards and honors bestowed on Chris by these various organizations include the Consumer Attorneys of California's 2014 Robert E. Cartwright Award and its 2010 Marvin E. Lewis Award as well as the Consumer Attorneys of Los Angeles 2005 Ted Horn Memorial Award. These awards recognized Chris for her excellence in trial advocacy and her dedication to teaching trial advocacy to her colleagues as well as her selfless gift of her talents in service to the organizations and consumers. She was honored as one of Loyola Law School of Los Angeles' Champions of Justice in 2013. In May 2017, Consumer Watchdog, a non-profit consumer advocacy group, bestowed on Chris its Rage for Justice Lifetime Legal Achievement Award. On June 7, 2018, the Consumer Attorneys of Los Angeles inducted Chris into its Hall of Fame, honoring CAALA members with distinguished legal careers who have made significant contributions to the legal profession and society. In 2018 Chris was named as one of California's Top 30 Plaintiff attorneys by the Daily Journal, which also has ranked her as one of the Top 100 Most Influential Attorneys in California and one of the Top 50 Women Litigators since 2004. She has also been named a “Super Lawyer” in the Southern California Super Lawyers peer-nominated listings compiled and published by Law & Politics, and one of the Best Lawyers in America by Woodward/White, Inc., based on a survey of her peers. As a frequent lecturer and author, Chris has shared her expertise on various trial techniques including demonstrative evidence, direct and cross-examination methods, written discovery and demonstrating head trauma injury in children. Among the organizations she has addressed are CAALA, CAOC, AAJ, the American Bar Association, the Los Angeles County Bar Association, and Trial Lawyer associations in Colorado, Connecticut, Missouri, Washington, and the Western Trial Lawyers Association. Read Full Bio   Show Sponsors: Legal Technology Services - LTSatlanta.com Digital Law Marketing - DigitalLawMarketing.com Harris, Lowry, and Manton - hlmlawfirm.com   Free Resources: Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 1 Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 2

Meet Ben Bostick, a 26-year-old Campaign Strategist in Washington D.C. Ben currently works for GQR, a polling and strategy campaign firm. With this year being a major election year, roles such as Ben's have been more important than ever. There is a lot of behind the scenes work that goes into campaigns beyond the advertisements that end up on our phones and television screens. Ben shares with us the various components that go into campaign strategy and where he hopes this career will take him in future years.

Uddhav Thackeray-led Maharashtra government has withdrawn the general consent extended by it to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe cases in the state. In effect, the agency will now require the state’s permission to carry out any investigation in the state. The decision comes at a time when the Maharashtra government has been at odds with the Centre. In episode 599 of Cut The Clutter, Shekhar Gupta explains the law & politics behind Maharashtra & Centre’s moves. 

Producer/Host: Gina Logue Guest: Dr. John Vile Synopsis: The dean of the University Honors College and political scientist describes his reference book "The Bible in American Law and Politics."

Heather Stewart and Polly Toynbee discuss what the new Covid-19 restrictions entail, as well as the latest UK Brexit legislation, for which the government is willing to break international law. Anand Menon and Jennifer Rankin discuss the prospect of getting an EU trade deal. Plus Simon Murphy speaks to Tracey Crouch about the role footballers should have in politics. Help support our independent journalism at theguardian.com/politicspod

Dr. Charles Zelden, Professor of History, Law & Politics at Nova Southeastern University. He’s a recognized expert on Elections and Election Law *Follow him on Twtter: @CharlesZelden

Reed Smith Managing Partner A. Scott Bolden shares stories about his childhood during the civil rights movement, reflects on his successful career, and offers his unique insight on the need for more discussion and reconciliation around race relations, in an episode recorded earlier this year. Bolden is the current managing partner of the firm’s Washington, D.C. office.For more information, please visit Reed Smith's Diversity & Inclusion page.

The Law & Politics of Cyberattack Attribution. Kristen Eichensehr from UCLA School of Law talks about the standards used to attribute cyberattacks.

One of my favorite quotes from Kobe Bryant: "How can your story impact others? The definition of greatness is to inspire people next to you.  How can you inspire one person then turn to inspire another person. Our challenge is for people, to figure out how our story can impact others, to motivate them to create greatness in others. - Kobe Bryant.  Adam Leitman Bailey may have a brash facade, he's been written up in the NY Post, NY Times, & Huffington Post, perhaps not always as a hero, but to play on the team he's hired to protect.  Adam's story may inspire a few of you, as we dive into his younger years of his rough childhood, being a passenger of a terrible car accident, the growing pains he's faced as a young adult. We then go into present date, where he shares his tremendous success story of suing Donald & Ivanka Trump, & representing Linda Mackelowe in the most expensive divorce case in US history. Our listeners will a sense of how he's built a firm that has experienced systemic success over the course of the last two decades.  This is a great one and definitely worth a listen!  (read about his bio below)   Bio: Adam is one of the most distinguished real estate attorneys in America.  Born in Bayside Queens, he moved to California at the age of five, and later moved back to NJ where he graduated with honors from Rutgers, then obtained his law degree from Syracuse University College of Law.  Adam is an author of NYT’s best seller Finding The Uncommon Deal.”, he was selected by the Chambers & Partners publication as NY’s leading RE lawyers, and was named Super Lawyer by Law & Politics magazine.   Adam has a long list of notable cases, but to mention a few he’s represented Developer Sharif El Gamal, who proposed an Islamic mosque & cultural center near the ground zero site, where his opponents were the families affected by 9/11, politicians, and conservative media pundits. (long story short it turned into 45 park place. Adam was responsible for obtaining the largest residential condo settlement in the history of NY, as well as  successfully relieved purchasers from new developments like 20 pine, The Brompton, Trump Soho & Sky View Park. 

For all the controversy around the Jerry Springer Show and its reflections on our culture, Jerry Springer himself remains. Born in England after his parents fled Nazi Germany, Springer followed passions of politics and law; becoming a mayor led him into news, which led to the ascent of The Jerry Springer Show in 1991. Now, as 2020 nears, his law experience takes center stage as he begins a new career and show as a legal judge deciding real cases on a new show, Judge Jerry. How did this all happen? Eric Paulsen talks with Jerry about how his life interests and fate brought him to this point in his unique career.

Lecture summary: At various points throughout this work, Grotius makes reference to a category that he variously calls 'morals' (moralia), 'moral things' (res morales) or 'the matter of morals' (materia moralis). This field of entities is always invoked in conjunction with certain principles of reasoning that shape the scope and application of more strictly legal principles and reasoning. This lecture looks at how 'moral' reasoning intersects with legal reasoning to produce Grotius's distinctive view of the international order. I argue that it is the appeal to 'morals' that allows him to craft a jurisprudence that accommodates the concrete realities of power within and between states while still differentiating itself from politics and reason of state. Dr Annabel Brett is a Reader in the History of Political Thought, University of Cambridge and Fellow of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge.

Winston Conrad returns to Trans Resister Radio. Here, he gives a bit of his background working as an attorney. The many strange nuances between the political and legal worlds, and Winston’s new 5in5 podcast are focal points of the conversation. topics include: law, law school, New York City post 9/11, civil rights, immigration, legalization of narcotics, right and left wing viewpoints, podcasting

Three in 10 American women who are 45 or older have had an abortion, Katie Watson, author of “Scarlet A: The Ethics, Law & Politics of Ordinary Abortion,” tells the ABA Journal’s Lee Rawles. For women 44 and younger, one in four are projected to have an abortion in their lifetime. Yet for all the fiery rhetoric about the legality of abortion, Watson–who teaches bioethics, medical humanities and constitutional law at Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine–has found a reluctance by people to discuss their own personal experiences with abortion, or even the nuances of their views on its ethics. While the overwhelming majority of people feel comfortable claiming the labels of either “pro-life” or “pro-choice,” when she polls people about the legality and the morality of abortion at different stages of development, there’s a lot more nuance than those binary labels suggest. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Watson talks about ways to have productive discussions about abortion; the emerging areas of contention which could be coming before the Supreme Court; and why she thinks that doctors have been shouldering a disproportionate burden in advocating for reproductive rights and abortion access.

Three in 10 American women who are 45 or older have had an abortion, Katie Watson, author of “Scarlet A: The Ethics, Law & Politics of Ordinary Abortion,” tells the ABA Journal’s Lee Rawles. For women 44 and younger, one in four are projected to have an abortion in their lifetime. Yet for all the fiery rhetoric about the legality of abortion, Watson–who teaches bioethics, medical humanities and constitutional law at Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine–has found a reluctance by people to discuss their own personal experiences with abortion, or even the nuances of their views on its ethics. While the overwhelming majority of people feel comfortable claiming the labels of either “pro-life” or “pro-choice,” when she polls people about the legality and the morality of abortion at different stages of development, there’s a lot more nuance than those binary labels suggest. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Watson talks about ways to have productive discussions about abortion; the emerging areas of contention which could be coming before the Supreme Court; and why she thinks that doctors have been shouldering a disproportionate burden in advocating for reproductive rights and abortion access.

In this episode for the protectors of cool stuff, we are talking about how to stand out in the legal field. We are joined by Bill White, the founder of Super Lawyers Magazine. Tom and Bill discuss how lawyers can tell stories and deploy videos to highlight their experience / stand out from the competition. Tom Marlow is the Chief Technology Officer for Black Hills IP and is the President of Black Hills IP Renewals, our patent annuities management company.  Tom is a registered patent attorney and electrical engineer with a passion for IP systems.  Previously, Tom ran the IP department for a multi-billion dollar semiconductor manufacturing company where he oversaw worldwide IP strategy, enforcement, and procurement.  Tom taps his in-house and prior private practice experience to develop and deliver products and services that address known pain-points in the patent process.  Tom has spoken before diverse audiences from patent attorneys, to C-suite executives to engineers to startup founders on patent management, analysis, and strategy over the years.  Tom also has experience prosecuting and managing patent prosecution on a global scale and is the co-author of the Lexis published “US Patent Prosecutor's Desk Reference”.  Tom was previously co-chair of the patent analytics and portfolio management department at the Minneapolis patent firm Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.  He received his law degree from Franklin Pierce Law Center, and Bachelor's of Science from the University of Notre Dame. Bill White is the founder & CEO of Reellawyers.com - the world's first and only (as far as we can tell) all-video legal website. Bill was also the founder and publisher of Law & Politics magazine and Super Lawyers – one of the leading lawyer ratings services in the country. Bill developed the Super Lawyers selection process, which was granted a US Patent in April of 2013. Black Hills IP offers a full stack of technology-enabled IP support services for docketing, paralegal, and annuity management. Our services are enhanced by advanced technology that is custom-made for both law firm & corporate organizations.

In Episode 91, Chris Cahill and Jeff Pomerantz, President of the American Bankruptcy Institute and member of Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP, discuss why retail is under stress, how Chapter 11 bankruptcy theoretically promotes operational and financial reorganization, and how developments in financing, capital structures, and supplier strategies continue to shape retailers' fortunes in bankruptcy.    You can learn more about Jeff Pomerantz, PSZJ Law and the American Bankruptcy Institute here, here and here.   Or you can find them here: Twitter: @Pachulski; @abiworld LinkedIn: Jeff Pomerantz, PSZJ Law, ABI     About Jeff Pomerantz   Mr. Pomerantz is a member of Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP's management committee, a co-chair of the firm's creditors' committee practice, and is resident in the firm's Los Angeles office. Mr. Pomerantz is also the president of the American Bankruptcy Institute, the largest restructuring organization in the United States. His practice includes representing companies, creditors' committees, and private equity funds in complex financial restructurings and merger-and-acquisition transactions both in and out of court. Mr. Pomerantz has particular expertise in restructurings in the energy, manufacturing, restaurant and retail sectors. He also frequently represents private equity funds in asset- acquisition transactions. Mr. Pomerantz is a graduate of New York University (1986 Phi Beta Kappa), where he also received his J.D. (1989, Order of the Coif). He holds an AV Preeminent Peer Rating, Martindale-Hubbell's highest recognition for ethical standards and legal ability; has been named a "Super Lawyer" in the field of Bankruptcy & Creditor/Debtor Rights every year since 2009 in a peer survey conducted by Law & Politics and the publishers of Los Angeles magazine, an honor bestowed on only 5% of Southern California attorneys; and was selected by "Best Lawyers in America." Mr. Pomerantz has also been recognized as an outstanding lawyer by the preeminent publication Chambers USA every year since 2007.    

Talk given at Gutenberg College’s 2009 Summer Institute, “Paychecks, Politics & Paradigms”.

THE  NEW ESSA LAW, POLITICS AND EDUCATION The expert, the Executive Director of Learning First Alliance , Dr Richard Long returns with  his great insights.

Nov. 5, 2015. Legal scholar John Witte Jr. discussed how the Protestant Reformation transformed not only theology and the church but also law and the state. Drawing on new biblical and classical learning, Protestant theologians and jurists brought sweeping changes to constitutional order, criminal law, family law, and the laws of education and social welfare. This lecture, offered in anticipation of the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther's Reformation, explored the Reformation's enduring impact, for better or worse, on Western life, law and learning. Speaker Biography: John Witte Jr. is Kluge Chair in Countries and Cultures of the North and Robert W. Woodruff Professor of Law, McDonald Distinguished Professor, and Director of the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University. For transcript, captions, and more information, visit http://www.loc.gov/today/cyberlc/feature_wdesc.php?rec=7131

UN Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon has said our world is over-armed and peace is under-funded. Angela Kane, High Representative for Disarmament Affairs for the United Nations talks about disarmament challenges and successes, and addresses a number of common questions. Are we any closer to nuclear disarmament since New Zealand took its stand in the 1980s? How realistic is a Middle East Zone free of Weapons of Mass Destruction? Why did Assad agree to give up chemical weapons? Is the Arms Trade Treaty all good news? This is a public lecture hosted by the Faculty of Law, Department of Politics and the National Centre for Peace and Conflict studies. 10 April 2014

One family lawyer's refusal to give up on his passion for the environment. Interview with Grier Raggio, Family Lawyer Click the play button, wait a few seconds and start listening to this Podcast. I’m pleased today to be speaking with Grier Raggio who’s a Texas family lawyer.  He has been practicing family law since 1968.  He’s a Harvard college graduate, written numerous articles on family law, and also written two books; the most recent book is titled How to Divorce in New York.  Grier is well versed in Texas family law matters including divorce, child custody, and in dealing with large asset cases.  He has been selected to the list of Texas super lawyers on many occasions and he’s been selected as a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial lawyers.  Grier has handled several international family law cases and international child custody cases.  I invited Grier to speak with me today about his family law career, but he is also a politician.  He ran as a Democratic candidate in the 2010 election for the United States House of Representatives seat in Texas’ 32ndcongressional district and he’s also very active in the environmental movement and has a website/blog calledweconsumetoomuch.com; his firm website is raggiolaw.com. Let’s start with you telling us how you got started as a family lawyer and where that career has taken you. In the 1960s I decided that environmental issues were going to be the most important thing for me for the remainder of my life.  I started doing environmental law when I started a firm in New York in ’71.  So I was doing environmental law and also making a living by doing plaintiffs’ personal injury stuff, which was very lucrative.  But in 1980 with the rejection of Jimmy Carter and the solar panels on the White House I decided to quit bumping my head against that environmental wall for a while; I also didn’t feel like what I was doing as a plaintiff’s personal injury lawyer was really very useful.  New York had changed its law at that time and it adopted an equitable distribution system.  I have two friends, Henry Foster and Doris Reed, who are nationally known legal scholars and they influenced me to start reading up on law and giving lectures on New York law.  That’s how I built a practice doing family law. And were these lectures about family law or were they about any other specific area of law? They were lectures about family law, mainly about the new law in New York, the Equitable Distribution Law. Why was that of interest to you to talk about equitable distribution? Like I said I’d been doing the plaintiff’s personal injury stuff and was making a lot of money, but I was working in what I felt was essentially a very negative system and didn’t feel that I was making any real contribution that was emotionally satisfying to me.  I felt that in family law I could both make a living and do something that was useful. I made a conscious decision to become an expert in family law and got a break because they changed the (Equitable Distribution) law.  Because of this it was new to everybody, and by studying hard and lecturing people about it, I was able to build credibility among lawyers and laypeople. So you had this feeling at your core that you have to be doing something that makes a difference. One thing you learn at Harvard is that one must be useful.  I think a lot of us have that kind of motto.  You have to be doing something that you feel is useful emotionally as well as be able to make a living off of it. You’re not just putting in time. No.  Don’t want to just put in time. Alright, so tell us how your career moved on from there. Well, I was practicing family law in New York and got elected to the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers about as soon as I was eligible.  One of the first things I did in the Academy was get the Academy to start a divorce mediation group.  I assembled a faculty and we did trainings for grizzled old divorce lawyers around the country.  We would have these weekend seminars, they would come in on a Friday and stay till Sunday, and I had a faculty of about seven people who had real experience doing mediation.  It’s funny, you know, I would have them all at a dinner on Friday night when they first got there and I’d ask each of them how they happened to be there in this divorce mediation seminar.  And as I said these were all experienced top of the line family law attorneys— Mainly litigators I’m assuming. Litigators, all litigators. And invariably in the middle someone would stand up and say, “You know, I feel I’m in a group of recovering litigators.” In other words, these people were tired of the litigation process, tired of the excess blood on the floor, and they were looking for another way to do that. We did those trainings for about three years.  I think there were about 1,500 American Academy Matrimonial members at the time and we trained a heavy percentage of them.  We’d have about 50 a weekend and we’d do these all over the country.  That was one of the things I got into.  I also started writing books about helping people avoid unnecessary pain in the divorce process.  I wrote two books; the most recent was How to Divorce in New York and the other one was Divorce in New York.  I was essentially giving people the psychological and emotional tools they needed to avoid unnecessary pain. It sounds like your motivation was similar to mine, though I’m a publisher instead of a family lawyer.  When I started Divorce Magazine I had been going through my own divorce and felt that I needed information and resources to educate me so that I could be better able to go through the process.  It sounds like you felt the same way but were looking at it from a lawyer’s point of view. We’re in a helping profession, you know, and the question is how we do that. I don’t belittle litigators; there are some situations where bitter litigation can’t be avoided and it is necessary, but the bottom line in the usual situation is two people that are in pain.  Right is not solely on one side, but when you sign up as an advocate in the litigation situation you have to act as if your client is the angel and the other side is the devil. Tell me a little bit about your practice in Texas.  I know that your parents were both attorneys.  How much of an influence did they have on your view of the world and your practice of family law? Well, I went into family law in New York in 1980 independently of my family.  My parents started a law firm in Dallas in 1956 and my brothers Tom and Ken, who are both members of the American Academy, joined the firm shortly after they each graduated from law school.  The firm has other attorneys and continues to practice family law with significant property cases here in Dallas.  But I went into this on my own. In 1994 I just had a yearning to go home, and get back to my roots, so I dragged my wife Lorraine, a Brooklyn native, unwillingly to Texas.  Eventually she adjusted and was actually elected as a civil district judge in Dallas County in 2004, the first Democrat to be elected in 22 years; she’s had a distinguished career as a judge. That’s fantastic. She hasn’t totally forgiven me, but she has adjusted.  At any rate I came down here and started practicing with the family firm. Let’s talk a little bit about your political life.  It sounds like you and your wife are aligned at least on your political views; you’re both Democrats and you ran in 2010.  Tell me a little bit about the motivation for doing that and if there’s any connection to practicing family law and being a politician.  Were there any similarities between the two, and did practicing family law prepare you in setting your sights on being a politician? Well, you know, there’s a public service component in both of them.  You want to do something that makes a difference, you want to make an impact and you want to make an impression, to make things better for people. As I’ve mentioned, environmental stuff has been my passion since the 60s, but that kind of went into hibernation after 1980.  It was always there, though, and I continued to be involved in it.  I decided in 2009 that it was time for me to take a shot at trying to do something on the political field.  My campaign was based on this concept that we, the federal government, are spending a buck fifty for every buck we take in.  That’s unsustainable, you know, we’re eating the seed corn, we’re consuming too much.  That in some ways was a surrogate for what my real passion was and is: that we’re consuming too much, period. Deteriorating environmental systems.  They don’t work. It was okay when you talked to them, the voters in Texas, and said: “Look, it doesn't make any sense for the federal government to spend a buck fifty for every buck.”  But then when you got to talk about specifics, that we need to adjust social security, we need to talk about Medicare, that these things just don’t work and they’re not sustainable, the reaction is that no that would hear me. Are you sure you weren't running as a Republican candidate, because you sure sound like one. Well, you know, I think we do spend too much, and that we do consume too much, period.  The idea that deficits don’t matter, that was Ronald Reagan’s mantra. According to Dick Cheney Reagan supposedly proved that deficits don’t matter.  And of course he did a huge amount of additions to the government, as did George W. Bush.  So I don’t know that that’s Democrat or Republican.  I don’t think the Republicans have done a very good job in keeping spending and income in line.  I don’t think anybody’s done a very good job on it really since, I mean, Dwight Eisenhower, who is kind of my hero. That’s going back a few years. Going back a few years to my early youth.  Dwight Eisenhower did a good job but we've had a lot of misfeasance since then at the highest level of Congress and in the presidency. So we’ve been excessively spending since about that time. Yeah. You want to rein that in. Yes, I mean, Clinton actually ran federal surpluses, and maybe that was just good fortune the last couple of years of his tenure.  But that’s been it since the ‘50s. I know from having spoken with you in the past that you’ve actually had a little bit of a shift, or maybe it’s a seismic shift, from your point of view in terms of your view on the environmental situation.  So rather than completely altering our habits you’ve kind of shifted to what I would describe as a more pragmatic view.  Can you just talk about the kind of transition?   Maybe the transition goes from the ‘60s up until 2013 in terms of your views on our environmental situation. My view frankly, Dan, is that we’ve been consuming too much for a long time, particularly through burning hydrocarbons, and that has done bad things to natural systems and to the planet and we’re seeing the effects of that.  You know, I tell people that Mother Nature will solve the problem and Mother Nature spanks civilizations and we’re in the spanking phase, but she also kills them.  I think that we’re in real danger of jeopardizing everyone’s future if we continue the consumption patterns.  They just don’t work. All of that, of course, is relevant to everyone’s family.  My views on family law are still pretty much the same.  I mean, I guess I see myself as an amateur psychologist as much as a litigator.  When people come in I try to figure out ways that they can get through a very difficult, painful situation with a minimum of amount of pain and damage to themselves and their children.  Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn’t.  I mean, I had a case that went to Texas Supreme Court that involved a professional athlete.  It was just absolute conflict and no resolution and people just . . . we just fought and fought.  And that was just the way; that was just the reality there. Going back to the environment, because I know that it’s your passion, are there any signs of progress?  I know that in your blog you wrote about Obama’s inaugural speech, do you see any signs of progress from there or from actions that are being taken, not just in the United States but around the world?  Is there any evidence that we can make a shift or from your point of view is it just that we’re all going to hell it’s just a matter of how long it’s going to take to get there? Well, I think that people are aware that there’s a massive scientific consensus that human activity is changing the climate in ways that are dangerous to all of us.  But doing the hard things, to try to slow and reverse it right now are politically unfeasible.  I mean, as I’ve proposed many times what we need is a large carbon tax.  Use the market to get people to burn less hydrocarbons by making gasoline, coal, and natural gas much more expensive to reflect their actual cost (that’s what economists call the externalities of an activity).  In other words the price of the gasoline doesn’t reflect the damage that you’re doing to everyone’s air and to the climate.  The price of gasoline should reflect the damage that’s being done.  Frankly I would double the price of gasoline over a period of a few years to encourage people to be much more frugal in their carbon budgets. But the reality, the political reality, is that that’s very, very difficult.  I mean, I talk to a lot of people, I spent like four or five hours a day for a year on my blog. I wrote and read neuroscience and psychology and environmental stuff and it’s a very tough sell.  Humans are not wired to look long-term at subtle threats.  It’s kind of like the frog in the pot of water that’s being slowly heated, you know, the frog doesn't notice it until it’s too late.  However it comes out I take comfort in my grandchildren knowing that Grandpa went to bat for them.  So that’s some satisfaction. I spent a good part of last week in New Jersey, and for our listeners who've travelled around New Jersey they’ll know that there are numerous tolls to pay there.  So given the obviously that gas is, in a large part, consumed by cars. If there’s a toll charge, but the toll charge is not just to build the roads but the toll charge is to deal with the damage caused by the use of cars, do you think something like that that it would be a little bit more like the boiling the frog, working slowly rather than hitting you with a $600 additional tax bill on your income tax every year? Oh, no, I don’t propose income tax I propose a carbon tax. A tax on all forms of carbon, natural gas, coal, gasoline, oil, whatever.  People should pay more for creating greenhouse gases, period. Let the market take care of itself, let people do their own allocations towards smaller cars, towards using less of the stuff.  In Europe, if you’ve been there, gasoline recently costs twice as much as it does in the United States.  That’s because they impose taxes to reflect the full cost or fuller cost of burning hydrocarbons. That’s an obvious, obvious partial solution, a solution that has almost no political support.  I mean, the scientists, the economists say, yeah, this makes a lot of sense but in terms of getting the public to go there it’s really a tough sell.  I know this from having a 16 months congressional campaign and a year of really pretty intense effort on my blog. If it’s possible maybe it would have to be a bi-partisan law that would be brought in, that everybody would have to support just for the sake of humanity.  I don’t know if that’s even possible, maybe that’s a Utopian type of thinking. I don’t think it’s Utopian.  I mean, Mother Nature’s giving us increasingly clear signals.  Chris Christie is the Republican Governor of New Jersey and after Sandy hit he said, look, this global warming stuff, rising seas, it’s a reality, we need to do something.  So I think Mother Nature is a very good teacher.  As I say we’re still in the spanking phase but we are being spanked and people do react to pain.  The people in New Jersey and New York, I mean, my old home, certainly did when they saw what higher water and storms can do to systems that their lives depend on. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Grier Raggio is a Texas family lawyer who has been practising within that field since 1968. He's also a partner at the firm of Raggio & Raggio Family Law, and you can visit their website at www.raggiolaw.com. His power personal blog devoted to the environmental movement can be found at www.weconsumetoomuch.com.

Is the United States moving toward legal equality between gay and straight couples? What does the U.S. Constitution have to say about the question? And should the Republican Party, long committed to opposing gay marriage, rethink its position? Two of the nation’s best-known advocates on the issue — Evan Wolfson, widely seen as the master strategist behind the movement for same-sex marriage, and Ken Mehlman, a key figure in Republican rethinking of the issue, will be joined by Ilya Shapiro, who heads the Cato Institute’s amicus program and presided over the development of Cato’s briefs in Windsor and Perry. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Trials at the ICTY concerned political violence and criminality that resulted from disintegration of a federation from which seven new successors states were formed. That process has been defined as a 'clash of state projects', where violence happened in areas claimed by two or more parties, or an aspiring state. The war crimes trials at the ICTY that resulted from overlapping territorial claims in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo produced a huge record of trial evidence. Problems in the very small state of Kosovo may be seen as the beginning of the violent process of disintegration, now known loosely as the Balkan wars of the 1990s. The conflict in Kosovo of 1998-9 may be seen as the end of those wars. Kosovo now seeks global recognition as an independent state but faces opposition both as to its international legal entitlements and as to how its history in the conflict should be viewed.