Type of scholarly journal focusing on legal issues
POPULARITY
90 episodes with Law review
25 episodes with Law review
20 episodes with Law review
6 episodes with Law review
3 episodes with Law review
3 episodes with Law review
2 episodes with Law review
3 episodes with Law review
9 episodes with Law review
This week Steve and Yvonne interview Daniel Callahan, founding partner of Callahan & Blaine (https://www.callahan-law.com/) and owner of Callahan Consulting (https://callahanconsulting.com/). Remember to rate and review GTP in iTunes: Click Here to Rate and Review View/Download Trial Documents Guest Bio: Daniel Callahan Throughout his career, Daniel J. Callahan has always been known as one of the top trial attorneys in California. His notable jury verdicts included a $934,000,000 jury verdict obtained after a three-month jury trial in a complex business dispute entitled Beckman Coulter vs. Flextronics. This unanimous verdict was the largest in California in 2003 and remains the largest in Orange County history. Mr. Callahan also went on to obtain a $50,000,000 settlement in a road design case against the City of Dana Point. Exclusive of large class actions, this continues to be the largest personal injury settlement in United States history. Mr. Callahan also obtained, after a two-month jury trial, a $38 Million settlement on behalf of a class of newspaper delivery drivers against The Orange County Register. This is still the highest employment settlement in Orange County's history. Mr. Callahan grew up in Chicago, Illinois where he went on to receive his BA, magna cum laude, from Western Illinois University in 1976, and graduated with honors from the UC Davis School of Law in 1979, while serving as Editor of the Law Review. He began his career in Hawaii before relocating to Southern California and starting his own firm by opening the doors on St. Patrick's Day, 1984. Mr. Callahan also provides corporate consulting to law firms and lawyers regarding litigation and strategy through Callahan Consulting Group, LLC. Read Full Bio Here 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
Mrparka's Weekly Reviews and Update Week 420 (05.31.2025) (Final Destination Bloodlines) www.youtube.com/mrparkahttps://www.instagram.com/mrparka/https://twitter.com/mrparka00http://www.screamingtoilet.com/dvd--blu-rayhttps://www.facebook.com/mrparkahttps://www.facebook.com/screamingpotty/https://letterboxd.com/mrparka/https://www.patreon.com/mrparkahttps://open.spotify.com/show/2oJbmHxOPfYIl92x5g6ogKhttps://anchor.fm/mrparkahttps://www.stitcher.com/show/shut-up-brandon-podcasthttps://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/mrparkas-weekly-reviews-and-update-the-secret-top-10/id1615278571 Time Stamps 0:00“Lady of the Law” Review - 0:14“V-Cinema The Hitman: XX: Beautiful Hunter” Review - 4:14“Terror in the Fog: The Curse of the Yellow Snake/ The Strangler of Blackmoor Castle” Review - 8:23/ 13:08“Zerograd” Review - 17:08“Final Destination Bloodlines” Review - 22:45“Hot Fuzz” 4K Review - 26:141982 “Brimstone and Treacle” 4K Review - 31:511982 “Ghost Dance” Review - 36:351982 “1990: The Bronx Warriors” Review - 41:081982 “A Pool Wihtout Water” Review - 46:101982 “Written in the Fog” Review - 49:231982 “Long-Haired Grandmother” Review - 51:02Patreon Pick “Your Name” Review - 52:29Questions and Answers- 56:35Update - 1:03:0522 Shots of Moodz and Horror – https://www.22shotsofmoodzandhorror.com/Podcast Under the Stairs – https://tputscast.com/podcastVideo Version – https://youtu.be/4zjH6--XuiMLinks88 Films - https://88-films.myshopify.com/Lady of the Law Blu-Ray - https://mvdshop.com/products/lady-of-the-law-blu-rayArrow - https://www.arrowfilms.com/V-Cinema: Bullets and Betrayal Blu-Ray Set - https://mvdshop.com/products/v-cinema-essentials-bullets-betrayal-limited-edition-blu-ray Eureka Entertainment - https://eurekavideo.co.uk/Terror in the Fog Blu-Ray - https://mvdshop.com/products/terror-in-the-fog-the-wallace-krimi-at-ccc-blu-rayDeaf Crocodile - https://deafcrocodile.com/Zerograd Blu-Ray - https://mvdshop.com/products/zerograd-blu-rayFinal Destination Bloodlines 4K - https://www.amazon.com/Final-Destination-Bloodlines-Ultra-Digital/dp/B0F53C5244 Hot Fuzz 4K - https://www.amazon.com/Shaun-Dead-Worlds-Trilogy-Blu-ray/dp/B07TMRSBKHVinegar Syndrome - https://vinegarsyndrome.com/Brimstone and Treacle 4K - https://grindhousevideo.com/products/brimstone-and-treacle-4k-uhd-blu-rayGhost Dance Blu-Ray - https://grindhousevideo.com/products/the-ghost-dance-limited-edition-blu-ray1990: The Bronx Warriors Blu-Ray - https://mvdshop.com/products/1990-the-bronx-warriors-blu-ray-dvdA Pool Without Water IMdb - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0227066Written in the Fog IMdb - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083902/Long-Haired Grandmother YouTube - https://youtu.be/kEhK1yNLask?si=VYR0fjY8vniDypJk Your Name Blu-Ray - https://www.amazon.com/Your-Name-Blu-ray-Michael-Sinterniklaas/dp/B074QVZD11Update 4K1. The Iron Rose 2. Girls Without Shame Film Notes Lady of the Law - 1975 - Shen Chiang, Stanley Siu WingXX: Beautiful Hunter - 1994 - Masaru KonumaThe Curse of the Yellow Snake - 1963 - Franz Josef GottliebThe Strangler of Blackmoor Castle - 1963 - Harald ReinlZerograd - 1988 - Karen ShakhnazarovFinal Destination Bloodlines - 2025 - Zach Lipovsky/ Adam B. SteinHot Fuzz - 2007 - Edgar WrightBrimstone and Treacle - 1982 - Richard LoncraineGhost Dance - 1982 - Peter F. Buffa1990: The Bronx Warriors - 1982 - Enzo G. CastellariA Pool Without Water - 1982 - Koji Wakamatsu Written in the Fog - 1982 - Silvio F. BalbuenaLong-Haired Grandmother - 1982 - M Sharieffudin AYour Name - 2016 - Makoto Shinkai
For most of the second half of 20th century, the Supreme Court has wrestled with finding a balance between the Free Exercise of religion and the Establishment Clause, offering several tests to test the limits of permissible accommodation without the undue appearance of government endorsement. Among those tests has been a little-thing called the “play in the joints,” famously introduced in Walz v. Tax Commissioner of New York (1970). In this episode, I explore this concept with Falco Anthony Muscante II, whose paper in the Ave Marie Law Review is called “Play in the Joints” Among the Religion Clauses: Rebuilding the Strong Joints the Framers Formed. In our conversation, we discuss the history of the religious clause and what the framers intended, how the concept emerged and became weaponized in Locke v. Davey (2003), why the Court has latched on to the idea of state neutrality and how that impacts religion, and more. Falco Anthony Muscante II earned his J.D. in 2023 from the Duquesne University School of Law, where he served on the executive boards for the Law Review and Appellate Moot Court Board. He is an alumnus of Grove City College, where he graduated summa cum laude with a B.S. Management, minor in Pre-Law, and concentration in Human Resources. Falco is a litigation associate at a big law firm in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, soon headed to clerk for the Third Circuit. Cross & Gavel is a production of CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY. The episode was produced by Josh Deng, with music from Vexento
In episode four of NAWL's Bridging Divides series, NAWL's Executive Director, Karen Richardson, engages in a compelling conversation with Anne Li of Crowell & Moring LLP and Ella Spottswood of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. They discuss their recent victory in a significant reproductive rights case in Missouri. Listen as our guests share their firsthand experiences and insights from working on the case, and explore the potential nationwide impact on reproductive rights. Tune in to learn more about the case and find out how you can support the organizations making a difference. Get involved with Planned Parenthood.If you are interested in partnering with Planned Parenthood as pro bono counsel, please reach out to Cecilia DosSantos, cecilia.dossantos@ppfa.org. Eleanor (Ella) Spottswood is a senior staff attorney in the litigation department at Planned Parenthood Federation of America, where she advocates to protect and expand reproductive freedoms nationwide. She recently won a preliminary injunction that allowed abortion access to resume in Missouri for the first time since Dobbs. Prior to working for Planned Parenthood, Ms. Spottswood served as the Solicitor General for Vermont, focusing on appeals and constitutional litigation. She also served for six years as the Chair of the Vermont Judicial Nominating Board.Ms. Spottswood graduated with high honors from Harvard University and earned her law degree from New York University School of Law, where she served on the board of the Law Review. After law school, she clerked on the Vermont Supreme Court and for Judge Berle Schiller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Anne Li is co-chair of the firm's Life Sciences and Patents groups. She is a first-chair trial lawyer in intellectual property who focuses on biotech, pharma, life sciences, and medical device industries. She has successfully represented clients using outside-the-box strategies, both in and out of the courtroom. Her goal is always to reach a good business resolution, but when that is not possible, she zealously uses litigation as a tool to get the best outcome for her clients. She represents clients whose groundbreaking products and services raise complex legal questions at the nexus of collaborators and competitors, including those times when one shifts to the other. She has successfully represented companies in bet-the-company litigations, often scoring key wins long before trial, resulting in favorable settlements. Companies rely on Anne to help them navigate the intersection of intellectual property and business because she provides in-house counsel with patent, unfair competition, and trade secret advice that is practical and actionable. She takes time to learn a client's business—from biotech startups to multibillion-dollar pharmaceutical companies and everything in between—so she can help them develop bespoke strategies that work for their unique situations. Clients also appreciate Anne's ability to match legal strategies with their risk tolerance and business objectives. Her approach is informed by her commitment to developing long-standing relationships with in-house counsel and her knowledge of the industry and related technologies. Furthering Anne's commitment to creating a strong and wide-reaching network across industries and the bar, Anne serves on the Executive Committee of the William C. Conner Inn of Court and is active in the NY Intellectual Property Law Association. She is also a member of Crowell's Pro Bono Committee.
Love Is the Fulfillment of the Law — Review of Lesson #13 of the 1st Quarter of 2025 -The Sabbath School Lesson study guide can be found here:— https://ssnet.org/lessons/25a/less13.html— https://www.adultbiblestudyguide.org/archives— https://sabbath-school.adventech.io/enThe title of this quarter's theme is: The God of Love and JusticeFor the next 13 weeks (January to March 2025), we will study the tension between two of God's attributes that most people have a hard time reconciling: God's Justice and God's Love. This is key for us to understand, especially in a world of sin and misery, where we need to be able to preach the gospel with urgency.Related Podcasts:— The Law and Grace— Obedience is the Consequence, not the Cause— What of Works?— Is Right Doing That Complex?— Don't Wait to Stand Up— Standing Up Against the Wrong— 2019-Q3-04 Lesson Review: Mercy and Justice in Psalms and ProverbsRelated Podcasts at TrueWisdom:— Is the Sin Worth the Sacrifice— What God Requires— Do You Really Want It?— What Must I Do to be Saved?— Justice in Due TimeSupport the showIf you have any questions or comments, please send them to: BibleQuestions@ASBzone.comDuring many of our podcasts, you will hear us make reference to “The Key Principles of Effective Bible Study,” a document which outlines core concepts shown in the scriptures that will help you better understand many Biblical themes and doctrines. We have done a whole podcast series on these principles which can be found here (https://BibleStudy.ASBzone.com/357512/8572886).God's Precious Word is a condensed, 9-part series, based on the same document. Lastly, we recommend that you check out https://TrueWisdom.buzzsprout.com for a related Bible Study podcast, in a different format, co-hosted with Robert Baker.We pray that all of these resources will be very helpful to you in your Bible Studies.
Fr. John A. Perricone is a Roman Catholic priest and an adjunct professor of philosophy at Iona University in New Rochelle, New York. He was born in Jersey City, New Jersey, graduated from Seton Hall University, completed his master's degree in biblical studies at Immaculate Conception Seminary in Mahwah, New Jersey, and was ordained to the priesthood at Sacred Heart Cathedral in Newark, New Jersey in 1976. He completed a second master's degree in Dogmatic Theology at St. John's University, New York in 1981. He was awarded a Ph.D. in Medieval Philosophy at Fordham University, New York. Click here for a copy of his recent article. In addition to Iona University, he has held teaching positions at St. Francis College (Brooklyn, NY), LaSalle University (Philadelphia, PA), Dominican College (Orangeburg, NY), and St. John's University (Jamaica, NY). In 1989, he founded Christifdelis, a New York City based organization that assisted Catholics in their spiritual and doctrinal formation. In 1996, Father Perricone and the organization arranged for the celebration of a Solemn High Pontifical Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City; the first time in a quarter century for the Latin Tridentine Mass to be celebrated by a Cardinal of Curial rank in a premier archdiocese. From 1996-2008 he was Editor and Publisher of Excelsis, a bi-monthly periodical of theology, philosophy and Catholic opinion from the perspective of the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church and the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas. In 2002, he was co-founder and Vice-President of The Montfort Academy (Mount Vernon, NY), a private academy, grades 9 through 12, anchored in a classical curriculum with Roman Catholicism at its core. His articles have appeared in St. John's Law Review, Crisis Magazine, Latin Mass Magazine, New Oxford Review and The Journal of Catholic Legal Studies. He has lectured at dozens of universities and colleges including, Cambridge, Harvard, Columbia, Princeton, Cornell, NYU, Georgetown, Villanova, Boston College, Loyola Marymount, and more. His media appearances include EWTN, WNBC, WOR Radio, and he is a frequent contributor to several Catholic podcasts. Father Perricone offers the Traditional Mass each Sunday at 9:00 AM at Our Lady of Sorrows Church, Jersey City, New Jersey.
Stand Up is a daily podcast that I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more GET TICKETS TO PODJAM II In Vegas March 27-30 Confirmed Guests! Professor Eric Segall, Dr Aaron Carroll, Maura Quint, Tim Wise, JL Cauvin, Ophira Eisenberg, Christian Finnegan and More! My interview with Jeff Starts at 1 hour in to todays show Get Jeff's new book The Web We Weave Why We Must Reclaim the Internet from Moguls, Misanthropes, and Moral Panic Jeff Jarvis is a national leader in the development of online news, blogging, the investigation of new business models for news, and the teaching of entrepreneurial journalism. He writes an influential media blog, Buzzmachine.com. He is author of “Geeks Bearing Gifts: Imagining New Futures for News” (CUNY Journalism Press, 2014); “Public Parts: How Sharing in the Digital Age Improves the Way We Work and Live” (Simon & Schuster, 2011); “What Would Google Do?” (HarperCollins 2009), and the Kindle Single “Gutenberg the Geek.” He has consulted for media companies including The Guardian, Digital First Media, Postmedia, Sky.com, Burda, Advance Publications, and The New York Times company at About.com. Prior to joining the Newmark J-School, Jarvis was president of Advance.net, the online arm of Advance Publications, which includes Condé Nast magazines and newspapers across America. He was the creator and founding managing editor of Entertainment Weekly magazine and has worked as a columnist, associate publisher, editor, and writer for a number of publications, including TV Guide, People, the San Francisco Examiner, the Chicago Tribune, and the New York Daily News. His freelance articles have appeared in newspapers and magazines across the country, including the Guardian, The New York Times, the New York Post, The Nation, Rolling Stone, and BusinessWeek. Jarvis holds a B.S.J. from Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism. He was named one of the 100 most influential media leaders by the World Economic Forum at Davos. 1:33 Eric J. Segall graduated from Emory University, Phi Beta Kappa 27 and summa cum laude, and from Vanderbilt Law School, where he was the research editor for the Law Review and member of Order of the Coif. He clerked for the Chief Judge Charles Moye Jr. for the Northern District of Georgia, and Albert J. Henderson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After his clerkships, Segall worked for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the U.S. Department of Justice, before joining the Georgia State faculty in 1991. Segall teaches federal courts and constitutional law I and II. He is the author of the books Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. His articles on constitutional law have appeared in, among others, the Harvard Law Review Forum, the Stanford Law Review On Line, the UCLA Law Review, the George Washington Law Review, the Washington University Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, and Constitutional Commentary among many others. Segall's op-eds and essays have appeared in the New York Times, the LA Times, The Atlantic, SLATE, Vox, Salon, and the Daily Beast, among others. He has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and France 24 and all four of Atlanta's local television stations. He has also appeared on numerous local and national radio shows. Listen and Subscribe to Eric's Podcast Supreme Myths and follow him on Tik Tok! The Stand Up Community Chat is always active with other Stand Up Subscribers on the Discord Platform. Join us Thursday's at 8EST for our Weekly Happy Hour Hangout! The Stand Up Community Chat is always active with other Stand Up Subscribers on the Discord Platform. Join us Thursday's at 8EST for our Weekly Happy Hour Hangout! Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll Follow and Support Pete Coe Buy Ava's Art Hire DJ Monzyk to build your website or help you with Marketing
Stand Up is a daily podcast that I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more GET TICKETS TO PODJAM II In Vegas March 27-30 Confirmed Guests! Professor Eric Segall, Dr Aaron Carroll, Maura Quint, Tim Wise, JL Cauvin, Ophira Eisenberg, Christian Finnegan and More! Eric J. Segall graduated from Emory University, Phi Beta Kappa 27 and summa cum laude, and from Vanderbilt Law School, where he was the research editor for the Law Review and member of Order of the Coif. He clerked for the Chief Judge Charles Moye Jr. for the Northern District of Georgia, and Albert J. Henderson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After his clerkships, Segall worked for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the U.S. Department of Justice, before joining the Georgia State faculty in 1991. Segall teaches federal courts and constitutional law I and II. He is the author of the books Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. His articles on constitutional law have appeared in, among others, the Harvard Law Review Forum, the Stanford Law Review On Line, the UCLA Law Review, the George Washington Law Review, the Washington University Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, and Constitutional Commentary among many others. Segall's op-eds and essays have appeared in the New York Times, the LA Times, The Atlantic, SLATE, Vox, Salon, and the Daily Beast, among others. He has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and France 24 and all four of Atlanta's local television stations. He has also appeared on numerous local and national radio shows. Listen and Subscribe to Eric's Podcast Supreme Myths and follow him on Tik Tok! Join us Thursday's at 8EST for our Weekly Happy Hour Hangout! Pete on Blue Sky Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll Follow and Support Pete Coe Buy Ava's Art Hire DJ Monzyk to build your website or help you with Marketing
Stand Up is a daily podcast that I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more GET TICKETS TO PODJAM II In Vegas March 27-30 Confirmed Guests! Professor Eric Segall, Dr Aaron Carroll, Maura Quint, Tim Wise, JL Cauvin, Ophira Eisenberg, Christian Finnegan and More! Eric J. Segall graduated from Emory University, Phi Beta Kappa 27 and summa cum laude, and from Vanderbilt Law School, where he was the research editor for the Law Review and member of Order of the Coif. He clerked for the Chief Judge Charles Moye Jr. for the Northern District of Georgia, and Albert J. Henderson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After his clerkships, Segall worked for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the U.S. Department of Justice, before joining the Georgia State faculty in 1991. Segall teaches federal courts and constitutional law I and II. He is the author of the books Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. His articles on constitutional law have appeared in, among others, the Harvard Law Review Forum, the Stanford Law Review On Line, the UCLA Law Review, the George Washington Law Review, the Washington University Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, and Constitutional Commentary among many others. Segall's op-eds and essays have appeared in the New York Times, the LA Times, The Atlantic, SLATE, Vox, Salon, and the Daily Beast, among others. He has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and France 24 and all four of Atlanta's local television stations. He has also appeared on numerous local and national radio shows. Listen and Subscribe to Eric's Podcast Supreme Myths and follow him on Tik Tok! Join us Thursday's at 8EST for our Weekly Happy Hour Hangout! Pete on Blue Sky Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll Follow and Support Pete Coe Buy Ava's Art Hire DJ Monzyk to build your website or help you with Marketing
Stand Up is a daily podcast that I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more GET TICKETS TO PODJAM II In Vegas March 27-30 Confirmed Guests! Professor Eric Segall, Dr Aaron Carroll, Maura Quint, Tim Wise, JL Cauvin, Ophira Eisenberg, Christian Finnegan and More! 14 minutes headlines and clips 47 minutes Eric J. Segall graduated from Emory University, Phi Beta Kappa 27 and summa cum laude, and from Vanderbilt Law School, where he was the research editor for the Law Review and member of Order of the Coif. He clerked for the Chief Judge Charles Moye Jr. for the Northern District of Georgia, and Albert J. Henderson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After his clerkships, Segall worked for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the U.S. Department of Justice, before joining the Georgia State faculty in 1991. Segall teaches federal courts and constitutional law I and II. He is the author of the books Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. His articles on constitutional law have appeared in, among others, the Harvard Law Review Forum, the Stanford Law Review On Line, the UCLA Law Review, the George Washington Law Review, the Washington University Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, and Constitutional Commentary among many others. Join us Thursday's at 8EST for our Weekly Happy Hour Hangout! Pete on Blue Sky Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll Follow and Support Pete Coe Buy Ava's Art Hire DJ Monzyk to build your website or help you with Marketing Segall's op-eds and essays have appeared in the New York Times, the LA Times, The Atlantic, SLATE, Vox, Salon, and the Daily Beast, among others. He has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and France 24 and all four of Atlanta's local television stations. He has also appeared on numerous local and national radio shows. Listen and Subscribe to Eric's Podcast Supreme Myths and follow him on Tik Tok!
In our final conversation of the year, our SVP of Client Relations, Joanna Summers, sits down with Stefan Cassella, a former federal prosecutor with more than three decades of experience in international asset forfeiture who has authored over 50 law review articles and played a pivotal role in shaping and advancing federal asset forfeiture laws in the US and abroad.In this episode, Joanna and Stef explore the growing role of cryptocurrency in criminal investigations and asset forfeiture, highlighting its use in money laundering, investment fraud, and sanctions evasion. Together, they unpack the complexities of high-profile cases like Bitcoin Fog, the challenges posed by mixers and decentralised exchanges, and the significance of recent court rulings in legitimising blockchain analysis tools. Stefan also shares practical advice for law enforcement and attorneys navigating the crypto landscape, highlighting the need for enhanced training and resources to address these evolving threats and the critical role of non-conviction-based asset forfeiture, or civil asset forfeiture, as a key law enforcement tool.Timestamps02:00 - Stef's Background03:00 - The Growing Role of Cryptocurrency in Asset Forfeiture07:00 - Understanding Civil Asset Forfeiture11:00 - Regulatory Challenges and the Future of Crypto Laws14:30 - Complexities of Crypto Mixers and Decentralized Exchanges19:30 - The Legitimacy of Blockchain Analysis Tools in Court23:00 - Practical Advice for Law Enforcement and Attorneys in Crypto Forfeiture24:00 - Insights from Stefan's Money Laundering and Forfeiture Digest26:00 - Key Challenges in Crypto Asset ForfeitureResources Mentionedhttps://www.trmlabs.com/tackling-crypto-crime-2023-survey-of-law-enforcement https://assetforfeiturelaw.us/ https://www.fatf-gafi.org/en/publications/Fatfrecommendations/Bestpracticesonconfiscationrecommendations4and38andaframeworkforongoingworkonassetrecovery.html https://sherwood.news/crypto/momentum-builds-for-a-strategic-national-bitcoin-reserve-but-what-does-that/ https://academy.assetreality.com/student/page/149456-virtual-asset-transfer-fundamentals About our Guest:Stefan Cassella is a former federal prosecutor with more than three decades of experience in international asset forfeiture who has authored over 50 law review articles and played a pivotal role in shaping and advancing federal asset forfeiture laws in the USA and abroad.Today, as the founder of Asset Forfeiture Law, he continues to provide invaluable guidance to law enforcement, private law firms, and financial institutions by providing expert witness services, training, and legal guidance.DisclaimerOur podcasts are for informational purposes only. They are not intended to provide legal, tax, financial, and/or investment advice. Listeners must consult their own advisors before making decisions on the topics discussed. Asset Reality has no responsibility or liability for any decision made or any other acts or omissions in connection with your use of this material.The views expressed by guests are their own and their appearance on the program does not imply an endorsement of them or any entity they represent. Views and opinions expressed by Asset Reality employees are those of the employees and do not necessarily reflect the views of the company. Asset Reality does not guarantee or warrant the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, suitability or validity of the information in any particular podcast and will not be responsible for any claim attributable to errors, omissions, or other inaccuracies of any part of such material. Unless stated otherwise, reference to any specific product or entity does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation by Asset Reality.
Stand Up is a daily podcast that I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more GET TICKETS TO PODJAM II In Vegas March 27-30 News and Headlines start a 9 mins My conversation with Eric begins at 30 mins Eric J. Segall graduated from Emory University, Phi Beta Kappa 27 and summa cum laude, and from Vanderbilt Law School, where he was the research editor for the Law Review and member of Order of the Coif. He clerked for the Chief Judge Charles Moye Jr. for the Northern District of Georgia, and Albert J. Henderson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After his clerkships, Segall worked for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the U.S. Department of Justice, before joining the Georgia State faculty in 1991. Segall teaches federal courts and constitutional law I and II. He is the author of the books Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. His articles on constitutional law have appeared in, among others, the Harvard Law Review Forum, the Stanford Law Review On Line, the UCLA Law Review, the George Washington Law Review, the Washington University Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, and Constitutional Commentary among many others. Segall's op-eds and essays have appeared in the New York Times, the LA Times, The Atlantic, SLATE, Vox, Salon, and the Daily Beast, among others. He has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and France 24 and all four of Atlanta's local television stations. He has also appeared on numerous local and national radio shows. Listen and Subscribe to Eric's Podcast Supreme Myths and follow him on Tik Tok! Join us Thursday's at 8EST for our Weekly Happy Hour Hangout! Pete on Blue Sky Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll Follow and Support Pete Coe Buy Ava's Art Hire DJ Monzyk to build your website or help you with Marketing
Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. This show is Ad free and fully supported by listeners like you! Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Eric J. Segall graduated from Emory University, Phi Beta Kappa 27 and summa cum laude, and from Vanderbilt Law School, where he was the research editor for the Law Review and member of Order of the Coif. He clerked for the Chief Judge Charles Moye Jr. for the Northern District of Georgia, and Albert J. Henderson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After his clerkships, Segall worked for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the U.S. Department of Justice, before joining the Georgia State faculty in 1991. Segall teaches federal courts and constitutional law I and II. He is the author of the books Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. His articles on constitutional law have appeared in, among others, the Harvard Law Review Forum, the Stanford Law Review On Line, the UCLA Law Review, the George Washington Law Review, the Washington University Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, and Constitutional Commentary among many others. Segall's op-eds and essays have appeared in the New York Times, the LA Times, The Atlantic, SLATE, Vox, Salon, and the Daily Beast, among others. He has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and France 24 and all four of Atlanta's local television stations. He has also appeared on numerous local and national radio shows. Listen and Subscribe to Eric's Podcast Supreme Myths and follow him on Tik Tok! Join us Thursday's at 8EST for our Weekly Happy Hour Hangout! Pete on Blue Sky Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page
I'm thrilled today to welcome new friend, Albertina Antognini and old (by which I mean long-time) friend, Susan Appleton. Albertina Antognini is the James E. Rogers Professor of Law at the University of Arizona where she teaches Family Law, Property, Trusts & Estates, and a seminar surveying different legal regimes that shape the contemporary American family. Professor Antognini's work examines the ways that legal rules actively regulate, and in the process define, families. Her research is centrally preoccupied with considering how categories that may appear “natural” are in fact products of law, with the aim of opening them up to a more rigorous critique.Susan Appleton is the Lemma Barkeloo & Phoebe Couzins Professor of Law at Washington University School of Law. She is a nationally known expert in family law and feminist legal theory. Her research, scholarship, and teaching address reproductive justice, parentage, gender, sexualities, and public assistance for families. They join us today to discuss their recent article, Sexual Agreements, published in the Wash. U. Law Review. UVA Law 3L, Laura Habib, co-hosts this episode. Further ReadingAntognini and Appleton, Sexual Agreements, 99 Wash. U. L. Rev. 1807 (2022)Antognini bio https://law.arizona.edu/person/albertina-antogniniAntognini, Nonmarital Contracts, 73 Stan. L. Rev. 67 (2021)Antognini, Nonmarital Coverture, 99 B.U. L. Rev. 2139 (2019)Appleton bio https://law.wustl.edu/faculty-staff-directory/profile/susan-frelich-appleton/Appleton, Sex Positive Feminism's Values in Search of the Law of Pleasure, in The Oxford Handbook of Feminism and Law in the United States (Deborah L. Brake, Martha Chamallas, & Verna Williams eds., 2023).Appleton, Families Under Construction: Parentage, Adoption, and Assisted Reproduction (with D. Kelly Weisberg) (2021).Krawiec bio https://www.law.virginia.edu/faculty/profile/kdk4q/1181653Krawiec, Gametes: Commodification and The Fertility Industry, in Routledge Handbook of Commodification, Routledge, 278–289 (1 ed. 2023).Krawiec, Markets, repugnance, and externalities, Journal of Institutional Economics 1–12 (2022).Krawiec, No Money Allowed, 2022 University of Chicago Legal Forum 221–240 (2022).
Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. This show is Ad free and fully supported by listeners like you! Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls 19 mins Eric J. Segall graduated from Emory University, Phi Beta Kappa 27 and summa cum laude, and from Vanderbilt Law School, where he was the research editor for the Law Review and member of Order of the Coif. He clerked for the Chief Judge Charles Moye Jr. for the Northern District of Georgia, and Albert J. Henderson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After his clerkships, Segall worked for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the U.S. Department of Justice, before joining the Georgia State faculty in 1991. Segall teaches federal courts and constitutional law I and II. He is the author of the books Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. His articles on constitutional law have appeared in, among others, the Harvard Law Review Forum, the Stanford Law Review On Line, the UCLA Law Review, the George Washington Law Review, the Washington University Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, and Constitutional Commentary among many others. Segall's op-eds and essays have appeared in the New York Times, the LA Times, The Atlantic, SLATE, Vox, Salon, and the Daily Beast, among others. He has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and France 24 and all four of Atlanta's local television stations. He has also appeared on numerous local and national radio shows. Listen and Subscribe to Eric's Podcast Supreme Myths and follow him on Tik Tok! 1:19 Bill Boyle is a well sourced and connected businessman who lives in Washington DC with his wife and son. Bill is a trusted friend and source for me who I met after he listened and became a regular and highly respected caller of my siriusxm radio show. Bill is a voracious reader and listeners love to hear his take. I think his analysis is as sharp as anyone you will hear on radio or TV and he has well placed friends across the federal government who are always talking to him. As far as I can tell he is not in the CIA. Follow him on twitter and park at his garages. The Stand Up Community Chat is always active with other Stand Up Subscribers on the Discord Platform. Join us Thursday's at 8EST for our Weekly Happy Hour Hangout! Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll Follow and Support Pete Coe Buy Ava's Art Hire DJ Monzyk to build your website or help you with Marketing
Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. This show is Ad free and fully supported by listeners like you! Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls 21 Mins Allison Gill is a veteran, a Ph.D., a former federal government executive, a comedian, an author, and a staunch advocate for the democratic resistance. Her mission as the executive producer and host of the podcast, “Mueller, She Wrote,” is to employ her expertise in the absurd amount of Trump Russia news and wrap it up into tasty bites for human consumption; she is committed to do this weekly until the House of Trump falls. Additionally, she is very dedicated to the separation of facts and theory, and she works hard to make sure you know which is which. The truth is the goal, and facts are the tools. Allison hosts and produces a number of additional podcasts for democracy activists and informed citizens, including: “The Daily Beans” and “Clean Up on Aisle 45.” Please visit the following podcast links for Allison Gill's amazing shows: Mueller, She Wrote on Apple Podcasts, The Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts, Cleanup on Aisle 45 with AG and Andrew Torrez on Apple Podcasts. Bill Boyle is a well sourced and connected businessman who lives in Washington DC with his wife and son. Bill is a trusted friend and source for me who I met after he listened and became a regular and highly respected caller of my siriusxm radio show. Bill is a voracious reader and listeners love to hear his take. I think his analysis is as sharp as anyone you will hear on radio or TV and he has well placed friends across the federal government who are always talking to him. As far as I can tell he is not in the CIA. Follow him on twitter and park at his garages. Eric J. Segall graduated from Emory University, Phi Beta Kappa 27 and summa cum laude, and from Vanderbilt Law School, where he was the research editor for the Law Review and member of Order of the Coif. He clerked for the Chief Judge Charles Moye Jr. for the Northern District of Georgia, and Albert J. Henderson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After his clerkships, Segall worked for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the U.S. Department of Justice, before joining the Georgia State faculty in 1991. Segall teaches federal courts and constitutional law I and II. He is the author of the books Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. His articles on constitutional law have appeared in, among others, the Harvard Law Review Forum, the Stanford Law Review On Line, the UCLA Law Review, the George Washington Law Review, the Washington University Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, and Constitutional Commentary among many others. Segall's op-eds and essays have appeared in the New York Times, the LA Times, The Atlantic, SLATE, Vox, Salon, and the Daily Beast, among others. He has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and France 24 and all four of Atlanta's local television stations. He has also appeared on numerous local and national radio shows. Listen and Subscribe to Eric's Podcast Supreme Myths and follow him on Tik Tok! Get David's new Book! Antidemocratic Inside the Far Right's 50-Year Plot to Control American Elections David Daley is a senior fellow for FairVote and the author of Ratf**ked: The True Story Behind the Secret Plan to Steal America's Democracy, which helped spark the recent drive to reform gerrymandering. Dave's second book, Unrigged: How Americans Are Battling Back to Save Democracy, chronicles the victories and defeats in state efforts to reform elections and uphold voting rights. A frequent lecturer and media source about gerrymandering, he is the former editor-in-chief of Salon.com, and the former CEO and publisher of the Connecticut News Project. He is a digital media fellow at the Wilson Center for the Humanities and the Grady School of Journalism at the University of Georgia. His work has appeared in the New Yorker, The Washington Post, The Guardian, New York magazine, the Atlantic, the Boston Globe, Rolling Stone, Details, and he's been on CNN and NPR. When writing for the Hartford Courant, he helped identify Mark Felt as the "Deep Throat" source for Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll Follow and Support Pete Coe Buy Ava's Art
Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Boyle starts at 30 mins and Segall begins at about 1 hour Bill Boyle is a well sourced and connected businessman who lives in Washington DC with his wife and son. Bill is a trusted friend and source for me who I met after he listened and became a regular and highly respected caller of my siriusxm radio show. Bill is a voracious reader and listeners love to hear his take. I think his analysis is as sharp as anyone you will hear on radio or TV and he has well placed friends across the federal government who are always talking to him. As far as I can tell he is not in the CIA. Follow him on twitter and park at his garages. Eric J. Segall graduated from Emory University, Phi Beta Kappa 27 and summa cum laude, and from Vanderbilt Law School, where he was the research editor for the Law Review and member of Order of the Coif. He clerked for the Chief Judge Charles Moye Jr. for the Northern District of Georgia, and Albert J. Henderson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After his clerkships, Segall worked for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the U.S. Department of Justice, before joining the Georgia State faculty in 1991. Segall teaches federal courts and constitutional law I and II. He is the author of the books Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. His articles on constitutional law have appeared in, among others, the Harvard Law Review Forum, the Stanford Law Review On Line, the UCLA Law Review, the George Washington Law Review, the Washington University Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, and Constitutional Commentary among many others. Segall's op-eds and essays have appeared in the New York Times, the LA Times, The Atlantic, SLATE, Vox, Salon, and the Daily Beast, among others. He has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and France 24 and all four of Atlanta's local television stations. He has also appeared on numerous local and national radio shows. Listen and Subscribe to Eric's Podcast Supreme Myths and follow him on Tik Tok! Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll Follow and Support Pete Coe Buy Ava's Art Hire DJ Monzyk to build your website or help you with Marketing
A Day in the Life of a Law Student Source: "A Day in the Life of a Law Student: Navigating the Challenges and Triumphs" Main Themes: Demands of Law School: The source emphasizes the rigorous nature of legal education, highlighting the heavy workload, intense class discussions, and constant need for self-directed study. Importance of Time Management: Effective organization and time allocation are crucial for balancing academic demands with personal life and extracurricular activities. Value of Active Learning: The source underscores the importance of active participation in class, engaging in study groups, and seeking out practical experiences like legal clinics and Moot Court. Building a Professional Network: Networking with professors, peers, and legal professionals is presented as a vital aspect of the law school experience, essential for career development. Prioritizing Self-Care: Maintaining physical and mental well-being is portrayed as essential for long-term success, encouraging students to find a balance between academic pursuits and personal time. Key Takeaways: Law School is Intense: "Expect heavy reading assignments, in-depth case law analysis, and pressure from the Socratic Method in classes." Time Management is Crucial: "Balancing coursework, networking, extracurriculars, and personal time is key to success." Active Participation: "Engaging in class discussions, study groups, and practical experiences like legal clinics are core to the law school journey." Building Connections: "Networking with peers, professors, and legal professionals is a vital part of professional development." Self-Care Matters: "Maintaining a balance between academic demands and personal well-being is essential for long-term success." Important Facts/Ideas: The Socratic Method: A teaching technique widely used in law schools, involving professors posing questions to students to stimulate critical thinking and in-depth analysis. Case Briefing: A fundamental study method where students summarize and analyze key aspects of legal cases, aiding in comprehension and class preparation. Legal Clinics: Provide students with practical experience by working on real-world cases under the supervision of practicing attorneys. Extracurricular Activities: Law schools offer a range of activities like Law Review, Moot Court, and student organizations that contribute to skill development and networking opportunities. Quotes: "The anxiety of being 'cold-called' makes preparation non-negotiable." "Peer discussions are another valuable component of class time. Whether during breaks or in study groups, students often discuss their understanding of cases, share perspectives, and clarify doubts." "The law library becomes a second home for many students." "Balancing the demands of law school with personal time is a challenge, but it's important for long-term success." Overall Impression: The source offers a comprehensive overview of a typical day in the life of a law student, realistically portraying the challenges and rewards inherent in legal education. It emphasizes that success requires not just academic rigor but also effective time management, active participation, networking skills, and a commitment to self-care. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support
In the first episode of Season 6, we chat with Sofia Winograd, the current Editor-in-Chief of the Houston Law Review. Sofia takes us through her background from growing up in Mexico City to deciding to go to law school. She shares some great tips on how she found success in her law school experience and explains why she decided to join the Law Review, ultimately stepping into the EIC role.Sofia opens up about how being EIC has been both what she expected and a bit different. We also talk about the strong community that Law Review creates and how the Houston Law Review makes a real impact on legal scholarship, even getting cited by the Supreme Court! Plus, she gives us a sneak peek into her upcoming article on Texas Senate Bill 17 and shares her vision for the future of the HLR. Tune in for a great conversation!To get a mailing or electronic subscription to the Houston Law Review click here. For more Emphasis Added content, follow us on Instagram and check out our video content on YouTube!
Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Eric J. Segall graduated from Emory University, Phi Beta Kappa 27 and summa cum laude, and from Vanderbilt Law School, where he was the research editor for the Law Review and member of Order of the Coif. He clerked for the Chief Judge Charles Moye Jr. for the Northern District of Georgia, and Albert J. Henderson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After his clerkships, Segall worked for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the U.S. Department of Justice, before joining the Georgia State faculty in 1991. Segall teaches federal courts and constitutional law I and II. He is the author of the books Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. His articles on constitutional law have appeared in, among others, the Harvard Law Review Forum, the Stanford Law Review On Line, the UCLA Law Review, the George Washington Law Review, the Washington University Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, and Constitutional Commentary among many others. Segall's op-eds and essays have appeared in the New York Times, the LA Times, The Atlantic, SLATE, Vox, Salon, and the Daily Beast, among others. He has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and France 24 and all four of Atlanta's local television stations. He has also appeared on numerous local and national radio shows. Listen and Subscribe to Eric's Podcast Supreme Myths and follow him on Tik Tok! Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll Follow and Support Pete Coe Buy Ava's Art Hire DJ Monzyk to build your website or help you with Marketing
SEASON 5 Episode 6# We loved talking with Nancy - she relays the most incredible experiences in a calm, matter of fact way. Her life journey has carried her from rational law and business practice through to the paranormal, psychic and mediumship, and the unexplainable beyond. Nancy is an attorney, specialised in securities litigation, who became a psychic detective, spiritual medium, remote viewer trained in military-style CRV and ARV, medical intuitive, and paranormal investigator. She works with law enforcement and victims' families on missing persons/homicide cases. Nancy teaches psychic development and mediumship classes, lectures on topics including psychic work, paranormal investigation, remote viewing, and ufology with a focus on comparative linguistic studies of alien languages. A former CBS radio show host of "Hot Leads Cold Cases," Nancy has appeared frequently on internet, radio and TV. She is a magna cum laude graduate of Princeton University and an honors published Law Review graduate of Pace Law School. Nancy also founded a local environmental group and sits on her local government.Nancy did not start out her life as a "psychic" - she became psychic through years of training! She is a firm believer that psychic ability is a natural human trait that most of us lose in a kind of mental trade-off as we develop our cognitive, linguistic, intellectual abilities. Consequently, as Nancy demonstrates in her book "Psychic Intuition," psychic ability can be re-learned by all of us. It is a trainable skill. The book takes the reader on a fascinating journey into the fields of neuroscience, psychology, language and psychic phenomena. The book is intended to bridge the gap between skeptics and believers.She became fascinated with the topic of alien communication after a major sighting of a football-field-sized UFO in 2011, and subsequently received a number of electronic-sounding communications over the phone along with her daughter who also witnessed the event. Her book "How to Talk to an Alien" represents a ground-breaking journey into the field of alien communication, spoken, written and telepathic based upon case historiesNancy's books Nancy's website : The Skeptical Psychic original music by: BabygreenFind & Support - Off World Link and your own non-physical potential... ko-fiSupport the Show.Support the Show.
Russell Hill joins Brian Roberts in The Attorney Lounge to share his background growing up in a blue-collar family and his military career before transitioning to law. He discusses his experience in the military, including his time in the National Guard and later in the Marine Corps. He talks about the physical demands of military training, including jumping out of airplanes, and shares a harrowing experience of a parachute jump gone wrong. Russ also explains how he transitioned from the military to pursuing a career in law, including earning one of the top LSAT scores in the country and acceptance into many top law schools, eventually choosing to attend UC Berkeley School of Law on a full tuition scholarship. During law school, Russ worked on Law Review and finished near the top of his class. Following graduation, he took a position as an intellectual property attorney at Morrison Foerster and later at Howrey. He then transitioned in-house counsel at Lenovo, where he eventually became the Chief IP Counsel. After Lenovo, he joined a helicopter company in Vancouver, Canada, to prepare it for an IPO. However, the company faced a major setback when one of its aircraft crashed due to a manufacturing defect. Despite the challenges, Russ successfully navigated through various roles and built a strong legal team. Russ then became Deputy General Counsel and Chief Compliance Counsel at Logitech and he talks about the supportive and inspiring leadership at Logitech and the opportunities he had to work on major transactions. While at Logitech, Russ describes how he survived a life-threatening bicycle accident where he broke 12 vertebrae and severed his spinal cord leaving him paralyzed. Russ shares how his military background and fighting spirit helped him survive through the accident and recovery process. His incredible spirit and determination are truly inspiring and Russ highlights the importance of giving back and his involvement as a Board member with the Micronutrient Forum. Russ's story is a testament to resilience, determination, positive energy and the power of a supportive community.
Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Join Christian and I on August 22 in Queens NY ! Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls 27 mins Eric J. Segall graduated from Emory University, Phi Beta Kappa 27 and summa cum laude, and from Vanderbilt Law School, where he was the research editor for the Law Review and member of Order of the Coif. He clerked for the Chief Judge Charles Moye Jr. for the Northern District of Georgia, and Albert J. Henderson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After his clerkships, Segall worked for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the U.S. Department of Justice, before joining the Georgia State faculty in 1991. Segall teaches federal courts and constitutional law I and II. He is the author of the books Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. His articles on constitutional law have appeared in, among others, the Harvard Law Review Forum, the Stanford Law Review On Line, the UCLA Law Review, the George Washington Law Review, the Washington University Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, and Constitutional Commentary among many others. Segall's op-eds and essays have appeared in the New York Times, the LA Times, The Atlantic, SLATE, Vox, Salon, and the Daily Beast, among others. He has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and France 24 and all four of Atlanta's local television stations. He has also appeared on numerous local and national radio shows. Listen and Subscribe to Eric's Podcast Supreme Myths and follow him on Tik Tok! 52 minutes Bill Boyle is a well sourced and connected businessman who lives in Washington DC with his wife and son. Bill is a trusted friend and source for me who I met after he listened and became a regular and highly respected caller of my siriusxm radio show. Bill is a voracious reader and listeners love to hear his take. I think his analysis is as sharp as anyone you will hear on radio or TV and he has well placed friends across the federal government who are always talking to him. As far as I can tell he is not in the CIA. Follow him on twitter and park at his garages. Pete On Threads Pete on YouTube Check out all things Jon Carroll Follow and Support Pete Coe Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page
This episode is sponsored by Ash Law. Estate planning might not be the start of a fun conversation, but it's an important one for parents. Our interview with Alyssa Hodges, who you may remember from our episode on divorce, talks about everything moms need to know, including why Taylor Swift needs a trust not a will! Alyssa wrote an article for us on estate planning. She writes, "We teach our kids to look both ways when crossing the street and to wash their hands (stomach flu fear lives #RentFree in my head). We teach them not to talk to strangers and to be aware of their surroundings. We worry about the immediate dangers. But we have to cover the long-term dangers, too." Meet Alyssa Hodges Alyssa Hodges is a KC-based family law and divorce attorney. She earned her law degree from the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law and is pursuing a master's in tax law at Washington University St. Louis School of Law. She has two young children and is a published author. Ms. Hodges has been on Law Review, the Dean's List, and a competitive negotiations team. She's been an active member of MothersEsquire since 2018 and WealthCounsel since 2020. In 2021, she became a columnist for Above the Law. Ms. Hodges enjoys preparing for trial and being in the courtroom. However, she believes collaboration is almost always better than leaving a decision up to a judge who doesn't know her client or her client's family dynamics. Connect with Megan and Sarah We would love to hear from you! Send us an e-mail or find us on Instagram or Facebook!
Eric J. Segall graduated from Emory University, Phi Beta Kappa 27 and summa cum laude, and from Vanderbilt Law School, where he was the research editor for the Law Review and member of Order of the Coif. He clerked for the Chief Judge Charles Moye Jr. for the Northern District of Georgia, and Albert J. Henderson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After his clerkships, Segall worked for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the U.S. Department of Justice, before joining the Georgia State faculty in 1991. Segall teaches federal courts and constitutional law I and II. He is the author of the books Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. His articles on constitutional law have appeared in, among others, the Harvard Law Review Forum, the Stanford Law Review On Line, the UCLA Law Review, the George Washington Law Review, the Washington University Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, and Constitutional Commentary among many others. Segall's op-eds and essays have appeared in the New York Times, the LA Times, The Atlantic, SLATE, Vox, Salon, and the Daily Beast, among others. He has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and France 24 and all four of Atlanta's local television stations. He has also appeared on numerous local and national radio shows. Listen and Subscribe to Eric's Podcast Supreme Myths and follow him on Tik Tok! The Stand Up Community Chat is always active with other Stand Up Subscribers on the Discord Platform. Join us Thursday's at 8EST for our Weekly Happy Hour Hangout! Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll Follow and Support Pete Coe
Eric J. Segall graduated from Emory University, Phi Beta Kappa 27 and summa cum laude, and from Vanderbilt Law School, where he was the research editor for the Law Review and member of Order of the Coif. He clerked for the Chief Judge Charles Moye Jr. for the Northern District of Georgia, and Albert J. Henderson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After his clerkships, Segall worked for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the U.S. Department of Justice, before joining the Georgia State faculty in 1991. Segall teaches federal courts and constitutional law I and II. He is the author of the books Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. His articles on constitutional law have appeared in, among others, the Harvard Law Review Forum, the Stanford Law Review On Line, the UCLA Law Review, the George Washington Law Review, the Washington University Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, and Constitutional Commentary among many others. Segall's op-eds and essays have appeared in the New York Times, the LA Times, The Atlantic, SLATE, Vox, Salon, and the Daily Beast, among others. He has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and France 24 and all four of Atlanta's local television stations. He has also appeared on numerous local and national radio shows. Listen and Subscribe to Eric's Podcast Supreme Myths and follow him on Tik Tok! As President of Brady, Kris Brown combines a lifelong background in policy, law, and grassroots activism with considerable strategic management expertise to help forge the direction of the organization's programs and ensure the successful impact of its national and field assets. A veteran of gun violence prevention work, Ms. Brown started her career on Capitol Hill working for Rep. Jim Moran, advocating for the bill that would eventually become the groundbreaking Brady Bill requiring background checks on federally licensed gun sales. Ms. Brown has also served as the Chief Legal Officer to a publicly traded company based in Switzerland and as a lawyer practicing at the law firm Weil, Gotshal & Manges. She lives in Arlington, VA, with her two teenage daughters. At Brady, she has helped shape the conversation on gun violence as a national health care crisis, launched the organization's groundbreaking safe storage campaign to End Family Fire, and formed Brady's Team Enough youth initiative after the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School massacre in Parkland, FL. A noted speaker and media commentator, Ms. Brown was featured in the November 2018 TIME magazine cover article, “Guns in America,” in which she noted that Brady is working to move the discussion of gun violence beyond the polarizing politics in American life. “There's a huge amount of common ground on this issue in this country and I hope we're finally at a tipping point where we can move forward with legislation and [programs] that actually protect people, and are entirely consistent with the Second Amendment.” The Stand Up Community Chat is always active with other Stand Up Subscribers on the Discord Platform. Join us Thursday's at 8EST for our Weekly Happy Hour Hangout! Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll Follow and Support Pete Coe
Stand Up is a daily podcast that I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more Eric J. Segall graduated from Emory University, Phi Beta Kappa 27 and summa cum laude, and from Vanderbilt Law School, where he was the research editor for the Law Review and member of Order of the Coif. He clerked for the Chief Judge Charles Moye Jr. for the Northern District of Georgia, and Albert J. Henderson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After his clerkships, Segall worked for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the U.S. Department of Justice, before joining the Georgia State faculty in 1991. Segall teaches federal courts and constitutional law I and II. He is the author of the books Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. His articles on constitutional law have appeared in, among others, the Harvard Law Review Forum, the Stanford Law Review On Line, the UCLA Law Review, the George Washington Law Review, the Washington University Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, and Constitutional Commentary among many others. Segall's op-eds and essays have appeared in the New York Times, the LA Times, The Atlantic, SLATE, Vox, Salon, and the Daily Beast, among others. He has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and France 24 and all four of Atlanta's local television stations. He has also appeared on numerous local and national radio shows. Listen and Subscribe to Eric's Podcast Supreme Myths and follow him on Tik Tok! Pete On Threads Pete on YouTube Check out all things Jon Carroll Follow and Support Pete Coe Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page
Stand Up is a daily podcast that I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more Eric J. Segall graduated from Emory University, Phi Beta Kappa 27 and summa cum laude, and from Vanderbilt Law School, where he was the research editor for the Law Review and member of Order of the Coif. He clerked for the Chief Judge Charles Moye Jr. for the Northern District of Georgia, and Albert J. Henderson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After his clerkships, Segall worked for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the U.S. Department of Justice, before joining the Georgia State faculty in 1991. Segall teaches federal courts and constitutional law I and II. He is the author of the books Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. His articles on constitutional law have appeared in, among others, the Harvard Law Review Forum, the Stanford Law Review On Line, the UCLA Law Review, the George Washington Law Review, the Washington University Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, and Constitutional Commentary among many others. Segall's op-eds and essays have appeared in the New York Times, the LA Times, The Atlantic, SLATE, Vox, Salon, and the Daily Beast, among others. He has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and France 24 and all four of Atlanta's local television stations. He has also appeared on numerous local and national radio shows. Listen and Subscribe to Eric's Podcast Supreme Myths and follow him on Tik Tok! 49 mins Bill Boyle is a well sourced and connected businessman who lives in Washington DC with his wife and son. Bill is a trusted friend and source for me who I met after he listened and became a regular and highly respected caller of my siriusxm radio show. Bill is a voracious reader and listeners love to hear his take. I think his analysis is as sharp as anyone you will hear on radio or TV and he has well placed friends across the federal government who are always talking to him. As far as I can tell he is not in the CIA. Follow him on twitter and park at his garages. Pete On Threads Pete on YouTube Check out all things Jon Carroll Follow and Support Pete Coe Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page
The Student Note Writing Process: Exploring One of the Biggest Parts of Law Review that You Didn't Know Existed (Part II) In the second part of this series, Lucy Chin (Lead Online Editor, Volume 108) talks with three Minnesota Law Review Editors whose Student Notes were published in this year's volume of Minnesota Law Review. Discussing both the substantive areas of law that each student wrote about and the process that makes up the note writing process, these episodes provides insight and perspectives on one of the biggest parts of the Law Review experience, which you may not have even known existed! The Minnesota Law Review Editor's featured and their articles: Lindsay Maher - Americon Dream: Social Pressures and Lackluster Regulation Allow Multi-Level Marketing Companies to Function as De Facto Pyramid Schemes z.umn.edu/MLRMaher Randa Larsen - Banishing Federal Overstep: Why Protecting Tribal Sovereignty Justifies a Narrow Reading of the Indian Civil Rights Act z.umn.edu/MLRLarsen Tyler Blackmon - The Good, the Bad, and the Unconstitutional: State Attempts to Solve the Defendant Class Action Problem z.umn.edu/MLRBlackmon Read the latest issue and archives of the Minnesota Law Review -> https://minnesotalawreview.org/ Follow the Minnesota Law Review on Twitter -> twitter.com/MinnesotaLawRev Learn more about the University of Minnesota Law School by visiting https://law.umn.edu
Stand Up is a daily podcast that I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more Eric J. Segall graduated from Emory University, Phi Beta Kappa 27 and summa cum laude, and from Vanderbilt Law School, where he was the research editor for the Law Review and member of Order of the Coif. He clerked for the Chief Judge Charles Moye Jr. for the Northern District of Georgia, and Albert J. Henderson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After his clerkships, Segall worked for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the U.S. Department of Justice, before joining the Georgia State faculty in 1991. Segall teaches federal courts and constitutional law I and II. He is the author of the books Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. His articles on constitutional law have appeared in, among others, the Harvard Law Review Forum, the Stanford Law Review On Line, the UCLA Law Review, the George Washington Law Review, the Washington University Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, and Constitutional Commentary among many others. Segall's op-eds and essays have appeared in the New York Times, the LA Times, The Atlantic, SLATE, Vox, Salon, and the Daily Beast, among others. He has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and France 24 and all four of Atlanta's local television stations. He has also appeared on numerous local and national radio shows. Listen and Subscribe to Eric's Podcast Supreme Myths and follow him on Tik Tok! Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll Follow and Support Pete Coe Buy Ava's Art
Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more Eric J. Segall graduated from Emory University, Phi Beta Kappa 27 and summa cum laude, and from Vanderbilt Law School, where he was the research editor for the Law Review and member of Order of the Coif. He clerked for the Chief Judge Charles Moye Jr. for the Northern District of Georgia, and Albert J. Henderson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After his clerkships, Segall worked for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the U.S. Department of Justice, before joining the Georgia State faculty in 1991. Segall teaches federal courts and constitutional law I and II. He is the author of the books Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. His articles on constitutional law have appeared in, among others, the Harvard Law Review Forum, the Stanford Law Review On Line, the UCLA Law Review, the George Washington Law Review, the Washington University Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, and Constitutional Commentary among many others. Segall's op-eds and essays have appeared in the New York Times, the LA Times, The Atlantic, SLATE, Vox, Salon, and the Daily Beast, among others. He has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and France 24 and all four of Atlanta's local television stations. He has also appeared on numerous local and national radio shows. Listen and Subscribe to Eric's Podcast Supreme Myths and follow him on Tik Tok! Join us Thursday's at 8EST for our Weekly Happy Hour Hangout! Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll Follow and Support Pete Coe Buy Ava's Art
Can Congress require China-based ByteDance to divest itself of TikTok as a condition for TikTok continuing to be easily accessible in the US? Alan Rozenshtein, Jane Bambauer, and Eugene Volokh discuss whether the law is consistent with the First Amendment – and with the much more rarely talked about Bill of Attainder Clause. To view the full transcript of this episode, read below: Free Speech Unmuted Eugene Volokh: Hello, welcome to Free Speech Unmuted from the Hoover Institution. I'm your co host Eugene Volokh, now basically emeritus from UCLA Law School and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. Jane Bambauer: I'm Jane Bamberger, the Breckner Eminent Scholar and Professor of Law at University of Florida. And today we have with us Alan Rosenstein. So Alan, tell us, tell us about yourself and correct my pronunciation of your name if I just butchered it. Alan Rozenshtein: Sure. it's Rosenstein, but I, don't, I don't, wait, Eugene Volokh: wait, a minute. You, spell it Alan Rozenshtein: Rosenstein. I can't, I, I cannot, I am not responsible for my parents immigration choices. Eugene Volokh: Exactly. So Alan and I. are both of Russian Jewish extraction. I was actually born in Kiev and it came here when I was, seven. Alan's parents are from, from Russia. I don't know the former Soviet union, but he was born very [00:01:00] shortly after they came. So there is always this question of how you, how you transliterate the relic names into something that Americans can pronounce. And I, I'm not sure either of our parents did a great job with that. mu much as we love them on this particular point, they may have aired. Alan Rozenshtein: it's funny because both of our names have these silent Hs and I like to joke that there's a STL somewhere that's missing an H. There you go. Found its way into my name. It's s. Eugene Volokh: But I'm sorry to have interrupted, Alan, tell us about yourself. Alan Rozenshtein: Sure. I'm an associate professor of law at the University of Minnesota where I've taught now for seven years. And I am also a senior editor at Lawfare where I do a lot of my writing on the sorts of topics that we're going to talk about today. and before that, I was a, attorney at the Department of Justice in the law and policy section of the National Security Division. Jane Bambauer: Yeah, so we're here today to talk about the tick tock ban or so called tick tock [00:02:00] ban it will see what, whether it actually, you know what its future actually has in store. But can you tell us a little bit about the law that was passed by Congress and signed by President Biden and then. We'll figure out what the free speech issues are. Alan Rozenshtein: Sure. So the law and, this is actually one of these, cases where Congress did not use a backer name for some reason, it's the protect Americans from foreign adversary controlled applications act. So it's perfect. Jane Bambauer: Yeah. Which is, Alan Rozenshtein: which is not great. which is not great. So we're just going to tell, I'm going to call it the tick talk law. so this was a law that was introduced in the house as part of the, bipartisan select committee on China, sailed through the house, a few months ago, surprising a lot of people how quickly it went through. It seemed to stall in the Senate for a while, but then for a number of reasons, including some changes made to the [00:03:00] law and then the broader, foreign aid package that went through. To assistance to Ukraine, Israel in particular, this was, signed or enacted by Congress and signed the law by the president. I think late last month, and the law, is sometimes called a, it's called by its supporters as a divestment law, it's called by its opponents as a ban law. Basically what it does is it requires bite dance. The Chinese company that owns approximately 20 percent of TikTok to, divest itself of TikTok. And if it doesn't do so within a little less than a year. TikTok is banned now. What band means is a little complicated. really what it is that, the law actually applies to, app stores and in particular, internet providers. They're not allowed to, Host tiktok services, so it doesn't actually make for consumers using tiktok illegal or anything. But given that the vast, majority of people just want to use a, [00:04:00] social media platform without too much, fuss, once the app stores stop carrying updated versions of tiktok. And once it gets, hard to use tiktok through the website, through your internet service provider, the assumption is that tiktok will be for the vast majority of people effectively banned. Jane Bambauer: Yeah. Okay. so you've written on Lawfare about the First Amendment implications and I understand you're going to have another post coming out soon. We'll link to both of those. But what do you make of this? how would you apply First Amendment jurisprudence to this particular law? Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, no, it's an interesting question. And to be honest, I, it's funny. I, I, have never thought of myself as a first amendment scholar, though, in the last year or two, just given how much time I spend thinking about all things internet related, I feel like I've become one. But really, I think of you two as far more expert in this than I am. So I have my own ideas, but I'm actually very curious This is what you two with kind of a much longer history of thinking about the First Amendment think, so [00:05:00] I think of myself as in the minority of scholars, not a tiny minority, but I think a minority of scholars who think that although the First Amendment arguments that TikTok and TikTok users will be making, against this law, although the arguments are strong, that ultimately the government actually has a pretty good Case and I think more likely than not that the first amendment that the government will ultimately prevail You know at the end of the day and here I'll cheat a little bit in answering your question Jane because When one traditionally starts a first minute analysis the most important thing to do once one has decided that The first time it actually applies so that this is First Amendment protected activity. And I think here there's general agreement that the first time it definitely is implicated is one has to figure out what the appropriate quote unquote tier of scrutiny is. is this a prior restraint, which is the highest level of review? Is it [00:06:00] a viewpoint based? Law. Is it a content based law? Is it a content neutral law? In which case, it's not strict scrutiny, but intermediate scrutiny. And then all these gradations in between, and again, it's something that you two who are real first known scholars know one can spend infinite brain cycles thinking about this. And I think one thing that's interesting about this law is that I think they're actually plausible arguments for all of those positions. I think you can argue that it's a prior restraint, that it's viewpoint based, that it's content based, that it's content neutral. I think part of that is because this is a, I think a pretty novel fact pattern, at least in First Amendment jurisprudence. I think it's also the fact that the tiers of scrutiny analysis has never been, I think, particularly clear. And when I said I'm gonna cheat in your answer a little bit, what I meant is that I think at the end of the day it doesn't matter all that much. Which is to say, at the end of the day, the vast majority of First Amendment cases come down to some sort of balancing of the various interests at stake. And this is particularly true at the Supreme [00:07:00] Court, where, you really, I'll be a little bit of a legal realist here. It's really all about can you count to five justices that will agree that your side's values are more important than the other side's values. and that although the tiers of scrutiny do real work in that they, function as kind of presumptions, if the court concludes that such and such is a prior restraint, then presumptively the government's going to have a big problem, though sometimes prior restraints are fine. Similarly, if the court concludes that this is merely a neutral time, place, and manner restriction, presumptively the government's probably going to be okay, though those are also struck down all the time. At the end of the day, a lot relies again, especially in really high profile, sui generous cases like this on the specific facts. in my writing on this, I have tried not to, and again, I'm happy to get pushback, from, you too. I have tried not to spend too many cycles worrying about exactly what level of scrutiny should apply here. And instead, just [00:08:00] try to outline what are the values on each side? What are the values The First Amendment interests of TikTok, and I think more importantly, the 150 million American users of TikTok on the one hand. Versus on the other hand, what are the government's interests here in potentially banning TikTok, or at least really risking a ban of TikTok? and there are two in particular. One is a data privacy concern, because in the course of personalizing the TikTok algorithm for users, TikTok collects an enormous amount of information on what it is that you are watching and clicking and liking and disliking. and TikTok and therefore ByteDance and therefore the Chinese Communist Party could potentially use that information to America's detriment. So that's the data privacy concern. And the other concern is a foreign manipulation concern. That, because TikTok is You know, entirely run by the algorithm is totally inscrutable. if [00:09:00] a foreign entity can influence that algorithm, they can influence the information ecosystem of 150 million Americans and not just 150 million Americans, but because of TikTok, because TikTok is so popular among young people. And for those young people, TikTok is not just a source of fun cat videos, but it's actually the main source of news that they get. one can imagine, just generally, or especially in a conflict, let's say over Taiwan, that TikTok could suddenly become a, profound, Vector of foreign influence and foreign manipulation. And so I think ultimately comes down to balancing those two. Jane Bambauer: Yeah. Okay. So before we go into the values and the sort of government interest, I do want to pause and Talk through the coverage or maybe levels of scrutiny issue because I'm actually not sure and I really regret to say this because as a policy matter. I have some major issues with the tick tock [00:10:00] band, but I'm not sure that actually the First Amendment would even apply. I'm curious to hear Eugene's thoughts as well. But here's, my thinking. I guess there are two reasons to doubt that we have to do a First Amendment analysis. One is that maybe you could conceive of this as really a trade restriction, that has obvious, free, speech, results, and, maybe even speech related, content based related, even viewpoint based related maybe motivations, but that ultimately still it's a Restriction on managing, trade and so the way, much, much the way that we, don't allow certain other types of, products or services, to, pass through the borders. Another reason though that I have some skepticism is because the Supreme Court in cases that are somewhat old, but, they've suggested that [00:11:00] even when the government's goal basically is to restrict information that comes from outside the borders in. They have wide latitude and, these cases don't seem to really apply a constitutional analysis. So the two cases I have in mind, first, the earliest was Zemel versus Rusk, which is a little different because this is the case that involves, a set of plaintiffs who wanted to travel to, to, Cuba in the sixties. And they alleged, and no one disagreed, that they wanted to go there in order to gather information and an understanding of what's happening in Cuba. And, the Supreme Court went out of its way, not only to say that the government has full authority to decide who can leave the country, but, but also the Supreme Court said that the right to speak and publish does not carry with it unrestrained right to gather information. A lot has happened since that case. And I think the Supreme Court has over time [00:12:00] recognized the right to gather information. but. the board, if you combine that logic with the logic of the whole state control of the borders. you can see where I'm going here. And then the second case, was, Kleindienst versus Mandel. Yeah. yeah. So this one I think is even closer analogy. that one, I know. Yeah. Yeah. And so this one involved, this is a little later in the seventies. It's still a long, long ago though. And it involved, an invitation offered by Stanford University to a Belgian revolutionary Marxist as he himself portrayed. Yeah. Yeah. his own work, who, applied for a visa to come to campus and give a speech and the, customs office said no. And although there were a couple of dissenting, justices, the Supreme Court decided there is, basically that the government has full control over, over these decisions, irrespective of the reasons, the [00:13:00] speech related reasons that they may be made. Eugene, do you, what, do you make of. Just this application question, the coverage question. Eugene Volokh: so I'd love to hear what Alan has to say about those cases. But I'd also add a third one, which is Lamont v. Postmaster General, which specifically involved the travel not of people, but of information. And that was actually, it was 1965, the first Federal statute ever struck down by the Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds. Of course, the Supreme Court has the power to strike down Lamont. It's true. It has the power to strike down federal statutes and often exercises it. In fact, The whole point of the First Amendment originally was to constrain Congress, that's it starts with Congress shall make no law, but it took a long time before the court actually said this federal statute, not a state statute, not a federal executive action, but this federal statute is unconstitutional, happened in 1965. The statute, [00:14:00] basically required Americans who wanted to receive foreign communist propaganda to go to the post office. maybe not the post office, but in any case, go to the government and say, I am willing to receive it by the mail. And it made it illegal to send and deliver it to them, unless they have actually specifically, specifically requested. and the Supreme Court did not decide the question whether foreign. Foreigners, and especially foreign governments, have any First Amendment rights. It didn't focus on the rights of the senders, but it did talk about the rights of the recipients and, concluded that this law was unconstitutional because it interfered with the rights of Americans to receive this information. And so it did not view, federal governments had undoubted power to control what comes into the country, [00:15:00] as A total as being unlimited or put, more positively concluded that even Congress's broad power to, control what goes into the country is limited by the first two. So those are the three cases that strike me as most, most relevant. Although Alan, I totally agree with you that in many ways, this is sui generis and part of the problem is the Supreme Court has never really confronted a question quite like this one. even Lamont, which I do think is. Some respects close. This is a mailings of foreign propaganda to Americans. How many Americans would likely, even if they didn't have to put their name down on a list, would have been particularly interested in reading that? Very few. Tick tock very many. so, it's an interesting, I'm not saying any of these cases are strictly binding here, but I'd love to hear what you think about how these cases play out. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah. so a lot there. So let me say a couple of things. So first, and [00:16:00] this is not dispositive, but it's something all the, all of the courts to have all of the courts who have heard cases like the one that is about to be heard in the DC circuit, because this is not the first attempt to ban tick tock. There was, I think Montana. some Midwestern state. I think it was Montana tried to remove Wyoming, tried to ban it. And then, of course, in the Trump administration, Trump through executive order, tried to ban it in litigation there. everyone seemed to concede. And certainly the courts assumed that there was a first amendment issue here again. That doesn't mean that there necessarily is. But I think that's one data point. The second point I would say is, just to get back to Lamont, because I think Lamont is a very important issue. Case I reread it this morning because I needed to for this law for peace that I'm writing and what you described Eugene as the holding of Lamont, which is that Americans have a right to receive foreign propaganda, which is how Lamont is generally understood. I'm actually not sure. That's what Lamont says. That's what Justice Brennan's concurrent says in Lamont. But Justice Douglas is very short and in [00:17:00] true Justice Douglas fashion, extremely under argued and under theorized opinion really actually focuses on, the, the chilling effect of having to go to the government and say, Yes, I would like to receive the peaking review. And that was coincidentally, the, propaganda at issue. So it's another Chinese propaganda case. but we should get back to Lamont. I think Lamont is an interesting case. Jane Bambauer: Yeah, that, and that, yeah, that, that makes sense. And Brennan is consistent because he also dissented in that client and in the, case involving the Belgian. Yeah. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, I think, Kleindienst is very interesting, and again, it's, hard to know what exactly to make of that, what I, whatever Kleindienst stands for, the reason I don't think that it would really apply here is, it'd be one thing if the government From a blank slate said, or, let me give you a more specific example. It's one thing if a [00:18:00] Chinese company wanted to buy a us platform and the government, and here would be SIFI as the committee on foreign investment in the United States said, no, you can't do this. And in fact, CFIUS has done this, when a Chinese company tried to buy Grindr, which is a dating service, very popular with gay and lesbian Americans. CFIUS said, no, you can't do this because we don't want the Chinese government to have access to the HIV status of Americans. Cause that's something that Grindr allowed people to put in. that I think is different than you have an existing platform where 150 million users are every day doing things that have profound first amendment implications. And we are now going to ban this platform. I think that's quite different then. There's something outside the United States. And then the question is, can it come into the United States? Something you already have in the United States. Now, to, to your point, Jane, I think the fact that the government generally has broad national security, foreign relations, economic trade, however you want to think of it, powers, is a really important part of the First [00:19:00] Amendment analysis. But I think that, the kind of brute fact that you have 150 million Americans using TikTok every day is going to make it very difficult, I think, for any court, even if they ultimately uphold the law, which I think they will, to say there's no First Amendment issue here. Jane Bambauer: Yeah, I hope you're right, but it is one of those things that where, there's probably all sorts of ways in which our national security or customs and border enforcement, keep us from knowing what we'd actually like to know and we're just And so the being, joining you on the realist side a little bit I, you're probably right but if we knew more about what we're missing from certain policies, maybe that same logic should apply to cases that the Supreme Court, The thought where you're, unrelated to the first moment. So Eugene Volokh: I do want to, I do want to also stand by a little bit my characterization of a Lamonti Postmaster General. I think even in Justice, Douglas's [00:20:00] majority opinion for the court, he talks about how the requirement that the addressee must request in writing that it be delivered Is, quote, an unconstitutional abridgment of the addressee's First Amendment rights. Close quote. Sounds like in context, what he's saying is That the addressee has a First Amendment right to receive information and, that, by saying in order to get the information, you've got to do something that will put you on a list of people who are interested in foreign communists, but again, that which is a list most people might not have wanted to be on. the, the concern there is that, it burdens your ability to receive that information. It imposes a barrier to your First Amendment rights as a listener. But in any case, whether it's Justice Douglas or Justice Brennan's quite influential concurrence that you're [00:21:00] quite right, has gotten a lot of traction since then. I do think in many ways, Structurally it is quite similar because here the concern is also that TikTok users have an interest in using this app and receiving the information on it, although many of them are also TikTok content creators, so they have an interest in being able to use it to distribute their speech. So I'm totally with you that there's a Pretty substantial burden on people's ability to speak and to listen for sure. But also again just returning to your sui generis point You might say that what was true of this relatively minor form a potential form of foreign influence in the form of mailings of the peking review or similar publications from overseas may not be really relevant to a situation where we've got something that's being used by so many, Americans and so many young Americans. Alan Rozenshtein: [00:22:00] Yeah. And I, think it's part, partially what you just said, right? It's a scale issue, but I think it's partially also a transparency issue. So I think one thing that's important about this, ban is that it does not prevent Chinese propaganda. I can go today and I link from this from lawfare. So I the peaking review is interesting. It is, China's only English language state on newspaper. and it you can click on. It's called the Beijing review today. It still operates. it says exactly what you would think it would say. and you can access it and you can access it today. You can access it after the law goes into effect. Similarly, if you want to go and, you want to hear what, The China Ministry of Foreign Affairs wants to say you can go and hop on Twitter and read their Twitter account and you'll be able to do after this bill goes into effect as well. So it's not a ban on Chinese propaganda per se, or I think even at all. It's a ban on Chinese control over an information environment. Now why is that different? [00:23:00] if you dig into the justifications, so let's, say that we interpret Lamont Through the Brennan concurrence, right? and, we just say, okay, Lamont stands for some general proposition that Americans have a right to foreign propaganda. Why? I think the, best argument is there's like a marketplace of ideas. argument that foreign propaganda is information like anything else and it should be part of the flow and One person's propaganda is another person's truth And even if it's bad it helps sharpen our understanding all the standard marketplace of ideas arguments that i'm totally happy with but one difference I think between foreign propaganda and foreign control over a platform is foreign propaganda is usually at least Pretty clearly foreign propaganda when you're reading, or at least it's foreign when you're reading the Beijing review, you're reading the Beijing review. You know what you're reading. and I think that helps contextualize what you're reading. You can agree with it, disagree with it when you're on tick tock. The whole point is that this algorithm is totally unscrutable. You have [00:24:00] no idea why you are seeing what you are seeing and the potential for subconscious manipulation, that I don't think, furthers the marketplace of ideas. in the same way that being able to read the Peking Review does. I think that's another really big difference. Now, we could spend all day talking about it, but maybe even, subconscious propaganda still has information and stuff like that. But I think at the very least from a doctrinal matter, it's pretty clear that this distinguishes Lamont and, I emphasize this because I've heard a lot of critics of this law cite Lamont as if it straightforwardly disposes of this case because Lamont stands for some super broad proposition about foreign propaganda. And, what I would say is I don't think the case does. And I also don't think that. The historical context does either. Matt Iglesias, the, well known blogger, had a nice piece a couple months ago, why he is, was for the ban. And he's not a lawyer, so his is more of a policy analysis, but he made a very nice analogy. And he said, look, imagine during the height of the Cold [00:25:00] War, the Soviet Union wanted to go and buy CBS. Would we have allowed that? And the answer is no, we would not have allowed that. And it is, I think, inconceivable that the Supreme Court would have had problems with that. it, it strikes me as very unlikely. Again, this is not a legal point. This is a historical sociological point that even the court that I think unanimously, struck down that law in Lamont in 1965 would have, three years after the Cuban Missile Crisis, been okay with the Soviet Union buying CBS. Because I think there is really a distinction and it's not just one of degree. it's one of kind. Eugene Volokh: so first of all, I'm sorry, you're quite right that, the, court, the court, was unanimous in the case. I was mistaken, talking about dissent. I'm sorry. I should have said that the government's position, in Lamont postmaster general, but the second thing I wanted to say, is that, you, raise this question of buying, broadcasters and indeed, [00:26:00] there are to this day. Limits, substantial limits on foreign ownership of, of, broadcasters, presumptive limits. they could be, as I understand it, waived by the FCC, but there are such limits. what do you think of that as a precedent, do you think? the Supreme Court, to my knowledge, has never really squarely confronted them. But the broad assumption is that they are, they're valid. Is it something that's just a broadcasting only rule? Because there are a lot of. Supreme Court cases that say, broadcasting is special, or is it something that you think stands for a broader proposition and the other thing? actually, I have a follow up question for you, but I wanted to see what you thought about that. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, I think it's both. So, I do think the broadcast precedents are really important, in terms of, this long history of, foreign ownership rules. And, here I, I will. Suggest, the folks are interested. Ganesh Sitaraman, [00:27:00] who's a law professor at Vanderbilt, wrote a wonderful article in the Stanford Law Review last year, two years ago, I think called Foreign Ownership of Platforms. We can put it in the show notes. That really goes through this history, not just communications platforms, but generally of foreign ownership, restrictions. I think that precedent is, important. I think you're also right, Eugene, to be fair, that, A response could be, yeah, but those were in the broadcast context, and the court has often distinguished restrictions that are okay under the First Amendment for broadcast, or what are something called limited spectrum situations, and that would not be in the context of an unlimited spectrum. But I have a response to that, which is that, it is true that the internet is not limited in the way that broadcast is, right? If I want to broadcast on a radio frequency, no one else can broadcast on that radio frequency, and therefore you need to have government intervention. Otherwise, none of it works. That's not true for the internet. But the internet is limited in a different way, and that is with attention. [00:28:00] it used to be that the bottleneck for communications was the internet. Broadcast or spectrum now it's the attention of the audience and because you still have a bottleneck, right? You can still get monopolistic effects where it used to be that there were a few small a few very large Broadcasters and they carved the broadcast Spectrum that was the bottleneck now. There are a few large platforms. They're not carving up spectrum. They're carving up attention and I think that actually, if you think deeply about, what justified intervention in the broadcast industry, it was general scarcity, but it doesn't just be scarcity Of, of, spectrum. It can be whatever scarcity of the bottleneck there is. And so Jane Bambauer: I think I just go ahead, finish it. Yeah, it will. Alan Rozenshtein: So and, and and I think this is, this is, a different project and maybe this is a project I should write. [00:29:00] And then you Jane can tell me why, I'm wrong. I actually think that, where you have, limited attention, that is just as good of a reason as limited broadcast for the government to, regulate, if it regulates well. Now, ISIL has to regulate well. Jane Bambauer: Yeah, that's not my objection, though. I think the problem is the scarcity that the spectrum scarcity has to do with the means of production. The attention scarcity is more like saying there are only there's at any given point a set number of dollars in the world and consumers don't have unlimited dollars to spend on different types of content. It doesn't actually prevent a competitor from coming in and creating content or curating content, which I think. I think the limited set of platforms that are doing well, because they're actually in fierce competition with each other in a curation market, not in, a traditional content market. But, [00:30:00] nevertheless, there are lots of ways to get copious amounts of information. The trouble is figuring out how to pitch the right information to the right person so that it's worth their time. And there, I just don't see I don't see a monopoly style problem there. And I guess that leads me to the skepticism about, about the, policy behind the tick tock ban that, I, get that there's a lot of really bad content on tick tock and that the Chinese government may have a motivation that's different from the capitalistic one, and that is, that, that, does. seek to cause, disarray and, and, polarization among Americans. But I don't see a big difference between the effects of TikTok and the effects of every other social media company because, first of all, I think there's reason to think that even if you have completely malignant intent. There's [00:31:00] only so much that you can do to manipulate a person into thinking or pursuing some information that they don't already want to pursue. and then also that even through just the normal capitalistic, motivations, most of these platforms are incentivized to find information and curate information. that leads to polarization, that leads to anger and to resentment and to, all, of the things that the Chinese government may benefit from, but doesn't really cause in a, fundamental sense. Alan Rozenshtein: So I, I, so there are a couple, of points there, right? So, one, And let's just say generally, the field of, I don't even know what you'd call it, social media communication psychology, is still quite young. it is advancing very quickly or changing very quickly because The actual infrastructure is changing very [00:32:00] quickly. and if you're looking for a clear social science answer, like you can find, there are lots of papers that will say all sorts of things, right? So policymakers and judges are definitely going to be, legislating and deciding under real uncertainty, which raises interesting meta questions about, okay, then, should we err on this side or that side? then there's a more specific question about, what do we know about specifically China and specifically ByteDance and specifically TikTok? And we can get into the evidence that we have and how speculative or not speculative it is. and then third, we can get into this question of what is the specific threat here? Because I agree with you if the concern is it's in China's interest to addict all our kids to stupid cat videos, or it's in China's interest to feed, TikTok users inflammatory polarizing content because, that's what gets the most clicks. Then I agree with you that would not be a great argument because it's not clear that Twitter or Instagram or Meta operate any differently than, [00:33:00] than, than that, right? I think the unique danger is that, The Chinese government has shown, a couple of things. One, a willingness to, in a very heavy handed way, try to alter how it is perceived around the world with respect to any number of issues. the Hong Kong democracy protests, the issues with the Uyghurs, certainly relations with Taiwan. and in addition, And in a way that just goes beyond your general polarization or feeding people, content that gets them angry. and in addition that, the Chinese government, is also willing to use its, private companies, in a way that very much goes against those private companies own market and capitalist interests. If the Chinese government perceived that it is in their interest, right? And I, think the government's real concern is. In a [00:34:00] shooting war with Taiwan, right? what will the Chinese government, force TikTok to show to 150 million users, right? Now you may say, at the end of the day, people make up their own minds and so forth, right? And, it's a risk. But the question is, is are the courts going to require? And here we have to we have to separate the legal question from the policy questions, because courts have a very specific role. and although we all understand that they make policy, they don't really want to be in a position of second guessing the national security and foreign policy judgments of the political branches. do courts want to tell the government? No, Go get into a war with China. China over Taiwan. Let's see what's on TikTok. And if TikTok spends six months feeding the young people of America, pro China content and gets them all to protest and stuff like that, then we can talk again. That's a bit of a caricature of the view. But I think that's the thing that keeps the government [00:35:00] up at night. and speaking only for myself, right? That's good enough for me. this is a your mileage may vary situation. I totally accept that. Jane Bambauer: Yeah. I see the same logic in the communist era. but Eugene, what do you think? Eugene Volokh: so I want to ask a couple of follow up questions or maybe three questions. one first amendment question and two turns out they're more than first amendment issues in the case. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah. Yeah. Eugene Volokh: So the first is we haven't focused on the fact that this law doesn't ban TikTok as such, but requires. It essentially to be divested from Chinese influenced ownership. So I'm inclined to think that doesn't eliminate the First Amendment issue. But at the same time, it sounds like maybe it Would affect it? maybe not. I'd love to hear your thinking. And then I wanted to follow up, with a couple of more questions. One about the [00:36:00] bill of attainder question, and the other about this weird procedural posture of the case. But first, tell me what you think about this, how this, divestiture option affects the first amendment analysis. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah. again, I take a middle position between some of the defenders of the bill who just say this is just divestiture and some of the critics who say this is an outright ban. It's not. It's you have to divest or you get a ban. I do think, I don't think that eliminates the First Amendment issue because there's a real risk of a ban that has to be taken into account. and the government can't just say, it's China's fault if it's banned and therefore we don't have to defend this law in First Amendment grounds. That's not how this works. On the same, on the other hand, I do think that the divestiture option helps in, two ways. One is that a lot of First Amendment analysis is about overbreath, right? a lot of constitutional analysis is about, did the government's action go further than necessary? And by definition, a law that allows for divestment instead of a ban. is more narrowly tailored, again by [00:37:00] definition, than a law that just does a ban. So it's almost like a good faith showing on the part of the government that we're actually trying to solve a problem here. We're really trying to solve, have different options here. The second reason, and this is maybe a little cute, but I do think it's plays importantly, at least politically, maybe also legally. If the investment fails, it's probably be going to be because China refuses to allow ByteDance to sell the algorithm to TikTok. And in fact, in the complaint that TikTok filed with the D. C. Circuit, they have essentially said that. They said divestment is not an option because China will not allow it. But if China won't allow it, shows a little bit, exactly what the government is worried about. That China cares a lot about this, and it's going to use its weight to, It's going to use its weight around here, which is exactly the point. I want to be fair. Anupam Chander, who's a sparring partner of mine on this and is great. and is at Georgetown, has argued that actually there are plenty of good reasons for countries not to want to allow the [00:38:00] export of sensitive technologies that have nothing to do with manipulation. and that's a fair point, but I think it it's almost like performatively shows. It's very clever. It shows to the courts in part, the very problem that the government is citing, which is China's influence and ability to throw its weight around. so that's the divestment thing. Should we talk about bill of attainder? Eugene Volokh: before we get to bill of attainder, I wanted to ask you about the, procedural issues. So a lot of what we're talking about here turns on facts. just how much influence does the Chinese government have? over bike debts. just, just how much of a burden will this impose on American creators and others? just how much, just what evidence is there of real national security threat? and in a typical situation, what would happen there would be is that there would be a challenge brought in federal district court, which is a trial court, the [00:39:00] judge might have a hearing where the judge would consider both written submissions, written, declarations of experts and others and, and other witnesses, and, at the same time, would also potentially have, have an oral hearing. and then it would go up on appeal where the appellate courts and perhaps eventually the Supreme Court would consider, how the legal rules apply to that. here, Congress provided that the challenge would be brought in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which is an appellate court, which does not regularly, and I'm not sure, If it ever, maybe it does have some mechanisms for this, but at least does not regularly hear evidence. The job of an appellate court is not to hear evidence. It's to review an evidentiary record built either by the, trial courts or by, administrative agencies. So tell us how any of these factual questions are going to be resolved, [00:40:00] in, a case like this. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, I will say this is a among the nerderati. This is a real topic of excitement. and we'll have to see. So so a couple of points. so first is, unfortunately, the bill does not have legislative findings attached to it, which is usually actually really important part of these kinds of bills. And it's surprising that it doesn't given that there's been reporting that Congress collaborated very closely with DOJ to really bulletproof this bill. It's not clear why they didn't On the other hand, the co sponsors of the bill, Representatives Gallagher and Krishnamurti, introduced a resolution, which is basically a very long list of legislative findings, and a lot of that resolution ended up in the House Committee Report. that accompanied the bill, and that has a lot of information about classified briefings that Congress received about the threat. Why alternatives that tick tock offered were not sufficient. I think that, though that resolution, this committee reports will play a really important role, [00:41:00] and may go some way to establishing the factual and evidentiary record. But Eugene, you're totally right. It doesn't go all the way, and it's certainly much less than what happened in district court. So what's going to happen? Appellate, you're right, appellate courts, they're appellate courts. They don't usually hear trials or take evidence, but they can, and not just the D. C. Circuit, but the Supreme Court can. So the Constitution provides original jurisdiction for the Supreme Court and all sorts of things. And I, there is at least one time that I know of that the Supreme Court tried to hold a trial and it went extremely poorly. I, have to, I, Once I read a very funny Law Review article about this. I got to dig it out. It's, it was a real comedy of errors, and so from then on, they decided, that what they would do is, in case of original jurisdiction, where like states sue each other, which happens from time to time, they would get a, I think it's called special master, basically an outside lawyer who would go do the fact finding for them. I'm sure the DC circuit could do the same thing. I haven't read the, I'm not a litigator. I haven't read the federal rules of civil procedure in a long time, repellent procedure. [00:42:00] I'm sure there's some mechanism for that. I think what's more interesting is the role of potentially classified information, because a lot of this is classified. the appellate courts can hear classified information. the DC circuit certainly can. It did so routinely in the 2010s during, the many Guantanamo habeas cases, that it heard. and actually just last year, the ninth circuit in another national security case, Twitter versus Garland, had to hear a lot of national classified information to decide whether or not Twitter's challenge against certain gag orders was constitutional and literally in the opinion, the Ninth Circuit says we are not at liberty to discuss the classified information that we have reviewed, but we reviewed it as part of our analysis and trust us. It's fine. I made up that last part. so it may very well be, that there is some classified information that is submitted to the court in camera. Maybe there's a protective order. I have no idea how it's going to work, but it may very well be that the D, the D. C. Circuit says, we look at the classified information, trust us.[00:43:00] Eugene Volokh: Got it. so that's very helpful to know. So let's just close by, stealing something from, we have a sister podcast, the Bill of attainder, unmuted podcast, we probably should have had this other, no, there is no real, for the real Alan Rozenshtein: Nerderati, Eugene Volokh: because it's a pretty rare issue to arise, but there is this issue of whether this law violates the bill of attainder clause and to quote the Supreme Court in actually a case involving President Nixon, is that, Bill of Attainder is a law that legislatively determines guilt and inflicts punishment upon an identifiable individual without provision of the protections of a judicial tribe. The classic example historically was Parliament backed law. Back in jolly old England would say we think this person is, is a traitor often or has done something [00:44:00] very bad. but maybe he's allied with the king, so we can't trust that he will be normally prosecuted. We're just going to say he is a traitor and needs to be beheaded. And that's that. so I think historically bills of attainder have been mostly for capital, punishment. There also used to be bills of pains and penalties, vague recollection, but the U. S. Constitution Were you Alan Rozenshtein: old enough to remember when Parliament used to do bills of attainder? Yeah, there you go. All that Eugene Volokh: gray hair. so the, so the U. S. Constitution has long forbidden bills of attainder. But the question is, what is a bill of attainder? Whenever we see a law that mentions someone by name, and maybe, interesting question, what about mentioning a business by name, then, people start talking about, maybe that's a bill of attainder, but not all such laws are indeed [00:45:00] unconstitutional. So, again, This is, on the one hand, not a free speech issue, on the other hand, very much an issue in this case, and I suspect many people who may have heard about the case, even if they're not lawyers, would say, wait a minute, this law, it's just the government, the Congress trying to ban a particular business, is that what they're supposed to do? Aren't they supposed to pass general laws that say, here are the criteria that, if met, cause you to be restricted in various ways. So what do you think about this bill of attainder, question, even if just tentative? Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, I think it's interesting. so a couple of thoughts on the bill of attainder question. So first, there is an open question whether or not the bill of attainder applies to corporations. The Supreme Court has never, Definitively answer that question. I think one lower one appellate court, I forget which one has held that it does apply to corporations. I don't know if there's a circuit split on that or just other circuits haven't gotten to it. But that's [00:46:00] one interesting question. and, especially with the originalist turn that the Supreme Court's had, I think there's going to be a lot of, Justice Alito or, pouring over, 18th century parliamentary records to know was this ever applied to corporations. the second question is, the Bill of Attainder, it's not just about specifically singling someone out. It's specifically singling someone out for punishment and punishment is a technical term of art here. Unfortunately, again, the Supreme Court has never said exactly what a punishment is. There's a historical test and a functional test. so one might argue that this isn't a punishment. Nothing is being stolen. nothing is being taken away from tick tock. No one's being put in jail. This is a proscriptive regulation that tick tock can no longer afford itself of certain, corporate benefits. now, as with many things, There's a certain angels on the head of a pin kind of quality to, is that [00:47:00] a punishment or a regulation? But honestly, this stuff comes up all the time. there are similar logical puzzles in Fifth Amendment takings cases. Is it taking or regulation or whatnot? so that's another question that the courts will have to, decide whether this is a punishment or just a forward looking, prospective. regulation. And the third question is, and this is a part of the law we haven't actually talked about, but it's actually very important. The TikTok ban or divestment and ban is only one part of the law. The law also sets up a broader scheme by which the president can identify other TikTok like companies, which is to say social media platforms that are controlled by Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. and, and trigger a similar divestment type process. And so this raises the question of whether or not the government will be able to use that part of the law to soften the fact that the law also targets tick [00:48:00] tock. that may not be relevant to the bill of attainder issue, but tick tock has also made, other arguments that sound similar swiftly run equal protection that they're getting being singled out. and so the government may point to say, no, this is a general law. We're just starting with tick tock. I don't know if that gets there. I suspect that, and again, I'm not an expert in this, but I have done some preliminary research that the courts will ultimately move. This is just not a punishment. It's not a punishment in the way that the bill of attainder, contemplates that this is a, forward looking, regulation. Eugene Volokh: Got it. Thanks very much. very interesting. Jane, any closing questions or remarks? Jane Bambauer: Yeah, I think one thing that all three of us. expressed at one point is that one thing that makes this topic hard is that it's a, there are national security questions and facts that none of us have access to. And so it's hard to know as [00:49:00] a matter of policy, especially what should happen here. And, Alan Rozenshtein: and we haven't even talked about the international dimensions, potential repercussions. This is a big deal. Eugene Volokh: Big deal, indeed. Alan, thank you so much for joining us. It has been tremendously enlightening for me and I, sure for, our viewers and listeners as well. Jane, always a great pleasure to be on with you. And folks, we'll see you in a couple of weeks with our next episode.
Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Eric J. Segall graduated from Emory University, Phi Beta Kappa 27 and summa cum laude, and from Vanderbilt Law School, where he was the research editor for the Law Review and member of Order of the Coif. He clerked for the Chief Judge Charles Moye Jr. for the Northern District of Georgia, and Albert J. Henderson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After his clerkships, Segall worked for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the U.S. Department of Justice, before joining the Georgia State faculty in 1991. Segall teaches federal courts and constitutional law I and II. He is the author of the books Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. His articles on constitutional law have appeared in, among others, the Harvard Law Review Forum, the Stanford Law Review On Line, the UCLA Law Review, the George Washington Law Review, the Washington University Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, and Constitutional Commentary among many others. Segall's op-eds and essays have appeared in the New York Times, the LA Times, The Atlantic, SLATE, Vox, Salon, and the Daily Beast, among others. He has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and France 24 and all four of Atlanta's local television stations. He has also appeared on numerous local and national radio shows. Listen and Subscribe to Eric's Podcast Supreme Myths and follow him on Tik Tok! Join us Thursday's at 8EST for our Weekly Happy Hour Hangout! Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll Follow and Support Pete Coe Buy Ava's Art
Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Eric J. Segall graduated from Emory University, Phi Beta Kappa 27 and summa cum laude, and from Vanderbilt Law School, where he was the research editor for the Law Review and member of Order of the Coif. He clerked for the Chief Judge Charles Moye Jr. for the Northern District of Georgia, and Albert J. Henderson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After his clerkships, Segall worked for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the U.S. Department of Justice, before joining the Georgia State faculty in 1991. Segall teaches federal courts and constitutional law I and II. He is the author of the books Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. His articles on constitutional law have appeared in, among others, the Harvard Law Review Forum, the Stanford Law Review On Line, the UCLA Law Review, the George Washington Law Review, the Washington University Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, and Constitutional Commentary among many others. Segall's op-eds and essays have appeared in the New York Times, the LA Times, The Atlantic, SLATE, Vox, Salon, and the Daily Beast, among others. He has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and France 24 and all four of Atlanta's local television stations. He has also appeared on numerous local and national radio shows. Listen and Subscribe to Eric's Podcast Supreme Myths and follow him on Tik Tok! Join us Thursday's at 8EST for our Weekly Happy Hour Hangout! Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll Follow and Support Pete Coe Buy Ava's Art
Buy Tickets for the Stand Up PodJam Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more Hey Friends I taped an interview with Eric this morning to get his thoughts on what has transpired at the Supreme Court this week with Social Media, Guns and Presidential immunity and we talked about his recent piece on Justice Clarence Thomas "Justice Thomas and Race: Making Life Harder for People of Color One Case at a Time" Eric J. Segall graduated from Emory University, Phi Beta Kappa 27 and summa cum laude, and from Vanderbilt Law School, where he was the research editor for the Law Review and member of Order of the Coif. He clerked for the Chief Judge Charles Moye Jr. for the Northern District of Georgia, and Albert J. Henderson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After his clerkships, Segall worked for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the U.S. Department of Justice, before joining the Georgia State faculty in 1991. Segall teaches federal courts and constitutional law I and II. He is the author of the books Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. His articles on constitutional law have appeared in, among others, the Harvard Law Review Forum, the Stanford Law Review On Line, the UCLA Law Review, the George Washington Law Review, the Washington University Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, and Constitutional Commentary among many others. Segall's op-eds and essays have appeared in the New York Times, the LA Times, The Atlantic, SLATE, Vox, Salon, and the Daily Beast, among others. He has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and France 24 and all four of Atlanta's local television stations. He has also appeared on numerous local and national radio shows. Listen and Subscribe to Eric's Podcast Supreme Myths and follow him on Tik Tok! Join us Thursday's at 8EST for our Weekly Happy Hour Hangout! Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll Follow and Support Pete Coe Buy Ava's Art
Buy Tickets for the Stand Up PodJam Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more Eric J. Segall graduated from Emory University, Phi Beta Kappa 27 and summa cum laude, and from Vanderbilt Law School, where he was the research editor for the Law Review and member of Order of the Coif. He clerked for the Chief Judge Charles Moye Jr. for the Northern District of Georgia, and Albert J. Henderson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After his clerkships, Segall worked for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the U.S. Department of Justice, before joining the Georgia State faculty in 1991. Segall teaches federal courts and constitutional law I and II. He is the author of the books Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. His articles on constitutional law have appeared in, among others, the Harvard Law Review Forum, the Stanford Law Review On Line, the UCLA Law Review, the George Washington Law Review, the Washington University Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, and Constitutional Commentary among many others. Segall's op-eds and essays have appeared in the New York Times, the LA Times, The Atlantic, SLATE, Vox, Salon, and the Daily Beast, among others. He has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and France 24 and all four of Atlanta's local television stations. He has also appeared on numerous local and national radio shows. Listen and Subscribe to Eric's Podcast Supreme Myths and follow him on Tik Tok! Join us Thursday's at 8EST for our Weekly Happy Hour Hangout! Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll Follow and Support Pete Coe Buy Ava's Art
Buy Tickets for the Stand Up PodJam Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more Link to my BOE Website to watch our board meeting Eric J. Segall graduated from Emory University, Phi Beta Kappa 27 and summa cum laude, and from Vanderbilt Law School, where he was the research editor for the Law Review and member of Order of the Coif. He clerked for the Chief Judge Charles Moye Jr. for the Northern District of Georgia, and Albert J. Henderson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After his clerkships, Segall worked for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the U.S. Department of Justice, before joining the Georgia State faculty in 1991. Segall teaches federal courts and constitutional law I and II. He is the author of the books Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. His articles on constitutional law have appeared in, among others, the Harvard Law Review Forum, the Stanford Law Review On Line, the UCLA Law Review, the George Washington Law Review, the Washington University Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, and Constitutional Commentary among many others. Segall's op-eds and essays have appeared in the New York Times, the LA Times, The Atlantic, SLATE, Vox, Salon, and the Daily Beast, among others. He has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and France 24 and all four of Atlanta's local television stations. He has also appeared on numerous local and national radio shows. Listen and Subscribe to Eric's Podcast Supreme Myths and follow him on Tik Tok! Join us Thursday's at 8EST for our Weekly Happy Hour Hangout! Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll Follow and Support Pete Coe Buy Ava's Art
This week Steve and Yvonne interview Jordan Strokovsky of Strokovsky LLC (https://actionafterinjury.com/). Remember to rate and review GTP in iTunes: Click Here to Rate and Review View/Download Trial Documents Case Details: Jordan won his client a $30 million recovery against Temple University Hospital in one of the largest medical malpractice cases in Pennsylvania's history. Despite the hospital's denial of wrongdoing, Jordan refused their offer of $3 million and prepared tirelessly for court to ensure a just outcome for his client. The hospital admitted fault and the jury awarded $25.9M to Jordan's Mr. Parks ($6M for future medical costs and $20M for pain and suffering) after a comprehensive investigation and a hard-fought trial. The hospital hired three law firms in an attempt to overturn the verdict and offered a settlement less than the awarded amount. Jordan's client refused to settle, and Jordan won every argument against the big firms. The court refused the hospital's request to reduce the verdict, and $3.7 million in delay damages were added. The total recovery now exceeds $30 million, including over $600,000 in interest. No appeal was filed. Guest Bio: Jordan Strokovsky Jordan Strokovsky is a trial lawyer serving the catastrophically injured in a diverse range of cases, including medical malpractice, birth injury, truck accidents, fires, explosions, plane crashes, premises liability, product liability, workplace injuries, toxic torts, civil rights, car accidents, and sexual assault. His hard work ethic, integrity, and compassion earn him the trust of his clients and the respect of his opponents. These attributes have also helped him obtain significant verdicts and settlements. For good reason, many lawyers refer or seek to co-counsel their serious injury and wrongful death cases with Jordan. Jordan handles countless catastrophic injury and wrongful death cases and routinely handles cases pro bono to help his community. His volunteer work includes taking a civil rights case to verdict with the Volunteer Attorney Panel of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, representing victims of sexual abuse with the Support Center for Child Advocates, and successfully handling various cases from Philadelphia VIP. He has been recognized by the court for his service and was a featured volunteer by Philadelphia VIP. As an animal lover and dog owner, Jordan has also championed animal rights causes, helping establish that pets should not be viewed as property under the law. He also serves on the Pennsylvania Association for Justice Board of Directors and has previously served on boards for non-profits that help animals, homeless people, and refugees. Jordan is the former co-chair of the State Civil Litigation Section of the Philadelphia Bar Association and was proud to help implement town halls at the start of the pandemic, which allowed the court and legal community to communicate during those uncertain times. He now co-chairs both the Civil Rules and Wellness Committees at the bar association. Jordan has served as an adjunct law school professor and occasionally speaks at seminars to other personal injury lawyers. He is also regularly asked by news outlets to provide legal commentary. Jordan graduated from Widener University Delaware Law School as Valedictorian of his class, where several of his professors would comment that his academic performance and mind for the law were among the most impressive they had ever seen. While in school, he interned with three Philadelphia judges: the Honorable M. Faith Angell (E.D. Pa), the Honorable Arnold L. New (Common Pleas), and the Honorable Paul P. Panepinto (Common Pleas) and used these internships as opportunities to get in the courtroom and watch many trials. He was also a member of the Law Review. After his commencement speech at graduation, the Governor of Delaware declared that he would never want to follow Jordan in speaking again. While practicing law full-time, Jordan obtained a Master of Law in Trial Advocacy at the nationally renowned Temple University Beasley School of Law LL.M. Program in the Spring of 2018, where he received special recognition from the faculty for his trial performances and was a jury favorite—earning the highest scores from the jury at his showcase trial. 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
Welcome back to another episode of the How I Lawyer Podcast, where it is my job to interview lawyers about what they do, why they do it, and how they do it well. Today's guest is Emily Stedman, a Partner at Husch Blackwell, where she helps clients resolve complex commercial litigations. Emily represents a wide range of corporate clients at all phases of litigation, from investigation to appeal, in state and federal courts. After graduating from the University of Mississippi School of Law, where she served as the Editor-in-Chief of the Law Review, Emily clerked for Judge Pamela Pepper in the United States District Court and Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Following her clerkships, Emily worked as a commercial litigation associate at another law firm in Milwaukee before joining Husch Blackwell's office there, where she was promoted to Partner in 2024. Online, Emily maintains an active LinkedIn presence and shares her perspective on lawyer well-being. In this episode, Emily shares valuable insights about the legal profession including:
GET TICKETS TO SUPD POD JAM IN LAS VEGAS MARCH 22-23 Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Eric J. Segall graduated from Emory University, Phi Beta Kappa 27 and summa cum laude, and from Vanderbilt Law School, where he was the research editor for the Law Review and member of Order of the Coif. He clerked for the Chief Judge Charles Moye Jr. for the Northern District of Georgia, and Albert J. Henderson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After his clerkships, Segall worked for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the U.S. Department of Justice, before joining the Georgia State faculty in 1991. Segall teaches federal courts and constitutional law I and II. He is the author of the books Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. His articles on constitutional law have appeared in, among others, the Harvard Law Review Forum, the Stanford Law Review On Line, the UCLA Law Review, the George Washington Law Review, the Washington University Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, and Constitutional Commentary among many others. Segall's op-eds and essays have appeared in the New York Times, the LA Times, The Atlantic, SLATE, Vox, Salon, and the Daily Beast, among others. He has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and France 24 and all four of Atlanta's local television stations. He has also appeared on numerous local and national radio shows. Listen and Subscribe to Eric's Podcast Supreme Myths and follow him on Tik Tok! Join us Thursday's at 8EST for our Weekly Happy Hour Hangout! Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll Follow and Support Pete Coe Buy Ava's Art
Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Eric J. Segall graduated from Emory University, Phi Beta Kappa 27 and summa cum laude, and from Vanderbilt Law School, where he was the research editor for the Law Review and member of Order of the Coif. He clerked for the Chief Judge Charles Moye Jr. for the Northern District of Georgia, and Albert J. Henderson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After his clerkships, Segall worked for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the U.S. Department of Justice, before joining the Georgia State faculty in 1991. Segall teaches federal courts and constitutional law I and II. He is the author of the books Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. His articles on constitutional law have appeared in, among others, the Harvard Law Review Forum, the Stanford Law Review On Line, the UCLA Law Review, the George Washington Law Review, the Washington University Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, and Constitutional Commentary among many others. Segall's op-eds and essays have appeared in the New York Times, the LA Times, The Atlantic, SLATE, Vox, Salon, and the Daily Beast, among others. He has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and France 24 and all four of Atlanta's local television stations. He has also appeared on numerous local and national radio shows. Listen and Subscribe to Eric's Podcast Supreme Myths and follow him on Tik Tok! Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll
Professor Eric Segall joined me for almost an hour to talk about the history of the court over the last 3 years , why Rudy Guliani has ALWAYS been awful and so much more that is relevant and happening now Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more Eric J. Segall graduated from Emory University, Phi Beta Kappa 27 and summa cum laude, and from Vanderbilt Law School, where he was the research editor for the Law Review and member of Order of the Coif. He clerked for the Chief Judge Charles Moye Jr. for the Northern District of Georgia, and Albert J. Henderson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After his clerkships, Segall worked for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the U.S. Department of Justice, before joining the Georgia State faculty in 1991. Segall teaches federal courts and constitutional law I and II. He is the author of the books Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. His articles on constitutional law have appeared in, among others, the Harvard Law Review Forum, the Stanford Law Review On Line, the UCLA Law Review, the George Washington Law Review, the Washington University Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, and Constitutional Commentary among many others. Segall's op-eds and essays have appeared in the New York Times, the LA Times, The Atlantic, SLATE, Vox, Salon, and the Daily Beast, among others. He has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and France 24 and all four of Atlanta's local television stations. He has also appeared on numerous local and national radio shows. Listen and Subscribe to Eric's Podcast Supreme Myths and follow him on Tik Tok! Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll
Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more Eric J. Segall graduated from Emory University, Phi Beta Kappa 27 and summa cum laude, and from Vanderbilt Law School, where he was the research editor for the Law Review and member of Order of the Coif. He clerked for the Chief Judge Charles Moye Jr. for the Northern District of Georgia, and Albert J. Henderson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After his clerkships, Segall worked for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the U.S. Department of Justice, before joining the Georgia State faculty in 1991. Segall teaches federal courts and constitutional law I and II. He is the author of the books Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. His articles on constitutional law have appeared in, among others, the Harvard Law Review Forum, the Stanford Law Review On Line, the UCLA Law Review, the George Washington Law Review, the Washington University Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, and Constitutional Commentary among many others. Segall's op-eds and essays have appeared in the New York Times, the LA Times, The Atlantic, SLATE, Vox, Salon, and the Daily Beast, among others. He has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and France 24 and all four of Atlanta's local television stations. He has also appeared on numerous local and national radio shows. Listen and Subscribe to Eric's Podcast Supreme Myths and follow him on Tik Tok! Watch Union Made by Jon Carroll Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll
Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more I had another great conversation with Eric Segall about everything having to do with how much the Supreme Court affects our daily lives Eric J. Segall graduated from Emory University, Phi Beta Kappa 27 and summa cum laude, and from Vanderbilt Law School, where he was the research editor for the Law Review and member of Order of the Coif. He clerked for the Chief Judge Charles Moye Jr. for the Northern District of Georgia, and Albert J. Henderson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After his clerkships, Segall worked for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the U.S. Department of Justice, before joining the Georgia State faculty in 1991. Segall teaches federal courts and constitutional law I and II. He is the author of the books Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. His articles on constitutional law have appeared in, among others, the Harvard Law Review Forum, the Stanford Law Review On Line, the UCLA Law Review, the George Washington Law Review, the Washington University Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, and Constitutional Commentary among many others. Segall's op-eds and essays have appeared in the New York Times, the LA Times, The Atlantic, SLATE, Vox, Salon, and the Daily Beast, among others. He has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and France 24 and all four of Atlanta's local television stations. He has also appeared on numerous local and national radio shows. Listen and Subscribe to Eric's Podcast Supreme Myths and follow him on Tik Tok! Watch Union Made by Jon Carroll Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll
Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more I had another great conversation with Eric Segall about everything having to do with how much the Supreme Court affects our daily lives Eric J. Segall graduated from Emory University, Phi Beta Kappa 27 and summa cum laude, and from Vanderbilt Law School, where he was the research editor for the Law Review and member of Order of the Coif. He clerked for the Chief Judge Charles Moye Jr. for the Northern District of Georgia, and Albert J. Henderson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After his clerkships, Segall worked for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the U.S. Department of Justice, before joining the Georgia State faculty in 1991. Segall teaches federal courts and constitutional law I and II. He is the author of the books Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. His articles on constitutional law have appeared in, among others, the Harvard Law Review Forum, the Stanford Law Review On Line, the UCLA Law Review, the George Washington Law Review, the Washington University Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, and Constitutional Commentary among many others. Segall's op-eds and essays have appeared in the New York Times, the LA Times, The Atlantic, SLATE, Vox, Salon, and the Daily Beast, among others. He has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and France 24 and all four of Atlanta's local television stations. He has also appeared on numerous local and national radio shows. Listen and Subscribe to Eric's Podcast Supreme Myths and follow him on Tik Tok! Watch Union Made by Jon Carroll Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll Follow and Support Pete Coe
Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more See JL Cauvin and I co Headlining City Winery In Pittsburgh PA on Oct 11 Spend Money on Kevin's Honey! 14 minutes Eric J. Segall graduated from Emory University, Phi Beta Kappa 27 and summa cum laude, and from Vanderbilt Law School, where he was the research editor for the Law Review and member of Order of the Coif. He clerked for the Chief Judge Charles Moye Jr. for the Northern District of Georgia, and Albert J. Henderson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After his clerkships, Segall worked for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the U.S. Department of Justice, before joining the Georgia State faculty in 1991. Segall teaches federal courts and constitutional law I and II. He is the author of the books Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. His articles on constitutional law have appeared in, among others, the Harvard Law Review Forum, the Stanford Law Review On Line, the UCLA Law Review, the George Washington Law Review, the Washington University Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, and Constitutional Commentary among many others. Segall's op-eds and essays have appeared in the New York Times, the LA Times, The Atlantic, SLATE, Vox, Salon, and the Daily Beast, among others. He has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and France 24 and all four of Atlanta's local television stations. He has also appeared on numerous local and national radio shows. Listen and Subscribe to Eric's Podcast Supreme Myths and follow him on Tik Tok! Watch Union Made by Jon Carroll Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll Follow and Support Pete Coe
Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more Eric J. Segall graduated from Emory University, Phi Beta Kappa 27 and summa cum laude, and from Vanderbilt Law School, where he was the research editor for the Law Review and member of Order of the Coif. He clerked for the Chief Judge Charles Moye Jr. for the Northern District of Georgia, and Albert J. Henderson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After his clerkships, Segall worked for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the U.S. Department of Justice, before joining the Georgia State faculty in 1991. Segall teaches federal courts and constitutional law I and II. He is the author of the books Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. His articles on constitutional law have appeared in, among others, the Harvard Law Review Forum, the Stanford Law Review On Line, the UCLA Law Review, the George Washington Law Review, the Washington University Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, and Constitutional Commentary among many others. Segall's op-eds and essays have appeared in the New York Times, the LA Times, The Atlantic, SLATE, Vox, Salon, and the Daily Beast, among others. He has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and France 24 and all four of Atlanta's local television stations. He has also appeared on numerous local and national radio shows. Listen and Subscribe to Eric's Podcast Supreme Myths and follow him on Tik Tok! Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll Follow and Support Pete Coe
Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more Eric J. Segall graduated from Emory University, Phi Beta Kappa 27 and summa cum laude, and from Vanderbilt Law School, where he was the research editor for the Law Review and member of Order of the Coif. He clerked for the Chief Judge Charles Moye Jr. for the Northern District of Georgia, and Albert J. Henderson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After his clerkships, Segall worked for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the U.S. Department of Justice, before joining the Georgia State faculty in 1991. Segall teaches federal courts and constitutional law I and II. He is the author of the books Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. His articles on constitutional law have appeared in, among others, the Harvard Law Review Forum, the Stanford Law Review On Line, the UCLA Law Review, the George Washington Law Review, the Washington University Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, and Constitutional Commentary among many others. Segall's op-eds and essays have appeared in the New York Times, the LA Times, The Atlantic, SLATE, Vox, Salon, and the Daily Beast, among others. He has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and France 24 and all four of Atlanta's local television stations. He has also appeared on numerous local and national radio shows. Listen and Subscribe to Eric's Podcast Supreme Myths and follow him on Tik Tok! Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll Follow and Support Pete Coe
Welcome to my new Series "can you talk real quick?" This is a short, efficiently produced conversation with someone who knows stuff about things that are happening and who will let me record a quick chat to help us all better understand an issue in the news or our lives as well as connect with each other around something that might be unfolding in real time. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 730 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more Eric J. Segall graduated from Emory University, Phi Beta Kappa 27 and summa cum laude, and from Vanderbilt Law School, where he was the research editor for the Law Review and member of Order of the Coif. He clerked for the Chief Judge Charles Moye Jr. for the Northern District of Georgia, and Albert J. Henderson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After his clerkships, Segall worked for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the U.S. Department of Justice, before joining the Georgia State faculty in 1991. Segall teaches federal courts and constitutional law I and II. He is the author of the books Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. His articles on constitutional law have appeared in, among others, the Harvard Law Review Forum, the Stanford Law Review On Line, the UCLA Law Review, the George Washington Law Review, the Washington University Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, and Constitutional Commentary among many others. Segall's op-eds and essays have appeared in the New York Times, the LA Times, The Atlantic, SLATE, Vox, Salon, and the Daily Beast, among others. He has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and France 24 and all four of Atlanta's local television stations. He has also appeared on numerous local and national radio shows. Listen and Subscribe to Eric's Podcast Supreme Myths and follow him on Tik Tok! Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll Follow and Support Pete Coe
Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 730 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more Eric J. Segall graduated from Emory University, Phi Beta Kappa 27 and summa cum laude, and from Vanderbilt Law School, where he was the research editor for the Law Review and member of Order of the Coif. He clerked for the Chief Judge Charles Moye Jr. for the Northern District of Georgia, and Albert J. Henderson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After his clerkships, Segall worked for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the U.S. Department of Justice, before joining the Georgia State faculty in 1991. Segall teaches federal courts and constitutional law I and II. He is the author of the books Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. His articles on constitutional law have appeared in, among others, the Harvard Law Review Forum, the Stanford Law Review On Line, the UCLA Law Review, the George Washington Law Review, the Washington University Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, and Constitutional Commentary among many others. Segall's op-eds and essays have appeared in the New York Times, the LA Times, The Atlantic, SLATE, Vox, Salon, and the Daily Beast, among others. He has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and France 24 and all four of Atlanta's local television stations. He has also appeared on numerous local and national radio shows. Listen and Subscribe to Eric's Podcast Supreme Myths and follow him on Tik Tok! Check out all things Jon Carroll Follow and Support Pete Coe Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
