Podcasts about Lawsuit

As seen on Gutfeld!, whistleblowers reveal that the DOJ's investigation into the Clinton Foundation was flawed, and Trump has filed a lawsuit against the BBC. Greg has the details you won't want to miss! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

We're discussing the feedback from Sooz Review of Jaws, and why people are real worked up about it. We learn about a woman who changed her gender on LinkedIn only to get a 400% increase in page views, so obviously we're mad about it. Sarah explains why drones are being used in warfare and it feels more dangerous than you'd think. Susie describes a study that had a man dressed as Batman entering a subway car, and the surprising effect it had on passengers, but the real surprise was the conclusions it gave scholars. We learn about a man who is wearing ridiculous pants to win a jeans contest for absolutely no reason, and Sarah cannot quit laughing at him. Plus, we hear about a trial where a mistress was fined almost $2M for breaking up a marriage, while the man was not held accountable in any way.Brain Candy Podcast Website - https://thebraincandypodcast.com/Brain Candy Podcast Book Recommendations - https://thebraincandypodcast.com/books/Brain Candy Podcast Merchandise - https://thebraincandypodcast.com/candy-store/Brain Candy Podcast Candy Club - https://thebraincandypodcast.com/product/candy-club/Brain Candy Podcast Sponsor Codes - https://thebraincandypodcast.com/support-us/Brain Candy Podcast Social Media & Platforms:Brain Candy Podcast LIVE Interactive Trivia Nights - https://www.youtube.com/@BrainCandyPodcast/streamsBrain Candy Podcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/braincandypodcastHost Susie Meister Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/susiemeisterHost Sarah Rice Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/imsarahriceBrain Candy Podcast on X: https://www.x.com/braincandypodBrain Candy Podcast Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/braincandy (JOIN FREE - TONS OF REALITY TV CONTENT)Brain Candy Podcast Sponsors, partnerships, & Products that we love:Get $35 off Aura's best-selling Carver Mat frames - named #1 by Wirecutter - by going to https://auraframes.com and using promo code BRAINCANDY at checkout.For 20% off your order, head to https://reliefband.com and use code BRAINCANDYSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

SCR: Laura and Scott, DIRT ALERT: Lawsuit claims Riley Keough is bio parent of John Travolta's son, "Song Sung Blue" screening behavior -- people acting fools for free stuff, and movie screening BTS from Jason's husband, CollinSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In the final Money Lap episode of 2025, Parker and Landon mix humor with deep motorsports insight, breaking down the landmark NASCAR lawsuit settlement and its ripple effects on charters, team finances, and the future of the sport. They recap standout moments across NASCAR, F1, and endurance racing, debate driver moves, answer fan questions, and share candid stories about life as pro racers. Leave us a voicemail! https://moneylap.com Or email us! friends@themoneylap.com Timestamps: 00:00 - Intro 05:01 - Holiday Plans & Personal Updates 05:40 - NASCAR Lawsuit Settlement Overview 07:57 - Denny Hamlin's Role & Team Owner Relationships 12:03 - Settlement Details & Revenue Sharing 27:00 - Budget Cap Discussion & F1 Parallels 31:04 - Post-Settlement Team Strategies 35:03 - Lingering Lawsuit Effects & Team Stability 37:15 - Media Rights Future & Fan Sentiment 39:24 - Evergreen Charters & Market Value 42:33 - Charter Sale Speculation 44:30 - Smaller Teams' Future & Affiliate Partnerships 45:37 - Rolex 24 & F1 Season Recap 47:29 - F1 Storylines & Driver Performances 49:26 - F1 Offseason News & Personnel Changes 52:52 - IndyCar & FIA Collaboration 53:59 - Toyota GT Racing & Year-End Retrospective 54:50 - Rapid-Fire Awards: Underrated Drives & Surprises 59:14 - Biggest Drop-Offs & Surges 1:04:09 - 2025 Championship Predictions 1:09:10 - Scorecard: Drivers in New Places 1:12:22 - Looking Ahead: 2025 Moves & Playoff Predictions 1:13:29 - Colton Herta's F2 Challenge 1:15:12 - Listener Q&A 1:36:45 - Outro (Timestamps are a rough timing and may require a little scrubbing to find the start of the topic) The Money Lap is the ultimate motorsport show (not a podcast) with Parker Kligerman and Landon Cassill professional racecar drivers and hilarious hosts taking you through the world of motorsports. Covering NASCAR, F1, Indycar, and more, they'll provide the scoop, gossip, laughs, and stories from the racing biz. With over 2400 unique products currently in stock, Spoiler Diecast boasts one of the largest inventories in the industry. We are NASCAR focused, offering a wide range of diecast and apparel options. But that's not all. We've expanded our catalog to include diecast for dirt/sprint cars, Indycar, and F1. As passionate racing fans ourselves, we're constantly growing our offerings to cater to different forms of racing. Use promo code "moneylap" for free shipping. https://www.spoilerdiecast.com/ Copyright 2025, Pixel Racing, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

The Epstein estate tried to shut down the lawsuit Ghislaine Maxwell filed against it by arguing that her claims were legally baseless and strategically opportunistic. Maxwell had sued the estate seeking reimbursement for legal fees and protection she claimed Epstein had promised her, but the executors countered that no such binding agreement existed. They portrayed her demand for indemnification as both speculative and self-serving, especially given her criminal conviction and the mountain of evidence tying her to Epstein's trafficking operation. In their view, Maxwell was attempting to shift responsibility for her own conduct onto a dead man's estate that already faced enormous financial pressure from survivor settlements and ongoing litigation.To reinforce their position, the estate argued that Maxwell's lawsuit was essentially an effort to rewrite history—attempting to cast herself as someone entitled to Epstein's financial shield despite her central role in enabling his crimes. They emphasized that the estate had no obligation to fund her defense, especially when her actions were outside the scope of any legitimate employment or partnership and were, instead, criminal in nature. The executors also noted that satisfying Maxwell's claims would siphon money away from compensation intended for survivors, contradicting the estate's publicly stated commitments. Ultimately, their motion to dismiss framed Maxwell's lawsuit as a legally flimsy maneuver designed to grab resources she was never owed and to distance herself from the consequences of her own conduct.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The gusty winds that caused today's blizzard conditions in northwest Minnesota also brought much colder air across the entire state.The Department of Homeland Security says federal agents have not broken the law in their treatment of observers during immigration arrests in Minnesota.Those stories and more in today's evening update from MPR News. Hosted by Emily Reese. Music by Gary Meister.

Today, Hunter was joined by the new Chief Public Defender for the state of Missouri, Matthew Crowell. Matthew and Hunter discussed a range of topics that Matthew is now facing as the Chief and how he hopes to tackle them.   Guest: Matthew Crowell, Chief Public Defender, Missouri   Resources: Contact the Missouri Public Defender Here https://publicdefender.mo.gov/  Lawsuit https://www.aclu-mo.org/en/news/advocates-sue-missouri-department-mental-health-failing-treat-pretrial-detainees-living-mental         Contact Hunter Parnell:                                 Publicdefenseless@gmail.com  Instagram @PublicDefenselessPodcast Twitter                                                                 @PDefenselessPod www.publicdefenseless.com  Subscribe to the Patreon www.patreon.com/PublicDefenselessPodcast  Donate on PayPal https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=5KW7WMJWEXTAJ Donate on Stripe https://donate.stripe.com/7sI01tb2v3dwaM8cMN Trying to find a specific part of an episode? Use this link to search transcripts of every episode of the show! https://app.reduct.video/o/eca54fbf9f/p/d543070e6a/share/c34e85194394723d4131/home  

00:00 Intro01:12 China Targets Missouri Sen. Eric Schmitt in $50B Lawsuit02:54 Wanted by CCP: Asylum Seeker Faces Deportation Risks06:16 Trump Moves to Make Peru a Major Non-NATO Ally08:00 Trump Designates Fentanyl a Weapon of Mass Destruction13:51 Up to 30 Japanese Lawmakers to Visit Taiwan14:28 Japan Sees Chinese Tourism Growth Slow to 3 percent in Nov.15:15 China Criticizes Japan at U.N., Japan Pushes Back15:46 Expert on U.S. Stakes in China-Taiwan-Japan Tensions16:53 China Flexes Military Might to Deter Japan, U.S.19:18 China Projects Confidence, Pressures Japan20:26 Fisher: China Might Escalate Tensions With U.S., Japan21:50 China Could Build a Military Base in Taiwan If Taken

Host Brandon Contes interviews Fox NASCAR insider Bob Pockrass. Brandon and Bob discuss a wide range of topics including all the happenings in the 23XI Racing/Front Row Motorsports vs. NASCAR antitrust lawsuit and settlement, getting called out by Michael Jordan, the NASCAR playoff system, and more.-2:25: 23XI/Front Row vs. NASCAR lawsuit/Michael Jordan testifying-16:13: Charter system-26:59: Media reaction to lawsuit/SRX/Michael Jordan's relationship with NASCAR-40:10: NASCAR ratings/reaching younger viewers-47:56: NASCAR Playoff systemDownload the Awful Announcing Podcast:Listen on AppleListen on SpotifyAwful Announcing on XAwful Announcing on FacebookAwful Announcing on InstagramAwful Announcing on ThreadsAwful Announcing on BlueSkyAwful Announcing on LinkedInAwful Announcing on YouTube Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

John Pollock and Brandon Thurston cover the latest developments in the WWE Ring Boy lawsuit, as a judge rules that most of the plaintiffs' claims will proceed to discovery.They also discuss John Cena's final match and the business impact it generated, along with Mick Foley publicly cutting ties with WWE over Donald Trump.Topics this week include:Warner Bros. Discovery's board is approving Netflix's bid and rejecting ParamountJudge allows the WWE Ring Boy lawsuit to move forward on most claimsJohn Cena's final match and its business implicationsMick Foley ends his relationship with WWE over Donald TrumpNick Khan set to be deposed in the WWE shareholder lawsuitNielsen Gauge ratings for NovemberWWE Raw on Netflix viewershipWWE SmackDown and AEW Collision ratings analysisMusic courtesy: “Panic Beat” by Ben TramerPOST WrestlingSubscribe: https://postwrestling.com/subscribePatreon: http://postwrestlingcafe.comForum: https://forum.postwrestling.comDiscord: https://discord.com/invite/Q795HhRTwitter/Facebook/Instagram/YouTube: @POSTwrestlingBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/postwrestling.comWrestlenomicsSubscribe: https://wrestlenomics.com/podcast/Patreon: https://patreon.com/wrestlenomicsSubstack: https://wrestlenomics.substack.com/Twitter/Facebook/Instagram/YouTube: @WrestlenomicsBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/wrestlenomics.comOur Sponsors:* Check out Progressive: https://www.progressive.comAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Another lawsuit

The lawsuit filed by Jeffrey Epstein survivors against Bank of America and BNY Mellon has gotten off to a procedurally rocky but far from fatal start, after Judge Jed Rakoff expressed skepticism about the complaint's reliance on broad, conclusory language. Rakoff made clear that while the allegations may be serious, they must be pleaded with greater factual specificity to meet federal standards, particularly given the scale and power of the defendants. Rather than dismissing the case, he gave plaintiffs' attorneys Brad Edwards and David Boies two weeks to amend the complaint and add more substance, signaling that the court wants clearer details, stronger connections, and more concrete allegations. This move reflects judicial discipline rather than hostility, and mirrors Rakoff's approach in prior Epstein-related litigation involving Deutsche Bank and JPMorgan, where he demanded rigor but ultimately presided over the cases in a fair and methodical manner.While the early hearing underscores the difficulty of holding major financial institutions accountable, it does not indicate that the case is in jeopardy. Lawsuits of this magnitude routinely face early challenges as judges force plaintiffs to sharpen their claims before allowing litigation to proceed. Rakoff's insistence on “meat on the bone” suggests he is willing to let the case move forward if properly pleaded, not that he is inclined to protect the banks. That said, the reality remains that the financial sector holds immense leverage, and history suggests banks often resolve such cases through settlements rather than public reckonings. Even so, the litigation is still in its infancy, and the amended complaint will be the true test of whether the case advances. For now, the survivors remain in the race, the court has not closed the door, and the outcome is very much undecided.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Victim Lawsuits Against BoA and BNY Mellon Draws Skepticism - Business Insider

Increased Immigrations and Customs Enforcement actions in Minnesota this month have drawn, likely, thousands of community protesters and observers. And confrontations between ICE agents and community members have been chaotic. Today, six Minnesota residents along with the ACLU of Minnesota filed a lawsuit against ICE, alleging that agents have interfered with their rights to free speech and peaceful assembly and have subjected them to harassment, intimidation and unlawful detentions. For more information on the legal case, MPR News host Nina Moini talked with Alicia Granse, an ACLU of Minnesota staff attorney who is leading the lawsuit.

A lawsuit has been launched against a mortuary after a distraught dad is handed a bag with his son's brain in it...instead of his original clothing. Deadly Irony: A professor who taught "violence in the family" is found fatally shot near a highway, her gun cocked & loaded by her side. Plus, a taxpayer looking for some puppy perks in a ruff lawsuit. Jennifer Gould reports. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

John Pollock and Brandon Thurston cover the latest developments in the WWE Ring Boy lawsuit, as a judge rules that most of the plaintiffs' claims will proceed to discovery.They also discuss John Cena's final match and the business impact it generated, along with Mick Foley publicly cutting ties with WWE over Donald Trump.Topics this week include:Warner Bros. Discovery's board approving Netflix's bid and rejecting ParamountJudge allows the WWE Ring Boy lawsuit to move forward on most claimsJohn Cena's final match and its business implicationsMick Foley ends his relationship with WWE over Donald TrumpNick Khan set to be deposed in the WWE shareholder lawsuitNielsen Gauge ratings for NovemberWWE Raw on Netflix viewershipWWE SmackDown and AEW Collision ratings analysisVIDEO VERSION: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ2bY8OaYFwMusic courtesy: “Panic Beat” by Ben TramerPOST WrestlingSubscribe: https://postwrestling.com/subscribePatreon: http://postwrestlingcafe.comForum: https://forum.postwrestling.comDiscord: https://discord.com/invite/Q795HhRTwitter/Facebook/Instagram/YouTube: @POSTwrestlingBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/postwrestling.comWrestlenomicsSubscribe: https://wrestlenomics.com/podcast/Patreon: https://patreon.com/wrestlenomicsSubstack: https://wrestlenomics.substack.com/Twitter/Facebook/Instagram/YouTube: @WrestlenomicsBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/wrestlenomics.comSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/wrestlenomics/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Ros Atkins on some of this week's biggest global media stories. Jacqueline Maley of the Sydney Morning Herald talks us through the newsroom's challenge in covering the Bondi Beach attack during a Hanukkah celebration - a story shaped by rapidly circulating bystander video, fraught community tensions and intense scrutiny over tone and verification.Jeremy Vine reflects on his hard‑fought legal victory after sustained defamatory and harassing posts from former footballer Joey Barton.Media correspondent Alex Farber of The Times examines the BBC's newly launched charter renewal process, the debate around future funding models, and how all this intersects with President Donald Trump's lawsuit against the corporation over an edited Panorama clip.And finally, Mengchen Zhangfrom the BBC's Global China Unit explains the rapid global rise of the microdrama - the ultra‑short, phone‑first video dramas attracting huge investment and reshaping viewing habits around the world.Producer: Lisa Jenkinson Assistant Producer: Lucy Wai

Arizona attorney general Kris Mayes is suing over EV charging stations. Mike has something to say about another Mayes lawsuit. 

Here's your local news for Tuesday, December 16, 2025:We share the latest updates on Madison's Southwest and Southeast area plans,Consider the long road ahead for a lawsuit that claims Wisconsin's congressional maps are an anti-competitive gerrymander,Explain why American beef prices are in flux,Learn how to achieve that signature bagel chewiness,Mark the start of hibernation season,And much more.

The BBC has vowed to defend itself against the $10bn lawsuit that the US president, Donald Trump, filed against it. Trump alleges the broadcaster ‘intentionally, maliciously and deceptively' edited the speech he gave before the 6 January 2021 attack on the US Capitol. On Tuesday, a BBC spokesperson said: ‘As we have made clear previously, we will be defending this case. We are not going to make further comment on ongoing legal proceedings.' Lucy Hough speaks to the Guardian's head of national news, Archie Bland – watch on YouTube. Help support our independent journalism at theguardian.com/infocus

The SAVE plan is officially dead. Learn what the SAVE lawsuit settlement actually says (not the rumors), who really needs to pay attention right now, and what you should do next. We walk through why millions of people are still stuck in SAVE forbearance, what repayment plans are actually available going forward, and how upcoming rulemaking could reshape income-driven repayment yet again. If you're waiting things out, this is your nudge to get proactive before the Department of Education decides for you. Key moments: (01:07) The lawsuit that officially ended the SAVE plan (05:01) Why borrowers should get off the SAVE plan asap (09:03) Borrowers are also losing access to PAYE (13:22) Why I don't think the RAP plan will be around for the next 30 years (18:25) Act early to avoid being defaulted into the wrong plan   Like the show? There are several ways you can help! Follow on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or Amazon Music Leave an honest review on Apple Podcasts  Subscribe to the newsletter Feeling helpless when it comes to your student loans? Try our free student loan calculator Check out our refinancing bonuses we negotiated Book your custom student loan plan Get profession-specific financial planning Do you have a question about student loans? Leave us a voicemail here or email us at help@studentloanplanner.com and we might feature it in an upcoming show!  

The Epstein estate tried to shut down the lawsuit Ghislaine Maxwell filed against it by arguing that her claims were legally baseless and strategically opportunistic. Maxwell had sued the estate seeking reimbursement for legal fees and protection she claimed Epstein had promised her, but the executors countered that no such binding agreement existed. They portrayed her demand for indemnification as both speculative and self-serving, especially given her criminal conviction and the mountain of evidence tying her to Epstein's trafficking operation. In their view, Maxwell was attempting to shift responsibility for her own conduct onto a dead man's estate that already faced enormous financial pressure from survivor settlements and ongoing litigation.To reinforce their position, the estate argued that Maxwell's lawsuit was essentially an effort to rewrite history—attempting to cast herself as someone entitled to Epstein's financial shield despite her central role in enabling his crimes. They emphasized that the estate had no obligation to fund her defense, especially when her actions were outside the scope of any legitimate employment or partnership and were, instead, criminal in nature. The executors also noted that satisfying Maxwell's claims would siphon money away from compensation intended for survivors, contradicting the estate's publicly stated commitments. Ultimately, their motion to dismiss framed Maxwell's lawsuit as a legally flimsy maneuver designed to grab resources she was never owed and to distance herself from the consequences of her own conduct.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Simon's live roundup for James O'Brien's morning programme on the UK's LBC.

A round-up of the main headlines in Sweden on December 16th 2025. You can hear more reports on our homepage www.radiosweden.se, or in the app Sveriges Radio. Presenter/producer: Ulla Engberg.

The $500 million lawsuit was filed by a woman who claimed she suffered severe and lifelong medical complications after being repeatedly raped by Epstein as a teenager. In her complaint, she alleged that Epstein knowingly infected her with HPV, which later developed into cancer requiring multiple surgeries and ongoing treatment. She argued that Epstein used his wealth, power, and manipulation to coerce her into silence while knowingly exposing her to a dangerous virus. The lawsuit framed the decades of medical trauma she endured as a direct consequence of Epstein's abuse, asserting that the estate should be held financially responsible for the staggering health and emotional costs she continued to face.The complaint also accused the Epstein estate of minimizing and concealing the extent of her injuries and the long-term consequences of Epstein's conduct, even as other survivor claims moved through the compensation fund. She argued that her damages far exceeded what the fund could offer, both because of the scale of her medical bills and the lasting impact on her quality of life. By seeking $500 million, she contended that the estate must finally acknowledge the full breadth of harm Epstein inflicted—harm that, in her case, would last for the rest of her life.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The lawsuit filed by Jeffrey Epstein survivors against Bank of America and BNY Mellon has gotten off to a procedurally rocky but far from fatal start, after Judge Jed Rakoff expressed skepticism about the complaint's reliance on broad, conclusory language. Rakoff made clear that while the allegations may be serious, they must be pleaded with greater factual specificity to meet federal standards, particularly given the scale and power of the defendants. Rather than dismissing the case, he gave plaintiffs' attorneys Brad Edwards and David Boies two weeks to amend the complaint and add more substance, signaling that the court wants clearer details, stronger connections, and more concrete allegations. This move reflects judicial discipline rather than hostility, and mirrors Rakoff's approach in prior Epstein-related litigation involving Deutsche Bank and JPMorgan, where he demanded rigor but ultimately presided over the cases in a fair and methodical manner.While the early hearing underscores the difficulty of holding major financial institutions accountable, it does not indicate that the case is in jeopardy. Lawsuits of this magnitude routinely face early challenges as judges force plaintiffs to sharpen their claims before allowing litigation to proceed. Rakoff's insistence on “meat on the bone” suggests he is willing to let the case move forward if properly pleaded, not that he is inclined to protect the banks. That said, the reality remains that the financial sector holds immense leverage, and history suggests banks often resolve such cases through settlements rather than public reckonings. Even so, the litigation is still in its infancy, and the amended complaint will be the true test of whether the case advances. For now, the survivors remain in the race, the court has not closed the door, and the outcome is very much undecided.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Victim Lawsuits Against BoA and BNY Mellon Draws Skepticism - Business InsiderBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

On the Tuesday, Dec. 16 edition of Georgia Today: Atlanta-based UPS faces a lawsuit over alleged payroll discrepancies; a former Georgia high school student was among those injured in a mass shooting at Rhode Island's Brown University; and Atlanta-based Cox Communications is at the center of a Supreme Court case over copyright infringement.

Listen for the latest from Bloomberg News.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway joined the show to discuss multiple pressing issues. She explained the state's $24 billion judgment against China and the ongoing efforts to seize assets, including those in the U.S., amid counter-suits. Hanaway addressed the controversy over BJC allowing minors aged 12–18 to deny parents access to certain medical records, noting this stems from longstanding Missouri law and may require legislative updates. She also provided insight into the recent redistricting and abortion-related ballot language, affirming the ruling as a win for pro-life advocates while emphasizing the need for an organized campaign supporting Amendment 3.

Collette Adkins is a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, which launched a lawsuit against the Department of Fish and Wildlife to comply with court-ordered protections for gray wolves. Adkins also serves as the Center's Carnivore Conservation Program Director.

Utah Auditor Tina Cannon has pulled her lawsuit challenging the meeting on the vote to relocate her office in Utah's Capitol... Greg and Holly get the latest details from KSL NewsRadio's Adam Small on where this office debate stands and why the lawsuit was dropped.

AP's Lisa Dwyer reports on accusations against UPS of underpaying seasonal workers.

This Day in Legal History: West Coast HotelOn December 16, 1936, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, a case that would become a cornerstone in constitutional law and mark a significant turning point in the Court's approach to economic regulation. At issue was the constitutionality of Washington State's minimum wage law for women, which had been challenged by the West Coast Hotel Company after Elsie Parrish, a maid, sued for back wages.The case arrived during a period when the Court had consistently struck down New Deal-era economic regulations, relying on a broad interpretation of “freedom of contract” under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Earlier cases like Lochner v. New York had enshrined a judicial skepticism toward government interference in labor and wage arrangements.However, in Parrish, the Court's posture shifted. The eventual decision, handed down in 1937, upheld the minimum wage law, effectively signaling the end of the so-called Lochner era. The majority reasoned that the state had a legitimate interest in protecting the health and well-being of workers, particularly vulnerable low-wage employees.Justice Owen Roberts, who had previously sided with the Court's conservative bloc, voted with the majority—his move later came to be known as “the switch in time that saved nine,” as it followed President Roosevelt's controversial proposal to expand the Court.The decision validated broader governmental authority to regulate the economy, and it cleared the path for many New Deal policies to take root. It also marked a recalibration in the balance between individual economic liberty and the public interest.West Coast Hotel remains a landmark case in US constitutional history, exemplifying how judicial interpretation can evolve in response to changing social and economic realities.The 2025 tax-and-spending law introduced an overtime tax deduction that was billed as relief for overworked, working-class Americans. But the reality shaping up for the 2026 filing season is far more complicated—and far less beneficial—than its political framing suggested. The deduction does not exempt overtime pay from taxation; instead, it offers a narrow, post-withholding deduction that workers must calculate themselves, often without support from their employers or sufficient guidance from the IRS.The structure of the deduction is flawed: it only applies to the “half” portion of time-and-a-half pay and is capped at $12,500. For lower-wage workers to take full advantage, they must clock extraordinary amounts of overtime—something not feasible for many. Meanwhile, employers are actively disincentivized from helping employees understand or claim the benefit. If they report eligibility and make an error, they could face legal penalties, while doing nothing carries no risk. The system thus favors inaction and leaves employees to fend for themselves.Without clear W-2 guidance or safe harbor rules, the deduction becomes accessible primarily to those with tax professionals or payroll tools—functioning as a quiet subsidy for the well-advised. For others, it's a bureaucratic maze with limited reward. To prevent administrative failure, the IRS should at least provide a legal safe harbor for employers and model W-2 language. A more ambitious fix would be a flat-rate standard deduction for eligible workers, reducing complexity. Until then, this “relief” policy punishes transparency, discourages compliance, and places the greatest burden on those with the fewest resources.Trump Overtime Tax Break More a Political Tagline Than Tax ReliefDonald Trump filed a lawsuit in federal court in Miami seeking up to $10 billion in damages from the BBC, alleging defamation and violation of Florida's unfair trade practices law. The suit stems from an edited segment in a BBC Panorama documentary that combined parts of Trump's January 6, 2021 speech—specifically his calls to “march on the Capitol” and to “fight like hell”—while omitting language where he encouraged peaceful protest. Trump claims the edit falsely portrayed him as inciting violence and caused substantial reputational and financial harm.The BBC had previously admitted to an error in editing, apologized publicly, and acknowledged the clip could give a misleading impression. However, the broadcaster argues that there is no legal basis for the lawsuit. UK officials have backed the BBC's position, saying it has taken appropriate steps. Despite this, Trump's legal team claims the broadcaster has shown no real remorse and continues to engage in what they describe as politically motivated misrepresentation.The documentary in question aired before the 2024 U.S. presidential election and triggered significant fallout for the BBC, including the resignations of its top two executives. While the program did not air in the U.S., it was available via BritBox—a BBC-controlled streaming service—and possibly distributed in North America through licensing deals with Canadian firm Blue Ant Media.Legal experts say Trump faces a high bar in U.S. courts under First Amendment standards. He must prove not only that the edited content was false and defamatory, but also that the BBC acted with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth. The BBC may argue that the content was substantially accurate and did not materially harm Trump's reputation. Other networks, including CBS and ABC, previously settled defamation claims with Trump after his 2024 election victory.Trump seeks up to $10 billion in damages from BBC over editing of January 6 speech | ReutersU.S. law school enrollment surged 8% in 2025, reaching a 13-year high with 42,817 first-year students, according to new data from the American Bar Association. The increase follows an 18% rise in law school applicants and continues a multi-year upward trend, fueled by a mix of economic uncertainty, political intensity, and a growing interest in legal careers. The sluggish job market for college graduates, coupled with the centrality of legal issues during Donald Trump's second presidential term, has contributed to renewed interest in law degrees.A significant number of prospective students also cited personal and social motivations. A survey of 15,000 LSAT takers found rising interest in using law degrees to “help others” and “advocate for social justice,” with both reasons seeing double-digit percentage increases over last year. The pool of LSAT test-takers has grown as well, signaling likely continued enrollment growth in 2026.Some elite law schools, including Harvard, enrolled their largest first-year classes in over a decade. However, the long-term outlook remains uncertain. Legal employment has been strong in recent years, with the class of 2024 posting record job placement, but experts warn that advances in artificial intelligence could reduce demand for new associates—particularly at large firms offering high salaries. Smaller sectors like government and public interest law may struggle to absorb excess graduates if hiring slows.US job market, politics fuel 8% surge in law school enrollment | ReutersDonald Trump's controversial plan to build a $300 million, 90,000-square-foot ballroom on the White House grounds is facing its first legal challenge in federal court. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has sued Trump and several federal agencies, alleging that the demolition of the East Wing to make way for the ballroom violated multiple preservation laws and bypassed required reviews. The group is seeking a temporary restraining order to halt ongoing construction, citing irreversible damage to the historic structure.Since returning to office in January, Trump has made high-profile aesthetic changes to the White House, including installing gold accents in the Oval Office and converting the Rose Garden lawn into a patio modeled after Mar-a-Lago. But the scale and visibility of the ballroom project has drawn particularly intense criticism, especially as heavy machinery was seen dismantling the 120-year-old East Wing.The lawsuit argues that no president, including Trump, has the unilateral authority to alter protected parts of the White House without following procedures involving public input and reviews by agencies like the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts.The administration defended the project as lawful, citing historical precedent and presidential authority to modify the executive residence. It emphasized that above-ground construction was not scheduled to begin until April, rendering emergency relief unnecessary. Still, the National Trust contends that public consultation and proper approvals are not optional and must be upheld regardless of the project's timeline or presidential status.Trump's $300 million White House ballroom makeover faces day in court | ReutersA federal judge has ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) must extend the deadline for states to implement new immigration-related restrictions on food aid benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The decision, issued by U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai in Oregon, came in response to a lawsuit brought by 21 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia. The states argued they were not given adequate time or clarity to comply with the new rules, which were tied to President Donald Trump's domestic policy legislation passed in July.The USDA had initially set a November 1 deadline for states to comply with the restrictions, which limit SNAP benefits to U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. However, the guidance issued on October 31 created confusion by implying that some lawful residents—such as those who entered the U.S. as asylees or refugees—were ineligible, contrary to what the law allowed. The USDA later revised the guidance, but still maintained the November 1 deadline.Judge Kasubhai extended the grace period for compliance until April 9, finding the original deadline arbitrary and harmful to state budgets. He noted that the USDA's sudden guidance rollout undermined states' ability to respond and eroded trust in federal-state cooperation. The ruling blocks the USDA from penalizing states that don't meet the earlier deadline while the lawsuit proceeds.USDA must give states more time to implement new food aid restrictions, judge rules | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Plus: Ford to take $19.5 billion charge to write down EV investments. And Xerox seeks new debt financing backed by intellectual property. Julie Chang hosts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

"Have you ever wondered why a penny saved is truly a penny earned—or how a cat could end up in a courtroom over a color TV?"

Text a Message to the ShowWhen we talk about traumatic experiences, we usually go straight to the shootings and the car accidents, the grisly murders and crimes against children.  What often gets left out of that list is getting the threatening lawyer letter that says you're getting sued and whole life is about to be destroyed.  Today's guest is police chaplain Mark Clements who has received these letters over and over and over again.  Why does someone want to sue him?  For being a chaplain in the first place of course.  Mark talks about getting sued and why police chaplaincy should NOT be in danger getting shut down for violating the constitution or some other nonsense.  But even if you're not connected in any way to the legal and historical argument for law enforcement chaplaincy, I hope you'll listen in to a conversation with someone who has opened those scary lawyer letters… and survived.Music is by Chris Haugen Hey Chaplain Podcast Episode 129Tags:Chaplaincy, Attorneys, Court, First Amendment, ICPC, Lawsuit, Legality, Ministry, Police, Religious Freedom, Supreme Court, Threats, La Crosse, Mansfield, Wisconsin, OhioThe hosts and guests, including any discussion of personal legal experiences, lawsuits, constitutional issues, or Supreme Court decisions, are providing general information and commentary, not specific legal counsel.  Listening to this episode, reading the shownotes, or interacting with us does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and any of the hosts, guests, or the Hey Chaplain podcast.Legal outcomes, including the handling of lawsuits and court decisions, are highly dependent on the specific facts of each case. The discussion of personal experiences or historical court cases may not be applicable to your situation.If you have a legal issue, have received a lawyer's letter, or need advice regarding constitutional law, please stop listening to podcasts and go consult with a qualified legal professional licensed in your jurisdiction. Do not rely on anything you hear on a podcast as a substitute for competent legal advice.Hey Chaplain has not received any kind of compensation or benefit from First LIberty Institute and this is not a paid advertisement for First Liberty Institute or any other law firm or legal representation.  If you are still very very angry and feel compelled to bring a lawsuit, let me know and maybe I can get you in touch with Chaplain Mark, because he's been waiting for you with bated breath.Support the showThanks for Listening! And, as always, pray for peace in our city.Subscribe/Follow here: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hey-chaplain/id1570155168 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2CGK9A3BmbFEUEnx3fYZOY Email us at: heychaplain44@gmail.comYou can help keep the show ad-free by buying me a virtual coffee!https://www.buymeacoffee.com/heychaplain

Bottom of the Stream with Adam and Nick is the best place to get your fix of all the latest news of the week from the world of streaming and movies! This week, the Warner Bros. bidding war rumbles on, a big Netflix court case comes to an end, Will Smith is lining roles up, and the Golden Globe Nominations are here. Also, we discuss what we have been watching at the top of the stream and tackle some more of your hot takes!   Please consider supporting the show on Patreon, If you do we will give you lots of bonus content including early access to the episodes. Check it out over at www.patreon.com/bottomofthestream   We also have a discord so join us to hang out https://discord.gg/wJ3Bfqt  

Simon's live update on President Trump's surprise announcement that he is filing his proposed defamation lawsuit against the BBC, more than a month after the idea was first floated. For Iain Dale's nightly programme on the UK's LBC.

DOJ says CIT can demand CBP liquidate or reliquidate entries and provide refunds if the IEEPA tariffs are ruled illegal. Listen for more on Two Minutes in Trade. 

A group of lawmakers and state leaders have voted to kick the Utah State Auditor out of her current office in the Capitol.  A meeting was abruptly called today to vote on the removal, and we’ve learned that Utah’s state auditor has filed a lawsuit challenging these attempts. Greg and Holly break down the latest.

A lawsuit challenges cuts to child care facilities in Oklahoma.A new audit looks at controversies surrounding an OKC school district.A new study looks at the impact of drought on grasslands.You can find the KOSU Daily wherever you get your podcasts, you can also subscribe, rate us and leave a comment.You can keep up to date on all the latest news throughout the day at KOSU.org and make sure to follow us on Facebook, Tik Tok and Instagram at KOSU Radio.This is The KOSU Daily, Oklahoma news, every weekday.

A woman has sued the IRS, asking a court to allow her to claim her dog as a dependent. https://www.lehtoslaw.com

In Case No. 24-cv-7201, Sean Combs' legal team, led by attorney Jonathan D. Davis, filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint brought by plaintiff Thalia Graves. The defense argues that Graves' allegations, which pertain to an alleged 2001 rape, are legally insufficient and fail to meet the necessary standards for proceeding to trial. They contend that the complaint lacks specific factual allegations to support claims of misconduct, asserting that the accusations are vague and do not establish a clear connection between Combs' actions and the alleged harms. Furthermore, the defense highlights that the plaintiff's claims are based on generalized assertions without concrete evidence, which, according to them, does not satisfy the legal requirements for a viable lawsuit.Additionally, Combs' attorneys argue that certain claims are barred by statutes of limitations and that Graves has not demonstrated the requisite elements for causes of action such as intentional infliction of emotional distress or negligence. They also assert that the complaint fails to establish a direct link between Combs' conduct and any alleged damages suffered by the plaintiff. Based on these arguments, the defense requests that the court dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, thereby preventing the case from moving forward to discovery or trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628776.55.0.pdf

In Case No. 24-cv-7201, Sean Combs' legal team, led by attorney Jonathan D. Davis, filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint brought by plaintiff Thalia Graves. The defense argues that Graves' allegations, which pertain to an alleged 2001 rape, are legally insufficient and fail to meet the necessary standards for proceeding to trial. They contend that the complaint lacks specific factual allegations to support claims of misconduct, asserting that the accusations are vague and do not establish a clear connection between Combs' actions and the alleged harms. Furthermore, the defense highlights that the plaintiff's claims are based on generalized assertions without concrete evidence, which, according to them, does not satisfy the legal requirements for a viable lawsuit.Additionally, Combs' attorneys argue that certain claims are barred by statutes of limitations and that Graves has not demonstrated the requisite elements for causes of action such as intentional infliction of emotional distress or negligence. They also assert that the complaint fails to establish a direct link between Combs' conduct and any alleged damages suffered by the plaintiff. Based on these arguments, the defense requests that the court dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, thereby preventing the case from moving forward to discovery or trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628776.55.0.pdf

The Epstein estate tried to shut down the lawsuit Ghislaine Maxwell filed against it by arguing that her claims were legally baseless and strategically opportunistic. Maxwell had sued the estate seeking reimbursement for legal fees and protection she claimed Epstein had promised her, but the executors countered that no such binding agreement existed. They portrayed her demand for indemnification as both speculative and self-serving, especially given her criminal conviction and the mountain of evidence tying her to Epstein's trafficking operation. In their view, Maxwell was attempting to shift responsibility for her own conduct onto a dead man's estate that already faced enormous financial pressure from survivor settlements and ongoing litigation.To reinforce their position, the estate argued that Maxwell's lawsuit was essentially an effort to rewrite history—attempting to cast herself as someone entitled to Epstein's financial shield despite her central role in enabling his crimes. They emphasized that the estate had no obligation to fund her defense, especially when her actions were outside the scope of any legitimate employment or partnership and were, instead, criminal in nature. The executors also noted that satisfying Maxwell's claims would siphon money away from compensation intended for survivors, contradicting the estate's publicly stated commitments. Ultimately, their motion to dismiss framed Maxwell's lawsuit as a legally flimsy maneuver designed to grab resources she was never owed and to distance herself from the consequences of her own conduct.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

A celebrity psychic threatens legal action against a rival medium for using "Psychic Sal" — and the response from her target might be the greatest comeback in the history of the paranormal profession.READ or SHARE: https://weirddarkness.com/psychic-sal-trademark-battleWeirdDarkness® is a registered trademark. Copyright ©2025, Weird Darkness.#WeirdDarkness #Psychic #Paranormal #SallyMorgan #PsychicSally #Supernatural #StrangeNews #Medium #TrueStory #Bizarre

A company that sells non-lethal self-defense weapons has brought a lawsuit against the State of California, alleging a state heavy on gun restrictions, was violating the Second Amendment because it is making it difficult for people to buy their products. Byrna Technologies, who's weapons look like handguns but shoot powerful chemical irritants rather than lethal bullets are legal in 50 states, but California has blocked sales of Byrna's ammunition and launchers. The complaint compares Byrna's products to Tasers and other stun guns which both received Second Amendment protections by the Supreme Court. FOX's Tonya J. Powers speaks with Bryan Gantz, President and CEO of Byrna Technologies, maker of non-lethal self-defense weaponry, who explains what his products do and why they filed this lawsuit. Click Here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ To Follow 'The FOX News Rundown: Evening Edition' Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Most people quit at the first punch. Shane Barker got hit with a $60M lawsuit — and still found a way to win. In this episode of Winners Find A Way, we break down Shane's journey through entrepreneurship, influencer marketing, Amazon warfare, personal branding, and the gritty truth of building something valuable when no one believes in you. Shane Barker is the CEO and Founder of TraceFuse, the first Amazon-compliant negative review removal system designed to protect brands and restore digital trust. With 25+ years in digital marketing, Shane has influenced Fortune 500 brands, built global influencer strategies, spoken internationally, and now leads one of the most disruptive tools in e-commerce. He's also taught influencer marketing at UCLA, built seven-figure online systems, and helped hundreds of Amazon sellers recover revenue once lost to fraudulent or off-TOS reviews. Shane Barker did not take the traditional path. He took the hard one — the one where: You build businesses with no roadmap. You spend two years solving an "impossible" Amazon problem while everyone tells you it can't be done. Untitled recording_otter_ai You get hit with a $60 million lawsuit from the California Attorney General… and fight it for years until you win. Untitled recording_otter_ai You learn that perseverance isn't inspirational — it's survival. Resources Mentioned TraceFuse Amazon Review Checker (Free Tool) https://tracefuse.ai Shane's Website: https://shanebarker.com LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/shanebarker UCLA Influencer Marketing Coursework (Referenced)