Podcasts about litigants

This Day in Legal History: Supreme Court Denies Cert for RosenbergsOn October 13, 1952, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who had been convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage by passing atomic secrets to the Soviet Union. The couple had been sentenced to death in 1951 following a high-profile trial that captivated Cold War-era America. The Rosenbergs' appeal was their final attempt to overturn the conviction and avoid execution. By denying certiorari, the Supreme Court allowed their death sentences to stand without offering an opinion on the merits of the case.The decision intensified public debate over the fairness of their trial, with critics arguing that anti-communist hysteria had tainted the proceedings and supporters maintaining that the punishment fit the crime. Nearly a year later, on June 17, 1953, Justice William O. Douglas granted a temporary stay of execution after a new legal argument was raised involving the application of the Atomic Energy Act. However, the full Court reconvened in an emergency session and voted to vacate Douglas's stay the next day.The Rosenbergs were executed by electric chair at Sing Sing prison on June 19, 1953, marking the first and only time American civilians were executed for espionage during peacetime. Their case remains controversial, with questions still surrounding the extent of Ethel's involvement and the fairness of the trial. Over time, declassified documents, including material from the Venona project, have confirmed Julius's espionage activities but left lingering doubts about Ethel's role and the proportionality of her sentence.California enacted a new law (A.B. 931) that prohibits in-state lawyers and law firms from sharing contingency fees with out-of-state alternative business structures (ABS)—firms that are owned by non-lawyers. The bill, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom, directly impacts litigation funding operations and firms based in states like Arizona, which began allowing non-lawyer ownership in 2021. Originally broader in scope, the bill was narrowed to specifically ban contingent fee sharing, a common payment model in mass tort and personal injury cases.The move is expected to disrupt partnerships between California lawyers and ABS firms in jurisdictions like Arizona, Utah, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. Critics argue the law may harm both legal practitioners and consumers by limiting access to capital and cross-border collaboration. Amendments to the bill in August preserved certain flat fee and fixed fee arrangements, allowing some limited forms of financial collaboration to continue. KPMG, which recently launched a law firm in Arizona, declined to comment on whether the new restrictions would impact its plans to partner with attorneys nationwide.California Bans Contingent Fee Sharing With ‘Alternative' FirmsThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied the Trump administration's emergency request to deploy National Guard troops to Illinois, upholding a lower court's temporary block on the mobilization. The deployment plan included troops from the Texas National Guard, aimed at supporting federal agents during recent protests in the Chicago area. However, the court allowed those already present in Illinois to remain, pending further legal developments.U.S. District Judge April Perry had earlier questioned the administration's claims that troops were necessary to protect federal personnel from violent unrest, citing a lack of clear justification. Her order blocking the deployment is set to last until at least October 23, with the possibility of extension. Similar legal challenges are unfolding elsewhere, including in Oregon, where another judge blocked troop deployments to Portland. That ruling, however, may be overturned by a different appellate court.Democratic governors in affected states have argued that the administration exaggerated threats from largely peaceful protests to justify military action. A court in Los Angeles also ruled a previous deployment illegal, though that decision is on hold pending appeal. Under U.S. law, the National Guard typically operates under state control during domestic missions, making federal involvement a contentious legal issue.Appeals court rejects Trump request to deploy National Guard in Chicago area | ReutersFederal courts in New England—particularly in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Maine—have emerged as strategic venues for legal challenges against President Donald Trump's policies since his return to office in January 2025. A Reuters analysis found at least 72 lawsuits targeting Trump's policies filed in these four states, with trial judges ruling against the administration in 46 out of 51 cases decided so far. These challenges include efforts to block the administration's actions on deportations, federal education cuts, changes to birthright citizenship, and fast-tracked deportations to unstable third countries like South Sudan.The region's courts fall under the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has all five of its active judges appointed by Democratic presidents. Litigants see these courts as favorable due to their composition—17 of 20 active trial judges in the region are also Democratic appointees. Judges like William Young in Boston and Allison Burroughs have issued high-profile rulings against Trump, with Young warning of threats to constitutional values and Burroughs urging courts to defend free speech. Judge John McConnell in Rhode Island has also issued significant decisions, such as blocking a sweeping federal funding freeze.While the 1st Circuit has mostly upheld lower court rulings against Trump, the Supreme Court—dominated by a 6-3 conservative majority—has stepped in multiple times to stay or reverse those decisions. Still, the administration has not appealed every ruling, allowing some key decisions to remain in place, including those affecting mail-in ballot rules and funding for arts groups and Head Start programs. Democratic attorneys general are actively choosing New England courts for their reliability, with one noting that “you kind of know what you're getting.”New England courts become a battleground for challenges to Trump | 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

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis is joined by veteran litigators and Troutman Pepper Locke Partners Mary Zinsner and Heryka Knoespel to dissect a groundbreaking Fourth Circuit decision on bank liability in wire transfer fraud cases. The ruling clarifies the actual knowledge standard under the Uniform Commercial Code, rejecting negligence-based liability and safeguarding the speed and efficiency of the banking system. Discover how this decision impacts future litigation and the banking industry's approach to fraud prevention.

In this second part of Lawyer in the Hot Seat, recorded last week, strata legal eagle David Bannerman fields questions from Flat Chat's Jimmy Thomson about a range of issues, starting with what is vexatious litigant and how do you deal with them?Then there's the matter of disputes between neighbours and whether or not the strata committee should get involved - and what they can and should do if they go down that road.We look at embedded networks, how they are used to rip off apartment buyers, who should be warning strata newbies about them, and the very simple way purchasers can make sure it doesn't happen to them.And finally there are webinar viewers attendees' questions. That's all (only without the pictures) in this week's Flat Chat Wrap.____________________________________________________Flat Chat is all about apartment living, especially in Australia.Find us on Facebook and Twitter and the Flat Chat website.Send comments and questions to mail@flatchat.com.au.Register to ask and answer questions about apartment living anonymously on the website.Recorded by Jimmy Thomson & Sue Williams; Transcribed by Otter.ai.Find out more about Sue Williams and Jimmy Thomson on their websites.

Send us a textEver been sued for making it rain? In this thought-provoking episode of Beneath the Law, Gavin Tighe and Stephen Thiele dive into the murky waters of vexatious litigants—those who weaponize the justice system for personal vendettas, harassing opponents with endless, frivolous lawsuits.  From gladiator references to baby stroller briefcases, they unpack real-world cases, including a wild Ontario saga involving 13 lawsuits, social media rants, and accusations of a legal crime syndicate. They explore the gatekeeping role of the courts, the need for better safeguards like a vexatious litigant registry, and the human cost of unchecked legal abuse.  Listen For1:32 What Does “Vexatious Litigant” Even Mean?4:13 A Wild Case of 13 Lawsuits and a Legal Crime Syndicate6:06 How Courts Declare Someone Vexatious11:04 The Missing Registry: How Do We Track These People?12:24 The Baby Stroller Plaintiff: A Wild Legal Tale20:39 SLAPP Suits and the Broader ProblemLeave a rating/review for this podcast with one clickContact UsGardiner Roberts website | Gavin email | Stephen email  

Federal employee unions and other organizations filing lawsuits against the Trump administration may have to put money in escrow to cover the potential costs and damages of the lawsuit. President Trump's new memo tells agencies to use the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) to ask the federal courts to hold litigants accountable for their lawsuits. The scope of the directive covers all lawsuits filed against the federal government seeking an injunction where agencies can show expected monetary damages or costs from the requestedpreliminary relief, unless extraordinary circumstances justify an exception. Failure of the organization that filed the lawsuit to provide the money could result in the denial or dissolution of the requested injunctive relief. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Federal employee unions and other organizations filing lawsuits against the Trump administration may have to put money in escrow to cover the potential costs and damages of the lawsuit. President Trump's new memo tells agencies to use the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) to ask the federal courts to hold litigants accountable for their lawsuits. The scope of the directive covers all lawsuits filed against the federal government seeking an injunction where agencies can show expected monetary damages or costs from the requested preliminary relief, unless extraordinary circumstances justify an exception. Failure of the organization that filed the lawsuit to provide the money could result in the denial or dissolution of the requested injunctive relief. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

February 21, 2025Charles AdornettoWebinar:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6c6SaDZYs4Materials:https://spaces.hightail.com/space/tOuRfKkxm6

This episode tackles the challenges faced by self-represented litigants in domestic violence cases and how courts can ensure procedural justice and safety for victims. Three legal experts join the conversation to discuss the role of technology and training in improving legal responses and empowering survivors.The content of this episode is for informational purposes and should not be considered legal advice.The Honorable Lora Livingston, the Honorable Mary Madden, and Attorney Darren Mitchell guide us through the intricacies of supporting self-represented litigants, shedding light on the critical responsibilities of judicial officers. Discover how separating victims from perpetrators, addressing intimidation, and maintaining a safe court environment can empower those seeking justice without legal representation. Our discussion also ventures into the transformative effects of remote court proceedings, a shift hastened by the pandemic. Learn how this transition has eased logistical burdens, enhanced safety, boosted participation in domestic violence cases, and how virtual hearings continue to shape the future of justice access, offering a dignified platform for victims and ensuring procedural fairness remains intact.Furthermore, we unravel the delicate balance between providing legal information and advice, especially for non-lawyer advocates assisting victims. Through examples and practical tips, we explore the permissible roles of advocates while underscoring the importance of collaboration with legal services. This episode is a treasure trove of strategies and insights aimed at improving court support for domestic violence survivors, ensuring they are equipped with the tools necessary to navigate their cases effectively.You might want to take notes as you listen! Key resources from this episode include:lawhelp.orgwomenslaw.orgncjfcj.orgEpisode highlights:• Discussing the statistics of violence against women• Exploring the importance of procedural justice• Highlighting judges' roles with self-represented litigants• Examining courtroom management considerations for safety• Learning about technology's role in enhancing access to justice• Understanding the benefits of trained advocates for victims• Sharing insights on systemic changes to support litigants• Providing resources for further information and assistance

On Episode 71, we explore the constitutionality of Alberta seceding from Canada, we update you on several of the cases that we're working on, we tell you why Meta's new policy doesn't promote hate speech, and explain how your tax dollars funded pro-carbon tax legal groups.Stories and cases discussed in this week's episode:Feds Paid Carbon Tax FriendsReference re Secession of Quebec, 1998 CanLII 793 (SCC)Tasha Kheiriddin: Liberal response to Trump tariffs could break the country apartInterprovincial travel case intervention (Taylor v. Canada)Prince Edward Island free expression case (John Robertson)CCF to appear at Supreme Court in case about the scope of police search powersWard v. Quebec, 2021 SCC 43 (CanLII)Not Reserving Judgment is a podcast about Canadian constitutional law hosted by Josh Dehaas, Joanna Baron, and Christine Van Geyn.The show is brought to you by the Canadian Constitution Foundation, a non-partisan legal charity dedicated to defending rights and freedoms. To support our work, visit theccf.ca/donate.

Din & Daf: Conceptual Analysis of Halakha Through Case Study with Dr. Elana Stein Hain What inspired more trust in the institution of bet din - being able to understand the reasoning of the psak bet din, or specifically keeping explanations for experts only? In this shiur, we will examine this question on the basis of this week's daf and how rishonim and poskim have ruled on the issue. Sanhedrin 31b Dr. Elana Stein Hain – dinanddaf@hadran.org.il For more Din and Daf: hadran.org.il/channel/din-daf

On episode 32 of the Law Down Under Podcast, we are joined by Martin Dillon, a litigation specialist based in Hamilton, New Zealand. Martin has an arts degree in philosophy, and his studies focus on ethics. In addition to his private client work, he is also an approved legal aid provider. Martin published CourtKeys.com , which is an access to justice project he launched in 2013 involving a website which answers many frequently asked questions about law and legal processes. He has received awards for innovations in access to justice at the APAC Legal Awards in 2022 and the Lawyer International Legal 100 Awards in 2023. Martin is the author of Civil Litigation for Non-Lawyers , published by The Legal Drive in 2021. It provides information about how to run a civil Court case in New Zealand. It includes guidance on how to commence a claim in the District Court and the High Court, including what information is needed for particular documents. We discuss several topics, from philosophy to the composition of the New Zealand Rules Committee and everything in between.  The key focus of our discussion is access to justice, including how the legal profession and the Courts can assist lay litigants (non-lawyers) to use the justice system more efficiently.  

Trump names Howard Lutnick as Commerce Secretary, what this will mean for the business community and the various data reports coming from the department. Trucking firms and members of the state Assembly call on NY Governor Hochul to delay EV mandates. Litigants allege EPA cannot legally mandate electric trucks. Oil reacts to escalation of the Russia-Ukraine war, OPEC+ may delay output increases in December, China announcing policy measures to boost trade and increasing U.S. crude inventories. Phil Flynn, Senior Analyst Price Futures Group in his Energy Report points out that the incoming Trump Administration is signaling to the International Energy Agency to be more accurate in their data reporting. Also, Canadian oil companies are exploring the possibility of building pipelines and finishing the Keystone XL pipeline.

Trump names Howard Lutnick as Commerce Secretary, what this will mean for the business community and the various data reports coming from the department. Trucking firms and members of the state Assembly call on NY Governor Hochul to delay EV mandates. Litigants allege EPA cannot legally mandate electric trucks. Oil reacts to escalation of the Russia-Ukraine war, OPEC+ may delay output increases in December, China announcing policy measures to boost trade and increasing U.S. crude inventories. Phil Flynn, Senior Analyst Price Futures Group in his Energy Report points out that the incoming Trump Administration is signaling to the International Energy Agency to be more accurate in their data reporting. Also, Canadian oil companies are exploring the possibility of building pipelines and finishing the Keystone XL pipeline.

While the bench trial for Illinois' gun and magazine ban is over, the reverberations could impact a separate lawsuit against banning firearm silencers. Litigants in the trial that wrapped up Thursday argued over the difference and similarities of now banned semi-automatic only firearms and military rifles that go full auto or burst. Plaintiffs worked to address the issues raised by the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that sided with the state on preliminary grounds last year, saying semi-automatic firearms are too similar to military firearms and can be banned.Support this podcast: https://secure.anedot.com/franklin-news-foundation/ce052532-b1e4-41c4-945c-d7ce2f52c38a?source_code=xxxxxx

Daf 35 Litigants Are Reshayim - Document for Daf 35 by Simon Wolf

Summary of Chapter 3: Judicial Review. Chapter 3 delves into the concept of judicial review, which is the power of the courts to declare laws or executive actions unconstitutional. This principle was established in the landmark case of Marbury v Madison (1803), where Chief Justice John Marshall asserted the judiciary's role in interpreting the law and ensuring that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Key elements include: The Role of the Judiciary: The judiciary acts as the guardian of the Constitution, checking the powers of the legislative and executive branches, and ensuring that government actions comply with constitutional principles. Courts interpret statutes and regulations, providing clarity and consistency in their application. Marbury v Madison: This case established judicial review, empowering the judiciary to invalidate unconstitutional laws and actions, thus cementing its role as a co-equal branch of government. Limits and Scope of Judicial Review: Case or Controversy Requirement: Courts can only rule on actual cases with real disputes, ensuring they do not issue advisory opinions or hypothetical judgments. Litigants must have standing, demonstrating a personal stake in the case's outcome. Precedent (Stare Decisis): Courts rely on previous rulings to guide decisions, promoting consistency and stability. However, they can overturn precedent if past decisions are deemed incorrect or if societal values evolve. Constitutional Amendments: Congress and the states can amend the Constitution to override judicial interpretations, reflecting changing societal values and correcting judicial errors. Political Checks: Judicial Appointments: Judges are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, ensuring the judiciary reflects prevailing political and social values. Legislative Responses: Congress can pass new legislation to address judicial decisions, revising laws to meet constitutional requirements. Scope of Judicial Review: Supreme Court: As the final arbiter of constitutional issues, the Supreme Court's decisions are binding and set important legal precedents. The Court exercises selective jurisdiction, choosing cases with significant legal questions. Lower Federal Courts: Courts of Appeals review decisions from district courts and establish important legal precedents. District courts handle the majority of federal cases, creating factual records for potential appeals. State Courts: State supreme courts have the final say on state constitutional issues and contribute to the broader legal landscape. Intermediate appellate and trial courts handle a wide range of cases, interpreting both state and federal law. Through these mechanisms, judicial review ensures that the American legal system remains dynamic, balanced, and responsive to the needs of society, while upholding the principles of the Constitution. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Summary of Chapter 3: Judicial Review. Chapter 3 delves into the concept of judicial review, which is the power of the courts to declare laws or executive actions unconstitutional. This principle was established in the landmark case of Marbury v Madison (1803), where Chief Justice John Marshall asserted the judiciary's role in interpreting the law and ensuring that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Key elements include: The Role of the Judiciary: The judiciary acts as the guardian of the Constitution, checking the powers of the legislative and executive branches, and ensuring that government actions comply with constitutional principles. Courts interpret statutes and regulations, providing clarity and consistency in their application. Marbury v Madison: This case established judicial review, empowering the judiciary to invalidate unconstitutional laws and actions, thus cementing its role as a co-equal branch of government. Limits and Scope of Judicial Review: Case or Controversy Requirement: Courts can only rule on actual cases with real disputes, ensuring they do not issue advisory opinions or hypothetical judgments. Litigants must have standing, demonstrating a personal stake in the case's outcome. Precedent (Stare Decisis): Courts rely on previous rulings to guide decisions, promoting consistency and stability. However, they can overturn precedent if past decisions are deemed incorrect or if societal values evolve. Constitutional Amendments: Congress and the states can amend the Constitution to override judicial interpretations, reflecting changing societal values and correcting judicial errors. Political Checks: Judicial Appointments: Judges are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, ensuring the judiciary reflects prevailing political and social values. Legislative Responses: Congress can pass new legislation to address judicial decisions, revising laws to meet constitutional requirements. Scope of Judicial Review: Supreme Court: As the final arbiter of constitutional issues, the Supreme Court's decisions are binding and set important legal precedents. The Court exercises selective jurisdiction, choosing cases with significant legal questions. Lower Federal Courts: Courts of Appeals review decisions from district courts and establish important legal precedents. District courts handle the majority of federal cases, creating factual records for potential appeals. State Courts: State supreme courts have the final say on state constitutional issues and contribute to the broader legal landscape. Intermediate appellate and trial courts handle a wide range of cases, interpreting both state and federal law. Through these mechanisms, judicial review ensures that the American legal system remains dynamic, balanced, and responsive to the needs of society, while upholding the principles of the Constitution. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Today we are celebrating our 200th Episode with the return of a special friend of the podcast, Judge Tanya Acker. Acker serves as one of three judges on Amazon Freevee's Tribunal Justice, created by Judge Judy Sheindlin. Acker also hosts "The Tanya Acker Show" podcast on iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Overcast, and Pocketcasts. Most recently, Acker was a judge on the Emmy-nominated series, "Hot Bench." Acker is also the author of "Make Your Case: Finding Your Win in Civil Court," published by Diversion Books. In the book, Acker provides readers with curated, targeted information about what people want to know: what happens during court proceedings and why, how to best prepare for it — and how to avoid court entirely and find out if there is a better way. Acker is an experienced civil litigator who has represented a wide array of clients, from major automobile manufacturers in high-stakes product liability litigation to media companies in hotly contested trade secret disputes. She has been a featured commentator on "Good Morning America," "The View," "Entertainment Tonight," "Wendy Williams," "The Talk," "Inside Edition," "Banfield," "The O'Reilly Factor," "Larry King Live," "CNN Reports," "Anderson Cooper 360," "Issues with Jane Velez Mitchell," "Extra," "Your World With Neil Cavuto," "HLN's Special Report," "CNBC Reports," Great Britain's "GMTV" and Sky News, and various other broadcasts. She also guest co-hosted CNBC's "Power Lunch," and "C Magazine" included her in an election season profile on noteworthy California women in politics. Acker also has contributed to the Huffington Post and served as a Temporary Judge in the Los Angeles County Superior Court Temporary Judge Program. While a student at Yale Law School, Acker represented low-income women in family law cases and served as a teaching assistant in Constitutional Law and Civil Procedure courses. She also worked at the Office of White House Counsel, the Civil Rights Division in the United States Department of Justice and the private law firms Irell & Manella, O'Melveny & Myers and Williams & Connolly. At Williams & Connolly, she assisted President Clinton's personal lawyers with press interviews, worked on the preparation of Congressional testimony for pending product liability legislation and researched First Amendment issues. After graduating from Yale, Acker served as a judicial law clerk to the Honorable Dorothy Wright Nelson on the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. After her clerkship, the Office of the Solicitor General in the U.S. Department of Justice awarded Acker a Bristow Fellowship. While working as a Bristow Fellow, Acker drafted Supreme Court briefs and helped prepare the Solicitor General for oral argument before the High Court. Among the cases on which Acker worked was Clinton v Jones, where she assisted both the Solicitor General and President Clinton's personal attorneys in preparing for oral argument. In private practice, Acker's legal work spanned a broad variety of matters, from civil litigation involving public and private entities, to various constitutional cases, to providing constitutional cases, to the provision of business counseling and advice. She also maintained a commitment to pro bono work, receiving the ACLU's First Amendment Award for her successful representation of a group of homeless individuals against the City of Santa Barbara. Acker later worked in entertainment industry outreach for the Kerry/Edwards presidential campaign and as Deputy Campaign Manager for the Los Angeles mayoral campaign of City Councilman Bernard C. Parks. After that, she worked as the General Counsel of a company that manufactured emissions control products. Acker received her B.A. degree at Howard University in 1992, where she graduated summa cum laude and was a member of Phi Beta Kappa. She was awarded a Luard Scholarship for study at St. Anne's College at Oxford University and served there as the co-editor-in-chief of the Oxford University Women's Magazine. At Yale Law School, she was awarded an Earl Warren Scholarship by the NAACP and a Coker Fellowship by the Yale faculty. Acker maintains an active involvement in various philanthropic, civic and business organizations. A volunteer with Love Takes Root, she has traveled to Haiti to work in a clinic and orphanage founded by that organization. She is a member of the Beverly Hills West (CA) chapter of The Links, Incorporated, and additionally serves on the boards of Public Counsel, the Western Justice Center, the Boy Scouts of America (the National and Western Los Angeles County Council Boards); PacWest Bancorp; and as trustee of the Pacific Battleship Center, which operates the Battleship USS Iowa Museum. She is also a member of the Yale Law School Executive Committee and the Yale Law School Fund Board. ON THE KNOWS with Randall Kenneth Jones is a podcast featuring host Randall Kenneth Jones (bestselling author, speaker & creative communications consultant) and Susan C. Bennett (the original voice of Siri). ON THE KNOWS is produced and edited by Kevin Randall Jones. TANYA ACKER Online: Web: www.TribunalJustice.TV  Web: www.TanyaAckerShow.com ON THE KNOWS Online:    Join us in the Podcast Lounge on Facebook. X (Randy): https://twitter.com/randallkjones  Instagram (Randy): https://www.instagram.com/randallkennethjones/ Facebook (Randy): https://www.facebook.com/mindzoo/ Web:  RandallKennethJones.com  X (Susan): https://twitter.com/SiriouslySusan Instagram (Susan): https://www.instagram.com/siriouslysusan/ Facebook (Susan): https://www.facebook.com/siriouslysusan/ Web: SusanCBennett.com LinkedIn (Kevin): https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevin-randall-jones/  Web: www.KevinRandallJones.com    www.OnTheKnows.com

ALAN FEIGENBAUM is an experienced matrimonial and family law attorney whose prime focus is the maximization of his clients' long-term, post-divorce, emotional capital. Alan assists a diverse range of professionals and their spouses, including business owners, lawyers, investors, and entertainers, on their family law matters, with a notable focus on evaluating the optimal strategies to manage and resolve complex financial and custody disputes. He is well-versed in managing agreements (separation, prenuptial, and postnuptial) to create a framework for his clients' futures, and approaches dispute resolution with an eye toward facilitating cooperation and reducing conflict, making every effort to settle cases out of court. Understanding that divorce can affect the trajectory of a person's life, Alan focuses on his clients' long-term financial and familial best interests. His multifaceted approach has included: Working with financial experts to identify and define the scope of assets acquired by a spouse before the marriage, thereby eliminating litigation over whether those assets are part of the marital pot; Resolving the disposition of a spouse's interest in a business without resorting to a pro forma approach that assumes complex valuation of that interest is always required; Reaching agreement on the payment of expenses while a divorce action is pending, without the need for costly, interim support motion practice; Negotiating interim parenting schedules by empowering parents and not substituting attorney judgment for that of the parents; Settling contentious custody disputes without involving court-appointed professionals, sparing the family from the potentially lasting effects of domestic relations litigation; and Prioritizing the value clients place on financial independence both during and after the divorce action concludes, including in the case of the nonmonied spouse evaluating the financially feasibility of retaining the marital home. Alan also has significant courtroom experience, including first-chair trial experience in domestic relations matters and, at an early stage in his career, examining witnesses before the U.S. International Trade Commission. He also speaks and writes frequently on matters of family law. Alan is a regular contributing columnist for the New York Law Journal on matters of divorce law. For his pro bono work at the firm, Alan is a volunteer discharge upgrade attorney for The Veterans Consortium. Outside the Firm, Alan and his wife, Talia, live in Maplewood, New Jersey with their two children. Alan's info: Website: https://www.blankrome.com/people/alan-r-feigenbaum Website: https://www.nonlinearlove.com/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/alan-feigenbaum/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/alrichard_f/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/nonlinearlovestories/ Please click the button to subscribe so you don't miss any episodes and leave a review if your favorite podcast app has that ability. Thank you! Visit http://drlaurabrayton.com/podcasts/ for show notes and available downloads. © 2014 - 2024 Dr. Laura Brayton

May 21st Court Leader's Advantage Podcast Episode Although they are not universally accepted, court self-service centers can help prepare self-represented litigants to navigate the exotic terrain of the courtroom.  They can also expedite court proceedings and weed out inappropriate arguments.  Less obvious but equally as important, the information these centers provide helps boost the public's trust and confidence in the courts. We well know that the public's perception of courts has been woefully lagging over these last several years.         A basic tenet of self-service centers, in fact, a tenet of all public-facing court staff is “we cannot give legal advice.”  Yet this prohibition is more nuanced than it first appears.   There are a host of questions that seem more procedural than legal.  Questions many self-represented litigants may not even know enough to ask about.  How much should courts tell litigants? How much information should courts volunteer even if the litigants don't know to ask?  This month we are going to look at what courts can, do, and should tell litigants.  This episode presents several situations in which self-represented litigants often find themselves.  These are situations that do not immediately appear to involve giving legal advice.  Rather they seem, on their face, procedural.  But they are obscure enough that only individuals who have been in the system might know their implications.        Today's Panel  Nathan Devries, Supervising Attorney, Self-Help Services Unit, Superior Court, San Bernardino, California; Robby Southers, Managing Attorney for the Self-Help & Dispute Resolution Center, Franklin County Municipal Court in Columbus, Ohio; Jena Elsnes, Program Manager, Minnesota Judicial Branch's Self-Represented Litigant Program; Danielle Trujillo Court Administrator for the Municipal Court, Littleton, Colorado

April 8, 2024 Charles Adornetto Materials: https://spaces.hightail.com/space/tOuRfKkxm6 Webinar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3K8_PQuA4U

A recent presidential fashion statement -- a bright yellow necktie -- triggered anticipation that he may harbor designs on a takeover of Golkar, the Soeharto-era ruling party that will likely remain second-largest in the next parliament.  Insider sources cited by Tempo magazine corroborated this indication of this maneuvering via sartorial elegance.  But a Golkar takeover next December would be no simple task, even for the powerful Joko Widodo -- and it might conflict with the interests of Prabowo Subianto.  Also: Jeff and Kevin discuss Prabowo's Free Lunch program and its costs, along with a possible parliamentary process to censure the government for wayward handling of the election process.Support us on buymeacoffee.com/reformasi

Welcome to "AI Lawyer Talking Tech." In today's episode, we uncover the remarkable journey of Sonja Ebron and Debra Slone, the dynamic couple driving innovation in the legal tech industry. Their startup, Courtroom5, is revolutionizing the Justice Tech sector by providing a unique platform to educate and empower individuals navigating the legal system without formal representation. Join us as we explore their personal and professional bond, the challenges and successes they've encountered, and the significance of their mission in democratizing legal support. This is a love story intertwined with entrepreneurship and a commitment to promoting justice and empowerment. In-house legal teams lead the way on AI20 Feb 2024Financial Thomson ReutersWhy CLM? Unlocking the power of contract lifecycle management for your legal team20 Feb 2024Financial Thomson ReutersEstablishing Trust In Generative AI20 Feb 2024Above The LawClauseBase Expands to Provide All-in-One Legal Drafting and Reviewing Within Word20 Feb 2024LawSitesLegal Rights of Podcasters19 Feb 2024Blubrry PodcastingUnveiling the Power of Legal Project Management: Driving Performance Through Data20 Feb 2024JD SupraWho Bears the Blame When AI Medicine Goes Wrong?19 Feb 2024American Enterprise InstituteData privacy and GDPR litigation trends in Germany and beyond20 Feb 2024Financier WorldwideThe Garden Fence Dilemma: A Lesson In AI, Privacy, And Confidentiality In Legal Governance20 Feb 2024Above The LawWomen In AI: Rashida Richardson, senior counsel at Mastercard focusing on AI and privacy20 Feb 2024TechCrunchUnveiling the Power of Legal Project Management: Driving Performance Through Data20 Feb 2024LawVisionNew Research Shows Businesses Increasingly Open to Reframing Legal Department from Overhead to Capital Source20 Feb 2024Morningstar.comReaching 50k+ Learners, SkillBurst Interactive's Legal Innovation Lab Leads the Way in Generative AI Training for Law Firms Around the World20 Feb 2024Daily ItemLegal campaigners challenge UK.gov decision to redact NHS-Palantir contract20 Feb 2024TheRegister.comBest Use of AI in Legal Tech20 Feb 2024The Cloud Awards, SaaS Awards & Security AwardsNumber of cyber breaches at law firms up by 36% in a year20 Feb 2024Legal FuturesSquishmallows and Build-A-Bear enter legal battle over 'copycat' plush toys: What to know20 Feb 2024MSN United StatesWomen In AI: Lee Tiedrich, AI expert at the Global Partnership on AI19 Feb 2024TechCrunchLove and Legal Tech: Sonja Ebron and Debra Slone of Courtroom519 Feb 20243 Geeks and a Law BlogAI, other technology the “only answer” to AML challenges in evolving threat landscape, says ACAMS report20 Feb 2024Thomson Reuters InstituteLegally Disrupted Webinar #1: How to Evaluate Your Tech Partners in an Age of GenAI20 Feb 2024Zach Abramowitz is Legally DisruptedRisk of AI Abuse by Corporate Insiders Presents Challenges for Compliance Departments19 Feb 2024Debevoise Data BlogLitigation Finance: An Evolving Landscape19 Feb 2024North Carolina Journal of Law & TechnologyWhere is All the Legal Data?19 Feb 2024North Carolina Journal of Law & TechnologyAI in German Employment – Navigating the AI Act, GDPR, and National Legislation20 Feb 2024Hogan LovellsBCLP launches generative AI lease reporting tool powered by Orbital Witness20 Feb 2024Berwin Leighton PaisnerHHS finalizes Part 2 substance use disorder rules enhancing privacy protections and care integration19 Feb 2024Hogan Lovells

Trump filed his opening brief to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing Jack Smith's prosecution should be completely dismissed based on Double Jeopardy and Presidential Immunity. Trump's defense warns the Court that allowing the shattering of 234 years of precedent will lead to reverberations across American political life for generations.Litigants in Maine are now using the Colorado decision to get Trump thrown off the ballot in their state as well. In a supplemental filing, the petitioners argue collateral estoppel/issue preclusion precedent prevents Trump from re-litigating the Colorado Supreme Court findings.Trump slammed Jack Smith over the Christmas break, wishing him and his deranged thug prosecutors a VERY warm holiday. Meanwhile, the FBI is investigating swatting against the Colorado judges and Lisa Monaco warns of an "unprecedented rise" in threats against the DOJ.

Fitness Community Bares Canines! "Pushing a dangerous and life-threatening diet" of uncooked meats and testicles... "consumers suffered "severe and other foodborne illnesses" lawsuit claims.#misrepresentation #illegal #snakeoil #sales #steroids #bloomberg  #Insulin #peptides  #physique #samsulek #instagram #influencer #charlesglass #Stevereeves #johnlivia #seriousandsillinessbodybuilding #bodybuildinglifestyle #ifbbpro #nutrition #rawmeat #diet #sushi

Insurers, Agents and Brokers Sophisticated Relationships Expensive Three sophisticated commercial parties in the insurance industry entered into what appears, in hindsight, to be a somewhat unsophisticated business arrangement. That arrangement led to complex litigation, which generally isn't a good thing for a business arrangement to lead to. In American Builders Insurance Company v. Keystone Insurers Group and Ebensburg Insurance Agency, No. 4:19-CV-01497, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (August 4, 2023) plaintiff American Builders Insurance Company (“ABIC”) sued Defendant Ebensburg Insurance Company (“Ebensburg”) for its allegedly tortious misrepresentations in an application to ABIC for workers' compensation insurance coverage on behalf of Ebensburg's customer, Custom Installations Contracting Services, Inc. (“Custom”). On Custom's application, Ebensburg indicated that Custom didn't engage in roofing work and only operated at fifteen feet above the ground or lower. On that basis, ABIC issued Custom a workers' compensation insurance policy. Later, a Custom employee fell twenty-five feet from a rooftop while working on a commercial roofing job. The employee filed for workers' compensation benefits, which ABIC unsuccessfully opposed. BACKGROUND Keystone essentially operated as a sort of “matchmaker,” connecting ABIC to its network of Retail Agencies. Ebensburg is one of the Retail Agencies that is part of the Keystone association. Its relationship with Keystone is governed by a Franchise Agreement. Custom's Relationship with Ebensburg Because Custom had never sought workers' compensation insurance before, it obtained a policy through the Commonwealth's State Workers' Insurance Fund (“SWIF”). The SWIF ACORD application indicated that: In 2015, Custom approached Ebensburg again to inquire about switching to a private workers' compensation insurer for more favorable rates The James Scott Injury In September 2015, Custom was engaged in a commercial roofing job in New Galilee, Pennsylvania. James Scott had just began working for Custom. He stepped through a skylight and fell from over twenty feet to the ground, incurring serious injuries. The Western District Litigation and Workers' Compensation Proceeding Following Judge Gibson's order dismissing ABIC's federal claims, the workers' compensation litigation continued. Judge Gallishen ultimately denied ABIC's petitions. The Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Appeals Board later affirmed Judge Gallishen's decision. ANALYSIS ABIC argued that the limitations period on its claims should be tolled under either the fraudulent concealment or inherent fraud doctrine. On the day Scott was injured ABIC was aware that Scott “fell through a roof.” On September 14, 2015, ABIC became aware of the misrepresentations in Custom's application. The Court concluded that those facts are sufficient to give ABIC inquiry notice of its potential claims against Ebensburg because it knew that Ebensburg had sole access to the mechanism that caused its injury. The common thread in these elements is that ABIC knew that the alleged misrepresentation negligently or fraudulently came from two potential sources, Custom or Ebensburg (or both), and it knew that Ebensburg had access to eQuotes, the mechanism that caused its injury. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support

Bishop shares separate conversations with McHenry County State's Attorney Troy Owens and attorney Thomas Maag about the upcoming Southern District of Illinois hearing challenging Illinois' gun ban. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/bishoponair/support

What's better than a (normally) scheduled podcast? A newsletter! Please subscribe to our Substack: https://divorcedanddonet.substack.com/ We're now on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRMr0Smi7Q8f36LZdAJ1fNA In the podcast realm we dive into how to appeal divorce judgements and how to remove outside relief from your divorce process. Have you ever thought about self-representing in court? Darren and Rob discuss what that looks like from a lawyer's perspective. They also discuss the differences between starting a court proceeding and filing an application. How do you feel about chamber music? Rob and Darren can confirm if music plays in the courtroom. Hold on tight because later in the episode they discuss the cost of court during your divorce. And, finally, Darren and Rob discuss what happens if you ghost the sale of your matrimonial home - or get ghosted while selling. :( Find us online at DivorcedAndDone.com and our podcast email LawyersTalkingAboutDivorce@gmail.com, send voicemails to SpeakPipe.com/DivorcedAndDone We're a TOP 10 podcast as ranked by Feedspot, we recently ranked in the top 10 of the Best 100 Divorce Podcasts. Check it out https://blog.feedspot.com/divorce_podcasts/ See our TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@familylaw_darrenschmidt and Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/divorcedanddone/ Please leave us a review on Spotify, Apple Music, or wherever you get your podcasts. Everything we talk about on this podcast is for your information, but it is not legal opinion or legal advice. Executive Producer/Sound Overlord: Jessica Murphy, https://www.instagram.com/_jessmurphyy/

Conservative Daily 3/1/23 PM Show - Named Litigants in Federal Class Action Against Raytheon Vaccine Mandate: Massive NATSEC Risk https://www.givesendgo.com/LibraLawClassAction Like, Comment, Share, and SUBSCRIBE! On Rumble: https://rumble.com/user/ConservativeDaily On Foxhole: https://pilled.net/profile/181316 Follow us on Social Media: https://libertylinks.io/ConservativeDaily https://libertylinks.io/JoeOltmann https://libertylinks.io/Apollo We might get canceled again…don't miss anything important. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://bit.ly/joinconservativedaily If you want to support the show, you can donate here: http://bit.ly/cd-donate https://www.americaneducationdefenders.com/ is a 501c3 that creates education content to enable children to have fun and develop their gifts! 10% off with Promo Code CD23 All proceeds enable Paul to create more amazing content! Support and protect your family and your second amendment NOW. DCF Guns is your one-stop-shop for firearms, ammunition, body armor, gear, and training. Get prepared for anything at https://www.dcfguns.co/ and use Promo Code JOE for 5% Discount online. Get the best coffee that only TRUE PATRIOTS can handle at https://beardedmancoffee.com/ and use Promo Code 1776 Support the fight for our nation by use promo code CD21 to get up to 66% off at https://www.mypillow.com/radiospecials or by placing your order over the phone at 800-872-0627. BUY 1 GET 1 FREE Special on the MyPillow 2.0 with Code CD21 Become a Conservative Daily member right now for massive savings on Faxblasts and member only perks! Use the link and sign up today! https://conservative-daily.com/forms/Step1b Text FREEDOM to 89517 to get added to our text list to receive notifications when we go Live! Privacy Policy: https://conservative-daily.com/Legal/Privacy Terms: https://conservative-daily.com/Legal/Terms Reply STOP to stop further text messages from Conservative Daily. Message and Data Rates may apply. Need help? (855) 954-6644 or reply HELP. Subscribe to our daily podcast at Apple Podcasts: http://bit.ly/ConservativeDailyPodcast We are also available on Spotify! https://open.spotify.com/show/2wD8YleiBM8bu0l3ahBLDN And on Pandora: https://www.pandora.com/podcast/conservative-daily-podcast/PC:37034 And on iHeart Radio: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/256-conservative-daily-podcast-53710765/ on TuneIn: https://tunein.com/radio/Conservative-Daily-Podcast-p1350272/ And now also on Audible! https://www.audible.com/pd/Conservative-Daily-Podcast-Podcast/B08JJQQ4M Support Joe Oltmann in his legal battle against Eric Coomer: https://givesendgo.com/defendjoeoltmann

Join The Center Square's Regional Editor Jeremy Lott and Washington Reporters RaeLynn Ricarte and Spencer Pauley as they discuss Washington AG to litigants: Don't say ‘tyrannical'. State may assist livestock carcass disposal to reduce wolf attacks. Downtown Seattle sees more office workers, seasonal tourism falloff. Seattle Public Schools bus ridership is down, spending at all-time high. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/washington-in-focus/support

A lawsuit is a proceeding by a party or parties against another in the civil court of law. The archaic term "suit in law" is found in only a small number of laws still in effect today. The term "lawsuit" is used in reference to a civil action brought by a plaintiff (a party who claims to have incurred loss as a result of a defendant's actions) requests a legal remedy or equitable remedy from a court. The defendant is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint. If the plaintiff is successful, judgment is in the plaintiff's favor, and a variety of court orders may be issued to enforce a right, award damages, or impose a temporary or permanent injunction to prevent an act or compel an act. A declaratory judgment may be issued to prevent future legal disputes. A lawsuit may involve dispute resolution of private law issues between individuals, business entities or non-profit organizations. A lawsuit may also enable the state to be treated as if it were a private party in a civil case, as plaintiff, or defendant regarding an injury, or may provide the state with a civil cause of action to enforce certain laws. The conduct of a lawsuit is called litigation. The plaintiffs and defendants are called litigants and the attorneys representing them are called litigators. The term litigation may also refer to a criminal procedure. Rules of procedure and complications. Rules of criminal or civil procedure govern the conduct of a lawsuit in the common law adversarial system of dispute resolution. Procedural rules are constrained and informed by separate statutory laws, case laws, and constitutional provisions that define the rights of the parties to a lawsuit (see especially due process), though the rules generally reflect this legal context on their face. The details of the procedure differ greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and often from court to court even within the same jurisdiction. These rules of the particular procedures are very important for litigants to know, because the litigants are the ones who dictate the timing and progression of the lawsuit. Litigants are responsible to obtain the suited result and the timing of reaching this result. Failure to comply with the procedural rules may result in serious limitations that can affect the ability of one to present claims or defenses at any subsequent trial, or even promote the dismissal of the lawsuit altogether. Though the majority of lawsuits are settled before ever reaching trial, they can still be very complicated to litigate. This is particularly true in federal systems, where a federal court may be applying state law (for example the Erie doctrine, for example in the United States), or vice versa. It is also possible for one state to apply the law of another in cases where additionally it may not be clear which level (or location) of court actually has jurisdiction over the claim or personal jurisdiction over the defendant, or whether the plaintiff has standing to participate in a lawsuit. About 98 percent of civil cases in the United States federal courts are resolved without a trial. Domestic courts are also often called upon to apply foreign law, or to act upon foreign defendants, over whom they may not even have the ability to even enforce a judgment if the defendant's assets are theoretically outside their reach. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

Certified Family Law Specialists Don and Casey explain the complexities of Vexatious Litigants and how to move forward in such cases.

For those who have to go to court without a lawyer, navigating the justice system can be daunting. Courtroom5 is a unique justice tech company that addresses that problem by providing pro se litigants with the training, tools, documents and support they need to represent themselves. For litigants who need extra help, it also offers access to à la carte lawyer services. Our guest this week, Courtroom5's cofounder and CEO Sonja Ebron, was motivated by her own experiences as a pro se litigant to develop a way to help others who find themselves in the same situation. With a doctorate in electrical engineering and experience as an entrepreneur, she and cofounder Debra Slone, a PhD librarian and former library school professor, launched Courtroom5 in 2017.  Courtroom5 is also a founding member of the Justice Technology Association, formed earlier this year to support technology companies that help people navigate legal matters. Ebron and Slone were both named to the 2022 Fastcase 50, which honors law's “smartest, most courageous innovators, techies, visionaries, and leaders.”  Listen to learn why Ebron founded Courtroom5, how it helps those who cannot afford a lawyer, and what she sees as the future for her company and the broader landscape of justice tech.    Thank You To Our Sponsors This episode of LawNext is generously made possible by our sponsors. We appreciate their support and hope you will check them out.  Paradigm, home to the practice management platforms PracticePanther, Bill4Time, and MerusCase, and e-payments platform Headnote. If you enjoy listening to LawNext, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts.

Litigants and lawyers involved in bringing high-profile lawsuits are increasingly facing threats and harassment. That's bad enough on its own but becomes even worse when it stops people from turning to courtrooms in the first place or impacts the outcome of cases that do get filed. On this week's episode of Pro Say, Law360 senior reporter Jack Karp drops by to help us understand how harassment is damaging the legal system. Also this week, Los Angeles County settles a massive $236 million lawsuit over its handling of the city's homelessness crisis; Georgia's supreme court reopens a longstanding malpractice case against BigLaw fixture Proskauer Rose; and finally, attorneys from the Department of Labor point the finger at legal data company Westlaw after filing an incomplete court brief.

Vexatious Litigants continuously impede court functions and essentially harass the opposing party. They attack people with lawsuits and end up finding themselves on a list unable to win their suits. So how does someone become a vexatious litigant? How do you deal with one? I answer all of these questions in this week's episode.

We all know that it takes some "outside of the box thinking" to help improve the legal system in the United States, especially when it comes to Pro Se litigants. Courtroom5 CEO and co-founder Sonja Ebron does exactly that with her startup focused on guiding Pro Se litigants through complex court processes. Ed Walters, CEO and co-founder of Fastcase wants the legal industry to stop trying so hard to reinforce that "box." Together, Ebron and Walters are creating a process to help litigants access and navigate the court system through a combination of case process instructions, legal information, Artificial Intelligence, and collaboration with legal professionals. Eventually, Ebron would like to see the courts themselves leverage Courtroom5's abilities to help those seeking legal recourse. Walters stresses that the "North Star" of legal practice should be the wellbeing of clients. In a system where according to The World Justice Project, over 75% of legal needs go unmet, and some 80% of citizens seeking judicial action do so without the use of legal professionals. Part of that solution lies with the courts and the need to focus on the ability "to filter out people who need lawyers helping people who don't." Once again, this is not about replacing lawyers with robots, or encouraging Pro Se litigants to not seek legal assistance. Courtroom5 and Fastcase are seeking ways to improve the overall process of placing the right information in front of litigants, at the right time. Even if those instructions are to highly recommend seeking legal counsel. Links Mention: Courtroom5 Fastcase Ed Walters on Stephen Poor's Pioneers and Pathfinders Podcast TGIR Ep. 158 with Maya Markovich and Yousef Kassim on The Justice Technology Association Duke Law Tech Lab Contact Us Twitter: @gebauerm or @glambert Voicemail: 713-487-7270 Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com Music: Jerry David DeCicca Transcript to on 3 Geeks and a Law Blog

Not available for COJET June 26, 2019 Attorney Bill Richards Materials: https://spaces.hightail.com/space/tOuRfKkxm6

In this episode, Jim Garrity discusses an April 18, 2022, opinion from a federal appellate court, about a dispute between the parties over the accuracy of the stenographic transcript of the plaintiff's deposition. Despite the arguments made at the trial level about errors in the transcript, neither the parties nor the trial judges apparently obtained the audio of the deposition and made it a part of the record. That prompted the appellate court to vacate the summary judgment ruling and send the case back to the trial judge, with instructions for the court and parties to listen to the audio and report back to the Eleventh Circuit. As you know, Garrity has long advocated that litigators independently audiotape their depositions. This case perfectly proves his point. Our Lessons from the Front Line episodes are based on brand-new deposition-related court rulings from around the country. Because the rulings discussed in these episodes are in fact newly-issued, listeners should bear in mind that the rulings are subject to appeal, challenge, modification or withdrawal. The case discussed in this episode is still pending.SHOW NOTES:Reed v. Pediatric Services of America, Inc., Case No. 21-10159 (11th Cir. April 18, 2022) (vacating summary judgment and remanding for trial court to evaluate, based on audio recording of deposition, the accuracy of the stenographic transcript)Reed v. Pediatric Services of America, Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-00064-HLM-WEJ, CM/ECF Doc. 47 (N. D. Ga. October 15, 2020) (order rejecting pro se plaintiff's motion challenging accuracy of deposition transcript)Reed v. Pediatric Services of America, Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-00064-HLM-WEJ, CM/ECF Doc. 71 (N. D. Ga. December 17, 2020) (order granting summary judgment)

Today we are presenting 3 Halachot on the Misva of Mishloach Manot** 1st Halacha **Mishlo'ah Manot – Ensuring That the Recipient is Aware of the Package; Ensuring That the Products Meet the Highest Kashrut StandardsOne of the Misvot that one must fulfill on Purim is "Mishlo'ah Manot," giving food items to one's fellow Jew. The Megila (9:19) refers to this Misva as "Mishlo'ah Manot Ish Le're'ehu" ("Sending portions [of food] each man to his fellow"). The phrase "each man to his fellow" indicates that the recipient must be aware of the package, and of the identity of the sender. The purpose of this Misva is to increase friendship and camaraderie among the Jewish people, and this achieved only if the recipient knows that he received a package and knows who sent it. Thus, one does not fulfill the obligation if he sends a food package anonymously. For example, if a person leaves a package by his friend's door, and his friend has no way of knowing who brought the package, he does not fulfill the Misva. One must either give the package directly to his friend or at least place a sticker on the package with his name so the recipient knows who brought him the gift.Likewise, the recipient must be aware on Purim that he received the package. If a person brought a Mishlo'ah Manot package to his friend's home, and the friend's children told him that their father was not home or asleep, he does not fulfill the Misva unless the friend becomes aware of the package on Purim day. If he wakes up or arrives home only after Purim, and only at that point sees the package, the sender has not fulfilled the Misva through that package. By the same token, if at the time the package is brought the friend is intoxicated to the point where he is not aware of what goes on around him ("Ki'shichruto Shel Lot"), and he becomes sober only after Purim, the sender has not fulfilled the Misva, since the recipient was not aware of the gift on Purim.Therefore, one must ensure when bringing Mishlo'ah Manot that at least one recipient knows on Purim day about the gift and who gave it to him.When preparing Mishlo'ah Manot, one must ensure that all the foods he sends meet the highest standards of Kashrut that are acceptable by all Jews. Even if a person does not himself make a point of eating only Halab Yisrael products, avoiding Pat Akum (products baked by a gentile), and insisting on Kemah Yashan (flour that was ground before the previous Pesah), he should ensure that the foods he sends for Mishlo'ah Manot meet all these requirements. If the recipient follows a stricter standard, then the sender will be in violation of "Lifneh Iver Lo Titen Michshol" ("placing a stumbling block before a blind man") by sending him food that does not meet his personal requirements. Therefore, one who sends a meat product as Mishlo'ah Manot to a Sepharadi must ensure that the meat is certified "Glatt Bet Yosef," as required according to Sephardic custom. It goes without saying that one does not fulfill the Misva by sending non-kosher food, and doing so is certainly forbidden.One may, however, send both meat and dairy products in the same Mishlo'ah Manot package. For example, a package may include a salami sandwich and a milk chocolate bar. Since the recipient should know not to eat them together, the giver is not considered to be leading the recipient to sin. Needless to say, it is forbidden to send a food that contains both meat and milk and is therefore non-kosher.Summary: In order for a person to fulfill the Misva of Mishlo'ah Manot on Purim, he must ensure that the recipient is aware on Purim day of the package he received, and knows who sent it. One should send for Mishlo'ah Manot only foods that meet the highest standards of Kashrut that are acceptable by all. It is permissible to include both meat and dairy products in one Mishlo'ah Manot package.** 2nd Halacha **May a Rabbi Judge a Case After Purim if He Had Received Mishlo'ah Manot From One of the Litigants?The Misva of Mishlo'ah Manot on Purim requires sending at least two food items to one fellow Jew on Purim. One fulfills this Misva even if he sends to his father, son, Rabbi or student.The Halachic authorities address the interesting question of whether a Rabbi may agree to preside over a case involving a litigant who sent him Mishlo'ah Manot on Purim. Consider, for example, the case of a person who brought his Rabbi Mishlo'ah Manot on Purim, and then the day after Purim calls his Rabbi and asks him to settle a financial dispute he has with his fellow. Generally speaking, a Rabbi may not serve as a judge if one of the parties had done him a favor, as he might be favorably predisposed toward that litigant. In fact, the Talmud speaks of cases of Rabbis who declined to serve as judges because one of the litigants had done him a small favor, such as giving the Rabbi a hand as he crossed a river, or blowing a feather off his garment. Tosafot (commentaries by Medieval French and German Talmudists) claim that strictly speaking, a Rabbi may serve as a judge for somebody who had done him a small favor such as these, and the Rabbis mentioned in the Gemara declined from serving as a judge only as a "Midat Hasidut" (additional measure of piety). The question thus arises as to how we should classify Mishlo'ah Manot in this respect. Is giving Mishlo'ah Manot to a Rabbi considered a favor that disqualifies the Rabbi from serving as a judge for the giver, or do we consider Mishlo'ah Manot as a standard religious practice, rather than a personal favor?Hacham Ovadia Yosef ZT"L (listen to audio recording for precise citation) cites a responsum in the work Debar Shemuel as ruling that the Rabbi must use his judgment in each case and assess the particular circumstances. In most places, it is customary for all community members to give Mishlo'ah Manot to their Rabbi. In such a case, since giving Mishlo'ah Manot is a standard practice, we would not consider it as a "bribe" that would disqualify the Rabbi from serving as a judge for one of his members after Purim. However, in instances where the Rabbi has reason to suspect that the individual brought him Mishlo'ah Manot specifically to earn his favor, he must decline the invitation to serve as a judge. For example, if the individual does not live nearby, and he went out of his way to bring the Rabbi Mishlo'ah Manot, the Rabbi should decline if the individual asks him to arbiter a legal dispute. Likewise, if at the time when an individual brings the Rabbi Mishlo'ah Manot he specifically makes a point of mentioning that he needs the Rabbi to resolve a dispute, the Rabbi should decline. In all situations, the Rabbi must exercise his best judgment to determine whether or not the litigant had brought him Mishlo'ah Manot so that he would be favorably predisposed toward him. If he indeed has reason to suspect that this was the litigant's intent, then he must decline the invitation to judge the case.Summary: If a Rabbi is called upon after Purim to serve as a judge for somebody who had brought him Mishlo'ah Manot on Purim, then he must carefully assess the situation to determine whether the individual had specifically intended to earn his favor. If the litigant was a member of his community and it was customary for all members to give the Rabbi Mishlo'ah Manot, then he does not have to suspect that the Mishlo'ah Manot was given as a bribe. But if the Rabbi has reason to suspect that the litigant specifically intended to earn his favor, then he should not serve as a judge for the litigant.** 3rd Halacha **Mishlo'ah Manot – Stringencies That One Should Preferably Follow for One Mishlo'ah Manot Package Sent on PurimThe Misva of Mishlo'ah Manot requires sending at least two food products to at least one fellow Jew on Purim. Nevertheless, it is admirable to send Mishlo'ah Manot to many people, as one thereby enhances the atmosphere of peace, friendship and camaraderie among the Jewish people.It is proper to send at least one Mishlo'ah Manot package in accordance with all the stringencies mentioned by the Halachic authorities. Despite the fact that, strictly speaking, one fulfills the Misva even without observing these stringent measures, one should preferably endeavor to observe these stringencies with regard to at least one of his Mishlo'ah Manot packages, in order that he fulfills the Misva according to all views. The following stringencies should be followed for at least one Mishlo'ah Manot package that one sends on Purim:1) The two items should be sent together at the same time, rather than one right after the other. According to some authorities, only by sending both food items at the same time is one considered to have sent two items (as opposed to sending one item on two occasions).2) The two items should be placed in two separate utensils. According to some views, food items contained in the same utensil do not count as two separate products.3) The two products should be respectable according to the standards of both the giver and the recipient. According to some views, one does not fulfill the Misva if he sends cheap food items that are beneath his stature or that of the recipient. For example, if a distinguished person sends items such as popcorn, taffy, cotton candy and candy corn, they do not reflect his standard. It is therefore proper for at least one Mishlo'ah Manot package to contain respectable food items.4) The package should contain at least two solid foods. Strictly speaking, one fulfills the Misva of Mishlo'ah Manot by sending a food and a beverage, or even two beverages. In order to satisfy all opinions, however, it is preferable that at least one package should contain at least two solid foods. (Incidentally, the two solid foods must be different types of foods. Slicing a piece of meat into two pieces and sending the two pieces does not qualify as Mishlo'ah Manot. One may, however, send two pieces of meat from different cuts, such as one piece of sirloin and one piece of fillet mignon.)5) This Mishlo'ah Manot package should be delivered through a third party, and not personally. According to some views, the term "Mishlo'ah Manot" indicates that the package must be delivered, and not brought personally. Although Halacha does not follow this opinion, one should send at least one food package through a messenger.These measures apply only on the level of Humra (stringency), and are not required according to the strict Halacha. Nevertheless, it is proper to send at least one package that meets all these specifications, in order to ensure to properly fulfill this Misva according to all opinions.Summary: It is proper on Purim to send at least one Mishlo'ah Manot package that satisfies all opinions. Thus, it should consist of two respectable, solid food items contained in separate utensils, both delivered together by a messenger.

I spoke with Ian Campbell the president and CEO of iCONECT, a developer of e-discovery software. We discussed how the e-discovery sector has changed over the past two decades, what should leaders consider when adapting to market shifts, where litigants are finding the most success with artificial intelligence, and iCONECT's recent purchase of the source code to Ayfie's Inspector technology.

Follow Dan on LinkedIn at linkedin.com/in/cotterdan Follow Pat on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/donald-patrick-eckler-69880814/ Follow the show at: https://www.linkedin.com/company/podium-and-panel-podcast Predictions Sure To Go Wrong: Sentinel: affirm Berg: affirm Davis: affirm Sentinel oral argument can be found at: https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions Oral argument in Berg can be found here: https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/courts/appellate-court/oral-argument-audio/ Oral argument in Davis v. Pace can be found here: https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/courts/appellate-court/oral-argument-audio/ Rule 311 can be found at: https://casetext.com/rule/illinois-court-rules/illinois-supreme-court-rules/article-iii-civil-appeals-rules/part-a-appeals-from-the-circuit-court/rule-311-accelerated-docket --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

MEG'S EPISODE NOTES: Monday 6/15/2020 – US Supreme Court declined to hear 8 cases involving qualified immunity - – 7 of which involved police accused of excessive force / misconduct – 6 of the 7 involved plaintiff's suing police and lower courts protected officers by saying qualified immunity applied 2 ways a case gets to the US Supreme Court 1. Original Jurisdiction – cases between two states / cases involving ambassadors / public ministers 2. Appellate Jurisdiction – cases on appeal from lower courts a. Litigants ask them – file a writ of certiorari (ser shee or rare ee) “grant cert” b. 4 of the 9 justices must vote to hear it c. Only agrees to hear 100-150 of the more than 7000 cases it is asked to review each year Court basically said we won't even hear this case. We won't even consider it. Justice Clarence Thomas disagreed – wrote a 6 page dissent in one of the cases involving a guy in Tennessee who was bit by a police dog and who said he had put his hands up in surrender Justice Thomas said he continues to have “strong doubts” about the qualified immunity doctrine and he would grant the petition for cert No relief = No accountability Scales of justice unbalanced If SCOTUS won't revisit – Congress should NEXT PODCAST What rights do you have when protesting?? If police aren't accountable, how can you protect yourself from criminal charges or worse yet – physical harm? As an adjunct instructor at Rowan University and former instructor at both the Cape May and Vineland police academies, she has a passion for sharing information about the law in NJ. Follow Meg: http://HoernerLaw.com https://facebook.com/hoernerlaw http://twitter.com/LawHoerner

In this Gavel Talks, an experienced trial judge will address how the court can and should ethically handle the challenges faced by judges in dealing with self represented litigants.

Welcome to the LI Law Podcast.  The premise of this podcast is to feature issues, developments, and topics affecting the law and how it relates to the 8 million of us who live or work on Long Island, New York, which includes Nassau, Suffolk, Queens, and Kings Counties.  If you live or work on Long Island, this podcast on local and state legislative and judicial decisions is for you.  Our guest on this 34th episode is Seth Weinberg, Esq., a civil appellate attorney based in Woodbury, who discusses why litigants should focus on winning lawsuits at the trial level, rather than relying upon the appellate process to remedy trial mistakes. Seth Weinberg, Esq.'s contact information is: Seth M. Weinberg, Esq. Mauro Lilling Naparty LLP 100 Crossways Park Drive West, Suite 310 Woodbury, New York 11797 T: 516.487.5800 | F: 516.487.5811 sweinberg@mlnappeals.com http://www.mlnappeals.com/ Welcome to the podcast, Seth. Please contact us with your general questions or comments at LILawPodcast@gmail.com.  Your host, Zehava Schechter, is an attorney admitted to the New York Bar for 30 years.  She concentrates her private practice in estate planning, administration, and litigation; real estate law; contracts, and business formation and dissolution.  No podcast is a substitute for competent legal advice.  Please consult with the attorney of your choice concerning specific legal questions you may have.

Using the easily accessible vehicle of a well known children's story the renowned Yadin Yadin Posek Rav Gershon Eliezer Schaffel clearly explains the yesodos of liability in interpersonal relations in a thoroughly entertaining lecture .Please leave us a review hereor email us at ravkiv@gmail.comFor more information on this podcast visityeshivaofnewark.jewishpodcasts.org See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast is powered by JewishPodcasts.org. Start your own podcast today and share your content with the world. Click jewishpodcasts.fm/signup to get started.

Bianca Premo's award-winning book The Enlightenment on Trial: Ordinary Litigants and Colonialism in the Spanish Empire, published by Oxford University Press in 2017, makes a powerful yet seemingly simple claim: during the eighteenth century, illiterate ordinary litigants in colonial Spanish America created enlightened ideas and practices by suing their social superiors in higher numbers and with novel claims. By focusing on civil suits undertaken by women, indigenous groups, and the enslaved, Premo demonstrates a gradual shift from a justice-oriented system—focused on extralegal outcomes and casuistic jurisprudence—to a Enlightened law-oriented system—where ordinary litigants based their claims on natural rights, merit, and freedom. Such a transformation expanded through varied and diverse geographies; from metropolitan cities such as Mexico City and Lima, to rural indigenous regions of Oaxaca, and smaller, ethnically diverse, provincial cities such as Trujillo in Peru. As listeners will hear, The Enlightenment on Trial not only challenges traditional histories that have placed the origin of the Enlightenment solely in Western Europe, and in the minds of a few and select group of European men, but it also asks us to situate Latin America in a global conversation— one in which the ideas of ordinary citizens are the matter of intellectual history, and where our commonalities as humans are more important than our differences. This last point, as professor Premo reminds us at the end of the conversation, is an important lesson for our present, a moment in which arguments about radical alterity are used as a basis for exclusion. Instead, for Premo, it is important to highlight the histories that we share, the stories in which we all partake, and that we all need to recover from historical erasure. Lisette Varon-Carvjal is a graduate student in history at Rutger's University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices