Podcasts about litigants

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

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.

Claims Made Policy May Not Respond to Claims Made After Expiration of the Policy Twin City Fire Insurance Company sold a malpractice insurance policy to John S. Xydakis, an attorney and one of the Defendants. Xydakis made claims under the policy based on lawsuits and motions filed against him in Illinois state court. Twin City sought a declaratory judgment that it owes no insurance coverage to Defendants for these claims or, in the alternative, rescission of the policy. In Twin City Fire Insurance Company v. Law Office Of John S. Xydakis, P.C., et al., No. 18 C 6387, United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division (March 20, 2023) the USDC resolved the dispute. BACKGROUND Underlying Lawsuits The Chen Lawsuit. Fiona Chen Consulting Company (“Chen Consulting”) sued Xydakis for failing to pay retained expert witness fees. All the acts and conduct related to the Chen Lawsuit occurred between January 2012 and November 2012. The Spiegel Motions for Sanctions. Litigants in a separate set of lawsuits (collectively the “Spiegel Lawsuits”) brought three motions for sanctions The presiding Cook County judge ruled on all three motions and entered judgment against Spiegel and Xydakis for over $1,000,000. The Klein Lawsuit. On August 14, 2019, Tiberiu Klein filed a complaint against Twin City and Xydakis alleging legal malpractice, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. The Twin City Insurance Policy In December 2016, Xydakis applied for legal malpractice insurance coverage from Twin City. Twin City underwrote and issued a claims-made-and-reported Lawyers' Professional Liability Policy to the Law Office of John S. Xydakis (the “Policy”). DISCUSSION Under Illinois law, the insurer's duty to defend arises when the facts alleged in the underlying complaint fall within, or potentially within, the policy's provisions. The insured bears the burden of proving that its claim falls within the policy's coverage. Once the insured has established coverage, the burden shifts to the insurer to prove that a limitation or exclusion applies. Xydakis had until March 27, 2018 to make claims under the Policy. The Chen Lawsuit, the Spiegel Motions for Sanctions, and the Klein Lawsuit each fall outside the Policy's scope of coverage, either for underlying conduct occurring before its retroactive date or for claims made after its expiration. ESTOPPEL Xydakis argued that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Twin City should be estopped from denying coverage. Estoppel only applies where the insurer has breached its duty to defend. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/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

This episode is also available as a blog post: https://sivaprasadbose.wordpress.com/2022/04/28/what-are-the-different-ways-by-which-litigants-can-delay-court-cases/ --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/sivaprasadbose/message

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.

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

Judgment is the ultimate partnership between us and God. Litigants who come to a Jewish court are coming to hear the will of the Almighty on the case. Consequently, the judges have to be very meticulous in being impartial and neutral in judgment. – – – – – – – – – – – – […]

Judgment is the ultimate partnership between us and God. Litigants who come to a Jewish court are coming to hear the will of the Almighty on the case. Consequently, the judges have to be very meticulous in being impartial and neutral in judgment. – – – – – – – – – – – – […]

Sonja Ebron and her wife, Debra Slone, saw firsthand how difficult it can be to represent yourself in civil cases through experiences they had being sued and suing others. Ebron says the couple's legal battles spanning several different practice areas ultimately prompted them to develop a platform called Courtroom5, an online toolbox that helps self-represented litigants handle their cases from start to finish.  Unlike many other technological tools for pro se litigants, Ebron says Courtroom5 is particularly well-suited to help people with complex civil matters and can be utilized by consumers nationwide.  “Our goal is to simplify the process as much as possible for people who first of all really don't want to be in court and secondly don't have the legal background,” she says. The company, which is based in Durham, North Carolina, is also working to add a feature to help users connect with lawyers for a-la-carte services. In this new episode of the Legal Rebels Podcast, Ebron discusses the build-up to the launch of Courtroom5 in 2017 and breaks down the different ways the platform can assist users. Special thanks to our sponsors, Alert Communications and Nota.

Sonja Ebron and her wife, Debra Slone, saw firsthand how difficult it can be to represent yourself in civil cases through experiences they had being sued and suing others. Ebron says the couple's legal battles spanning several different practice areas ultimately prompted them to develop a platform called Courtroom5, an online toolbox that helps self-represented litigants handle their cases from start to finish.  Unlike many other technological tools for pro se litigants, Ebron says Courtroom5 is particularly well-suited to help people with complex civil matters and can be utilized by consumers nationwide.  “Our goal is to simplify the process as much as possible for people who first of all really don't want to be in court and secondly don't have the legal background,” she says. The company, which is based in Durham, North Carolina, is also working to add a feature to help users connect with lawyers for a-la-carte services. In this new episode of the Legal Rebels Podcast, Ebron discusses the build-up to the launch of Courtroom5 in 2017 and breaks down the different ways the platform can assist users. Special thanks to our sponsors, Alert Communications and Nota.

Sonja Ebron and her wife, Debra Slone, saw firsthand how difficult it can be to represent yourself in civil cases through experiences they had being sued and suing others. Ebron says the couple's legal battles spanning several different practice areas ultimately prompted them to develop a platform called Courtroom5, an online toolbox that helps self-represented litigants handle their cases from start to finish.  Unlike many other technological tools for pro se litigants, Ebron says Courtroom5 is particularly well-suited to help people with complex civil matters and can be utilized by consumers nationwide.  “Our goal is to simplify the process as much as possible for people who first of all really don't want to be in court and secondly don't have the legal background,” she says. The company, which is based in Durham, North Carolina, is also working to add a feature to help users connect with lawyers for a-la-carte services. In this new episode of the Legal Rebels Podcast, Ebron discusses the build-up to the launch of Courtroom5 in 2017 and breaks down the different ways the platform can assist users. Special thanks to our sponsors, Alert Communications and Nota.

This conversation originally aired on January 19, 2020. Thank you very much to both Dorna and Tricia for sharing some of your lived experiences as self-represented litigants journeying in the Family Justice System. Also, thank you to Victoria Flie-Clancy for calling in to contribute.

Recorded: 03/08/21   Host: Coach Guests :Daniella Shively, Aracely Gutierrez

Not everyone can afford a lawyer, and not everyone needs one. But, when a regular person has a pressing legal question, where can they find answers? Promoting access to justice should include helping those with legal problems obtain the information they need to successfully navigate their matter, even if they don’t need representation. ABA Law Student Podcast host Meg Steenburgh talks with Angela Tripp, the director of the Michigan Legal Help Program, about how legal help works, the types of information they can provide for self-represented litigants, and how this type of service is helping to close the justice gap. Angela Tripp is the director of the Michigan Legal Help Program, which is responsible for the statewide website for self-represented litigants and twenty-one affiliated Self-Help Centers around the state. Thank you to our sponsor NBI.

Not everyone can afford a lawyer, and not everyone needs one. But, when a regular person has a pressing legal question, where can they find answers? Promoting access to justice should include helping those with legal problems obtain the information they need to successfully navigate their matter, even if they don’t need representation. ABA Law Student Podcast host Meg Steenburgh talks with Angela Tripp, the director of the Michigan Legal Help Program, about how legal help works, the types of information they can provide for self-represented litigants, and how this type of service is helping to close the justice gap. Angela Tripp is the director of the Michigan Legal Help Program, which is responsible for the statewide website for self-represented litigants and twenty-one affiliated Self-Help Centers around the state. Thank you to our sponsor NBI.

Ken Landau talks with Yvonne Marin, the Alternative Dispute Coordinator for the Courts in Nassau County, who explains how litigants and their counsel can now more swiftly their lawsuits with Alternate Dispute Resolution through the courts.

Alcohol abuse is one of the most popular reasons for divorce or family wreckage. In this episode, Divorce and Family Law Partner Jared Pinkus and Divorce and Family Law Attorney Joseph Napoli II share their knowledge on alcohol addiction and its effects on litigants in the divorce process. Establishing parenting time as a huge part […]

Alcohol abuse is one of the most popular reasons for divorce or family wreckage. In this episode, Divorce and Family Law Partner Jared Pinkus and Divorce and Family Law Attorney Joseph Napoli II share their knowledge on alcohol addiction and its effects on litigants in the divorce process. Establishing parenting time as a huge part of the litigation process, they explain how the court views alcohol issues as related to it. They also talk about the immediate impacts of alcohol abuse to people affected in divorce and how recovery is proven to the court. Love the show? Subscribe, rate, review, and share!Here’s How »Join the Beermann LLP community today:Beermann LLP FacebookBeermann LLP TwitterBeermann LLP LinkedInBeermann LLP YouTube

The Investment and Securities Tribunal has called for the development of the capacities of litigants and counsel to effectively address capital market technicalities. It said this had become vital as the lack of knowledge had made capital market litigants lose many cases. The Acting Chairman, IST, Jude Udunni, however, told journalists in Abuja that his agency had been trying to develop the capacity of its workforce in order to address this lapse in the industry. He said capacity of litigants and counsel need to be developed because of the technicalities of the capital market. The lack of knowledge has led to litigants losing cases. According to him, the agency had organised three sensitisation programmes since 2017, despite not being the duty of the tribunal to build capacity of litigants and counsel. The IST boss further noted that the tribunal was in a fix on how to proceed with cases that were delayed as a result of the lockdown occasioned by outbreak of COVID-19. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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 episode, we discuss self represented litigation in Tennessee and across the United States by exploring the meaning and definition of a pro se litigant as well as provide advice on how pro se litigants can use state resources to gain more access to the court system and seek free legal advice. Guests include Justice Connie Clark of the Tennessee Supreme Court, Buck Lewis is the founder of Free Legal Answers, Professor Cat Moon is the Director of Innovation Design at Vanderbilt University Law School and Judge Fern Fisher who is now a professor at Hofstra University School of Law.

Visit: RadioLawTalk.com for information & full episodes! Follow us on Facebook: bit.ly/RLTFacebook Follow us on Twitter: bit.ly/RLTTwitter Follow us on Instagram: bit.ly/RLTInstagram Subscribe to our YouTube channel: www.youtube.com/channel/UC3Owf1BEB-klmtD_92-uqzg Your Radio Law Talk hosts are exceptional attorneys and love what they do! They take breaks from their day jobs and make time for Radio Law Talk so that the rest of the country can enjoy the law like they do. Follow Radio Law Talk on Youtube, Facebook, Twitter & Instagram!

In this episode of Hearsay, I’ll share with you some of the research on implicit bias in judicial decision-making. Do judges really favour handsome litigants? Do they really lock people up when their football team loses? And how easily can they be bamboozled by big numbers? >> Full show notes --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/hearsaypodcast/message

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.

A Cameron, Missouri, school district superintendent has received a series of complaint letters regarding religious activity in school. However, these letters are rife with unsubstantiated claims and unidentified sources. In order to be taken seriously, legal             demand letters require litigants and facts—not anonymous threats and gripes. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. It should come as no surprise to find religion mixed with sports in America, whether that is Tim Tebow’s eye black or Coach Kennedy’s silent prayer. However, with these public displays of religions often come needless, often intimidating complaints that are probably better ignored. A group known for making noisy, public complaints about religion in public life groused to the Cameron R-1 School District in Cameron, Missouri. In a letter bearing the rough semblance of a legal demand letter, the group makes several unsubstantiated claims upon the school’s superintendent, demanding an investigation and that he “take immediate action” to end any religious activity. But something always seems to be missing with these letters: A litigant. Fundamentally, unless a lawyer, law firm, or legal organization identifies a plaintiff — a parent and/or student actually aggrieved by any of the alleged conduct attributable to the school district — such a letter amounts to little more than a public gripe. Federal courts were not established to serve roving bands of censors and scolds. Only those with legitimate, legal standing are permitted to challenge complained-of behavior. Religious liberty is a hallmark of our nation’s brand of freedom. The free exercise of religion, protected by the First Amendment, guarantees the rights of all citizens to exercise their faith. That freedom should not be casually limited by mere complaints from unidentified sources voiced by those who fund national television advertisements that mock religion. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

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.

Welcome to season 5, and our 50th episode! This week we focus on the future: Julie and Dayna discuss Julie’s upcoming induction into the Order of Canada (!), and what comes next, both for her and for the NSRLP. We have some big changes coming, and a lot of work to do, but we’re excited to forge ahead! Also in this episode, we hear from some wonderful friends of the organization, speaking about why our work with self-represented litigants matters (a huge thank you to Jennifer, Rob, Jeff, Kaila, and Shannon), and we end with a plea to you, our loyal listeners, to consider how you can support the NSRLP over the coming year. Thanks for joining us on our journey! In other news: NSRLP is growing! Thanks to the Law Foundation of British Columbia, NSRLP has launched “NSRLP West”, located in Kamloops, British Columbia, at the Thompson Rivers University Faculty of Law; the NSRLP blog is still going strong – since the end of our last podcast season we’ve put out 16 new posts on our collaborative platform; and finally, Braunte Petric, our wonderful producer/editor, has directed a documentary short film (“Defender”) covering Julie and her social justice work – the film was one of 10 finalists in TV Ontario’s Short Doc contest in September! For related links and more on this episode, visit our website: https://representingyourselfcanada.com/national-self-represented-litigants-project-2020/ Jumping Off the Ivory Tower is produced and hosted by Julie Macfarlane and Dayna Cornwall; production and editing by Brauntë Petric and Brandon Fragomeni; Other News produced and hosted by Ali Tejani; promotion by Moya McAlister and Ali Tejani.

This week, Reena and I are covering: vexatious litigants: what are they and what can be done about them?the 'stop valve' question once more: does Fair Trading agree that the stop valve is lot property?how to resolve a BMC cost-share disputewhy simply talking to your neighbours about a problem is the best first step towards... The post 190. Vexatious litigants | stop valves (again!) | BMC gas bill appeared first on Your Strata Property.

This week, Reena and I are covering: vexatious litigants: what are they and what can be done about them?the 'stop valve' question once more: does Fair Trading agree that the stop valve is lot property?how to resolve a BMC cost-share disputewhy simply talking to your neighbours about a problem is the best first step towards... The post 190. Vexatious litigants | stop valves (again!) | BMC gas bill appeared first on Your Strata Property.

The much-awaited verdict in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute was finally delivered by the Supreme Court on Saturday. The court ordered the construction of a temple dedicated to Hindu god Ram at the disputed site, while awarding the Muslim side an alternate plot measuring 5 acres, for building a mosque. From Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Opposition parties, from the litigants to spiritualists, the common refrain was the need to maintain harmony and peace. Here's a brief summary of how all sides reacted to the historic judgment.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

How do you talk to an opposing party if they don't have legal representation? In this episode, Claire and Liz discuss communicating with Pro Se litigants.

VR has been around for a while so how is it faring in the face of so much new legaltech and AI in the market? We spoke with Matthew Stubenberg, the  Associate Director of Legal Technology – A2J Lab, Harvard Law School, about the emerging use of virtual reality in law, legal education, pro bono work and improving access to justice.  Matthew has had an amazing career and is in a role that now combines his skills and passion for the law, legaltech, the not for profit sector, and access to justice. Topics covered in our conversation included: How to define VR – there are a lot of definitions out there! Where VR is being used/emerging in legal education, performance feedback, litigation (jury trials), pro bono work and capturing the experience of senior lawyers How VR relates, if at all, to the discussion on whether or not lawyers should learn to code The advantages and disadvantages of VR itself and VR versus video How to get a VR project off the ground – where to start, cost, how best to progress it And finally, whether or not there is a new type of “virtual” law firm on the horizon, if so, what it might look like and who it will serve. Thank you so much Matthew  – we applaud your work with the A2J Lab and can't wait to chat with you again, virtually!

** Please note, the sound is not perfect in this episode due to the different level of voices and background noise that I could not remove from the recording **    In todays episode I’m joined by Sylvia Schroer and Dave Bagshaw. We discuss the role of McKenzie friends, the difficulties Litigants in person encounter … Continue reading S1, Ep 6. When there’s no legal representation – LiPs and McKenzie Friends

8:30-9:30 Introduction/Keynote Chief Justice Scott Bales Arizona Supreme Court Presiding Judge Janet Barton Maricopa County Superior Court 9:45-11:00 Introducing the Best Practice Presiding JP C. Steven McMurry Encanto Justice Court Hon. Gerald Williams North Valley Justice Court Charles Adornetto MCJC Judicial Education Officer 11:15-12:30 Ethics and Scenario Panel Hon. Karl Eppich Pinal County Superior Court Hon. Myra Harris Maricopa County Superior Court Paul Julien Supreme Court Judicial Ed Officer George Riemer, Executive Director Judicial Conduct Commission Hon. Rachel Torres-Carrillo West McDowell Justice Court Hon. Lawrence Winthrop Arizona Court of Appeals

The post E890: #StartupTuneup: 16 founders pitch for Jason’s candid feedback on scaling: from social networks to smart contact lenses, flying on-demand to subscription freelancers, multi-purpose boxes to blockchain for litigants & many more @ LAUNCH SCALE appeared first on This Week In Startups.

The post E890: #StartupTuneup: 16 founders pitch for Jason’s candid feedback on scaling: from social networks to smart contact lenses, flying on-demand to subscription freelancers, multi-purpose boxes to blockchain for litigants & many more @ LAUNCH SCALE appeared first on This Week In Startups.

Every week, The American Journal of Managed Care® recaps the top managed care news of the week, and you can now listen to it on our podcast, Managed Care Cast. This week, the top managed care stories included another insurer announcing it would pass on drug rebates to consumers; FDA approved a new continuous glucose monitor and created a new medical device class; new guidelines address how to treat people with both HIV and cancer. Read more about the stories in this podcast: What We're Reading: Accidental Medicaid Enrollment; Cracking Down on Opioids; Passing on Drug Rebates: www.ajmc.com/newsroom/what-were-reading-accidental-medicaid-enrollment-cracking-down-on-opioids-passing-on-drug-rebatesUnitedHealthcare to Pass Drug Company Rebates Back to Consumers: www.ajmc.com/newsroom/unitedhealthcare-to-pass-drug-company-rebates-back-to-consumers Out-of-Pocket Costs for Insulin Are a Problem. Litigants in Case Disagree on Who Is at Fault: www.ajmc.com/newsroom/out-of-pocket-costs-for-insulin-are-a-problem-litigants-in-case-disagree-on-who-is-at-fault Brenda Schmidt Discusses Getting Ready for the Launch of Medicare DPP: www.ajmc.com/interviews/brenda-schmidt-discusses-getting-ready-for-the-launch-of-medicare-dpp FDA Approves Dexcom G6, Streamlines Review for Similar Interoperable CGMs: www.ajmc.com/newsroom/fda-approves-dexcom-g6-streamlines-review-for-similar-interoperable-cgms NCCN's New Guidelines Promote Better Cancer Care for People With HIV: www.ajmc.com/conferences/nccn-2018/nccns-new-guidelines-promote-better-cancer-care-for-people-with-hiv Institute for Value-Based Medicine—Advancing Quality in Oncology Care: www.ajmc.com/ivbm-registration

The Internet plays an essential role in our modern society and yet the way the Internet will be governed is still unclear. In anticipation of an impending Federal Communications Commission vote to reverse the so called “net neutrality” regulation implemented during the Obama administration, we look at the law which the FCC is trying to enforce. We also examine our current lawmaker’s plans for Internet governance by listening to highlights of three hearings featuring testimony from lawyers from Facebook, Twitter, and Google. Please Support Congressional Dish Click here to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Bills H.R. 3989: Amend Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 S. 652 (104th): Telecommunications Acto of 1996 Additional Reading Article: House foreign surveillance turf war heats up as law sunset nears by Daniel R. Stoller, Bloomberg, December 1, 2017. Article: Colorado warns families to be prepared in case congress doesn't come through on CHIP funding by Kimberly Leonard, Washington Examiner, November 27, 2017 Article: Congress confronts jam-packed December with shutdown deadline looming by Mike Debonis and Ed O'Keefe, The Washington Post, November 26, 2017 Article: States prepare to shut down children's health programs if congress doesn't act by Colby Itkowitz and Sandhya Somashekhar, The Washington Post, November 23, 2017. Article: Here's how the end of net neutrality will change the internet by Klint Finley, Wired, November 22, 2017. Article: What is net neutrality? by Aaron Byrd and Natalia V. Osipova, NY Times, November 21, 2017. Article: Will the Telecommunications Act get a much-needed update as it turns 21? by Richard Adler, Recode, February 8, 2017. Article: Cable tv price increases have beaten inflation every single year for 20 years by Nathan McAlone, Business Insider, October 31, 2016 Article: 20 years after the Telecommunications Act of 1996, rekindling Congress's political will by Stuart N. Brotman, The Hill, February 8, 2016. Article: The city that was saved by the internet by Jason Koebler, Motherboard, October 27, 2016. Article: This was 1995: A pop culture snapshot by Patricia Garcia, Vogue, September 1, 2015. Article: Why your internet prices are bound to go up by Brian Fung, Washington Post, July 23, 2015. Report: In a nutshell: Net neutrality, CBS News, March 1, 2015. Report: AT&T buys DirectTV for $48.5 billion by Roger Yu, USA Today, May 18,2014. Article: Federal appeals court strikes down net neutrality rules by Brian Fung, Washington Post, January 14, 2014. Article: Legal gymnastics ensue in oral arguments for Verizon vs. FCC by Jennifer Yeh, Freepress, September 10, 2013. Report: Comcast completes NBC Universal merger, Reuters, January 29, 2011. References Bill Resources: H.R.1555 Communications Act of 1995 Bill Roll Call: H.R. 3989 Vote Roll Call FCC Resources: Telecommunications Act of 1996 Mission Statement: AIPAC - America's Pro-Israel Lobby Network Map: Community Networks Publication: Public Law 104 Telecommunications Act of 1996 Publication: The USA Liberty Act Report: Akamai's State of the Internet 2017 Report: FCC Fact Sheet Support Page: AT&T HBO Channels Visual References Cable Prices vs. Inflation, 1995-2015 Sound Clip Sources Senate Select Intelligence Committee: Facebook, Google and Twitter Executives on Russian Election Interference; November 1, 2017 (Senate Social Media) Witnesses: Colin Stretch - Facebook Vice President & General Counsel Sean Edgett - Twitter Acting General Counsel 1:49:24 Sen. Roy Blunt (MO): Mr. Stretch, how much money did the Russians spend on ads that we now look back as either disruptive or politically intended? It was at $100,000. Is that— Colin Stretch: It was approximately $100,000. Blunt: I meant from your company. Stretch: Yes, approximately $100,000. Blunt: How much of that did they pay before the election? Stretch: The— Blunt: I’ve seen the— Stretch: Yeah. Blunt: —number 44,000. Blunt: Is that right? Stretch: So— Blunt: 56 after, 44 before. Stretch: The ad impressions ran 46% before the election, the remainder after the election. Blunt: 46%. Well, if I had a consultant that was trying to impact an election and spent only 46% of the money before Election Day, I’d be pretty upset about that, I think. So, they spent $46,000. How much did the Clinton and Trump campaigns spend on Facebook? I assume before the election. Stretch: Yeah. Before the elec— Blunt: They were better organized than the other group. Stretch: Approximate—combined approximately $81 million. Blunt: 81 million, and before the election. Stretch: Yes. Blunt: So, 81 million. I’m not a great mathematician, but 46,000, 81 million, would that be, like, five one-thousandths of one percent? It’s something like that. Stretch: It’s a small number by comparison, sir. 2:19:55 Sen. Tom Cotton (AR): Do you see an equivalency between the Central Intelligence Agency and the Russian Intelligence Services? Sean Edgett: We’re not offering our service for surveillance to any government. Cotton: So you will apply the same policy to our Intelligence Community that you apply to an adversary’s intelligence services. Edgett: As a global company, we have to apply our policies consistently. Cotton: This reminds me of the old line from the Cold War, of one who did not see a distinction between the CIA and the KGB on the other hand, because the KGB officer pushed an old lady in front of an oncoming bus, and the CIA officer pushed the old lady out from the path of the oncoming bus, because they both go around pushing old ladies. I hope that Twitter will reconsider its policies when it’s dealing with friendly intelligence services in countries like the United States and the U.K. as opposed to adversarial countries like Russia and China. House Select Intelligence Committee: Facebook, Google and Twitter Executives on Russian Election Interference; November 1, 2017 (House Social Media) Witnesses: Kent Walker - Google Senior Vice President & General Counsel Colin Stretch - Facebook Vice President & General Counsel Sean Edgett - Twitter Acting General Counsel 39:05 Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ): Social-media platforms have the responsibility of striking a balance between removing false information and preserving freedom of speech. Can you give us some brief detail of how each of your companies plan to target perceived false news while protecting the robust political discourse? Kent Walker: Let me take that because that was the sort of next stage to my answer to Mr. Shift’s question. We are taking a number of different steps beyond advertising to focus on fake news. We are working to improve our algorithms, to provide additional guidance and training to the Raiders who provide quality feedback for us, and to look at a wider variety of signals to improve the ranking of authentic and genuine news on our sites and to demote sites that we feel are deceptive or misleading. We are also making broader use of fact-check labels, working with third parties, for both Google Search and Google News. And when it comes to advertising, we’ve taken steps to disallow advertising on sites that misrepresent their nature or purpose, and to add to our policies around or against hate speech, incitement of violence, and the like. Colin Stretch: I would group our efforts with respect to false news into three buckets. First, we find that most false news is financially motivated, and we’re making efforts to disrupt the financial incentives. That, we think, will make a big dent in it. Second, we’re looking to stop the spread of it. So when we have information that’s been disputed by independent fact-checkers, we limit the distribution and we alert users who are attempting to share it that it has been disputed. And third, we’re engaged in a number of user-education efforts to help, particularly around the world, users approach some of the content they see with a more discerning eye. Sean Edgett: We’re tackling this challenge in a few ways, and I think the way this was characterized is correct: it’s a balance between free speech and what’s real and what’s false. And we often see there’s a lot of activity on the platform to correct false narratives, and one of those things, for example, is the text-to-vote tweets that we turned over to you, which we took off our platform as illegal voter suppression. The number of tweets that were counteracting that as false and telling people not to believe that was, like, between eight and 10 times what we saw on the actual tweets. But we’re working on the behavior. That’s where we’re focused right now. We’ve had great strides in focusing on that for things like terrorism and child sexual exploitation. We’re trying to figure out how we can use those learnings to stop the amplification of false news or misinformation, and think we’re making great strides there, but it’s a definite balance. We also have work we’ve done, just like my peers, around ads transparency that, I think, is going to help educate the consumer about who’s paying for an ad, what else they’re running, what they’re targeting, what they’re after—especially around electioneering ads, who’s paying for it, how much they’re spending. We are also working with third parties. We have a Trust and Safety council of experts, academics, around the world who are helping us think through the things that we’re trying to employ to tackle these issues and how they will impact the debate and free speech on our platform. So we’re working hard on this, but it’s a challenge. 59:39 Rep. Terri Sewell (D-AL): I submit to you that your efforts have to be more than just about finding malicious and deceptive activity, that you have a responsibility—all of you have a responsibility—to make sure that we are not adding to the problem by not being as rigorous and as aggressive as we can in terms of vetting the content and in terms of making sure that we are being really dynamic in doing that. And I also want to just say that I think it’s ridiculous that a foreign entity can buy a political ad with rubles but can’t give a political contribution to me—a Russian person can’t give me a political contribution. There seems to be some legislation that needs to be had here, is all I’m saying. 1:16:05 Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL): Let’s look at unpaid content for a second. Sometimes these fake accounts are pulled down, but the fake story takes the false claims of widespread voter fraud, for example, generated by these accounts have spread thousands of thousands of times, often picked up by legitimate news accounts. What do you do to flag that? What do you sense is your responsibility? And before any of you answer, let me just notice this, that if we’re asking is, are we still in this situation? As of just a short time ago—and I’m talking about when this meeting started—on Twitter, if you clicked on the hashtag “NYCTerroristAttack,” which is “trending,” marked with a red button saying “live,” the top tweet links to an Infowars story with the headline, “Imam: I Warned De Blasio About New York City Terror; He was Too Busy Bashing Trump.” This is a real-time example of when we talk about this information being weaponized. How quickly can you act, and what’s your responsibility to set the record straight so that the people who saw this know that it’s fake news and at least at some point in time it can’t keep spreading like some sort of virus through legitimate world? Sean Edgett: That’s something we’re thinking about all the time because it’s a bad user experience, and we don’t want to be known as a platform for that. In your example, in for instance, the system self-corrected. That’s not—that shouldn’t be the first tweet you see anymore. It should be a USA article, the last time I checked. Quigley: But you saw this. Edgett: USA Today. At lunch I did, yeah, and I also saw the system correct it. Quigley: Can you give me a really good guess on how long it was top? Edgett: We can follow up with you and your staff on that, and I don’t have the stat in front of me. Quigley: Yeah. Edgett: So I don’t know. But we are, like we said earlier, trying to balance free speech with making the information you see on the system—especially around trends that we direct you to, so if you’re clicking on a hashtag, we want to make sure you’re seeing verified accounts and accurate information and reporting. Sometimes it doesn’t work as we intended. We learn from those mistakes and tweak and modulate going forward. Quigley: Beyond the correction, do you have a responsibility to flag something as “this was fake news”? Edgett: We see our users do that a lot. We’re an open, public platform with respect to journalists and other organizations who point these things out. You may have seen that on this instance, for example. Quigley: Yeah, if someone’s breaking the law, you’ve got to feel like you have a responsibility to do something about that. It’s not—as you said, this is a—with this extraordinary gift, this platform of free expression, comes the responsibility you all talked about. So, if you know something’s illegal, you know you have the responsibility to do something. At what point does this become something where you can’t just correct it; you’ve got to say to the public, this isn’t true. Edgett: Right. And we take swift action on illegal content, illegal activity, on the platform. A good example of this is the text to vote, voter suppression tweets that we’ve turned over to this committee. We saw swift action of the Twitter community on disputing those claims; and Twitter actively tweeted, once it discovered these things were on the platform, to notify our users that this was fake information, that you could not, in fact, vote by tweet, and pointing people to a tool that would allow them to find their nearest polling place. That tweet— Quigley: Is this [unclear] because that was illegal activity, or is this—if something’s just fake, do you think you have an equal responsibility? Edgett: We took that down because it was illegal voter suppression. We are actively working on, how do we balance what is real and fake, and what do we do in the aftermath of something being tweeted and re-tweeted, like you said, and had people even seen it and how do we make sure that they’re seeing other view points and other facts and other news stories. Quigley: Do you have a policy right now where if you know something’s out there that’s not true, of saying so? Edgett: We do not. We have a policy that fosters the debate on the platform. We have a policy that takes down a lot of that content because it comes from automated malicious accounts or spammers. That stuff we’re removing and acting on as quickly as we can. Quigley: And I understand how you’re trying to distinguish that, but the fact is if something’s fake, it doesn’t matter if it’s from a fake account or some bot or something. If it’s just not true and it’s wildly obvious, before it goes viral and gets picked up legitimate, you must feel like you have some responsibility. Edgett: We are—we are deeply concerned about that and figuring out ways we can do it with the right balance. 1:57:39 Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA): RT, Russia Today, on your platform, has 2.2 million subscribers. Fox News, on your platform, has 740,000 subscribers. CNN has 2.3 million subscribers. The Intelligence Community assessment that was made public in January spoke about RT, and it said, “RT conducts strategic messaging for Russian government. It seeks to influence politics and fuel discontent in the United States.” So my question to you is, why have you not shut down RT on YouTube? Kent Walker: Thank you, Congresswoman. We’ve heard the concerns, and we spoke briefly about this previously. We recognize that there’re many concerned about RT’s slanted perspective. At the same time, this is an issue that goes beyond the Internet to cable, satellite television and beyond. We have carefully reviewed RT’s compliance with our policies. We’ve not found violations of our policies against hate speech and incitement to violence and the like. Speier: It’s a propaganda machine, Mr. Walker. The Intelligence Community—all 17 agencies—says it’s an arm of one of our adversaries. Walker: And we agree that— Speier: I would like for you to take that back to your executives and rethink continuing to have it on your platform. Walker: Yes. We agree that transparency’s important for all of these different sources of information. We are working on additional ways to provide that for all government-funded sources of information, including Al Jazeera and a range of government organizations. 2:05:27 Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC): Is it constitutionally protected to utter an intentionally false statement? Colin Stretch: So, it depends on the context, but there is recent Supreme Court precedent on that. On Facebook— Gowdy: On which side: that it is or is not? Stretch: That it is, in most cases, protected. However, on Facebook, our job is not to decide whether content is true or false. We do recognize that false news is a real challenge. The way in which we’re addressing it is by trying to disrupt the financial incentives of those who are profiting from it, which is where most of it comes from. Most of this, most of the fake-news problem is coming from low-quality websites that are trying to drive traffic on every side of every issue, and by disrupting the financial incentives, we’re able to limit the distribution. We’re also trying to make sure that users do know when a story has been disputed by a neutral third party and alerting users to that fact— I’ll stop. I’ll stop there. Gowdy: Well, I’m smiling only because on the last break a couple of my colleagues and I were wondering who those neutral fact-checkers are, and I really do appreciate your desire to want to have a neutral fact-checker. If you could let me know who those folks are, I’d be really grateful, because people in my line of work might take exception with the neutrality of some of the fact-checkers. So, if I understand you correctly, the authenticity of the speaker is very important; the accuracy of the content, less so. Stretch: That’s how we approach it. That’s exactly right. Gowdy: All right. For the life of me, I do not understand how a republic is served by demonstrably, provably, intentionally false information. And I get it, that you don’t want to be the arbiter of opinion—I don’t want you to be, either—but today’s not Thursday, so if I say it is, I swear I don’t understand how my fellow citizens benefit from me telling them something that is demonstrably false, and I am saying it with the intent to deceive. I just—for the life of me, I don’t get it, but I’m out of time. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism: Facebook, Google and Twitter Executives on Russian Disinformation; October 31, 2017 (Social Media) Witnesses: Colin Stretch - Facebook Vice President and General Counsel Sean Edgett - Twitter Acting General Counsel Richard Salgado - Google Law Enforcement & Information Security Director Clint Watts - Foreign Policy Research Institute, National Security Program Senior Fellow Michael Smith -New America, International Security Fellow 38:25 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): And I gather that all of your companies have moved beyond any notion that your job is only to provide a platform and whatever goes across it is not your affair. Colin Stretch: Senator, our commitment to addressing this problem is unwavering. We take this very seriously and are committed to investing as necessary to prevent this from happening again. Absolutely. Whitehouse: Mr. Edgett? Sean Edgett: Absolutely agree with Mr. Stretch, and this type of activity just creates not only a bad user experience but distrust for the platform, so we are committed to working every single day to get better at solving this problem. Whitehouse: Mr. Salgado? Richard Salgado: That’s the same for Google. We take this very seriously. We’ve made changes, and we will continue to get better. Whitehouse: And ultimately, you are American companies, and threats to American election security and threats to American peace and order are things that concern you greatly, correct? Stretch: That is certainly correct. Edgett: Agree. Salgado: That’s right. 52:15 Sen. Dianne Feinstein (CA): Mr. Salgado, why did Google get preferred status to Russia Today, a Russian propaganda arm, on YouTube? Richard Salgado: There was a period of time where Russia Today qualified really because of algorithms to participate in an advertising program that opened up some inventory for them, subjective standards around popularity and some other criteria to be able to participate in that program. Platforms or publishers like RT drop in and out of the program as things change, and that is the case with RT. They dropped out of the program. Feinstein: Well, why didn’t you revert RT’s preferred status after the ICA came out in January 2017? It took you to September of 2017 to do it. Salgado: The removal of RT from the program was actually a result of, as I understand it, is a result of some of the drop in viewership, not as a result of any action otherwise. So, there was nothing about RT or its content that meant that it stayed in or stayed out. 2:03:15 Sen. Mazie Hirono (HI): So, Mr. Stretch, you said that there are 150 people at Facebook just focused on the content of what’s on your platform. How many people do you have, Mr. Edgett, at Twitter to concentrate on the content and ferretting out the kind of content that would be deemed unacceptable, divisive? I realize there are a lot of First Amendment— Sean Edgett: Right. Hirono: —complicated issues, but how many people do you have? Edgett: Well, we harness the power of both technology, algorithms, machine learning to help us, and also a large team of people, that we call our Trust and Safety team and our User Services team, it’s hundreds of people. We’re at a different scale than Facebook and Google, obviously, but we’re dedicating a lot of resource to make sure that we’re looking at user reports about activity on the platform that they think is violent or activity on the platform they think is illegal, and prioritizing that accordingly. Hirono: So, you have fewer people than Facebook. Facebook has 150; you said you have hundreds. Edgett: Yeah, we have hundreds— Hirono: Hundreds. Edgett: —across User Services and Trust and Safety, looking at the issues of content on the platform. Hirono: What about you, Mr. Salgado? Richard Salgado: Google has thousands of people. There’s many different products, and different teams work on them, but internally we’ll have thousands of people working on them. We also get a good deal of leads on content that we need to review for whether it’s appropriate or not that come from outside the company as well. Hirono: You have thousands of people just focused on the content— Salgado: On various types of content. Hirono: —as Mr. Stretch indicated to us that he has at Facebook? You have thousands of people dedicated? Salgado: We have thousands of people dedicated to make sure the content across our—and remember, Google has many different properties within it—but, yes, the answer is we have thousands that look at content that has been reported to us as inappropriate. Hirono: So, in view of that, Mr. Stretch, do you think 150 people is enough people? Stretch: Senator, to be clear, the 150 people I mentioned earlier is people whose full-time job is focused on addressing terrorism content on Facebook. In terms of addressing content on the site generally, we have thousands. And indeed, we have a Community Operations team that we announced earlier this year that we were going to be adding additional thousands to the several thousands that are already working on this problem every day. Hirono: I think it’s pretty clear that this is a whole new sort of use, or misuse, of your platform, and you may have various ways to address terrorist content, but this is a whole other thing. 2:32:10 Clint Watts: Account anonymity in public provides some benefits to society, but social-media companies must work to immediately confirm real humans operate accounts. The negative effects of social bots far outweigh any benefits that come from the anonymous replication of accounts that broadcast high volumes of misinformation. Reasonable limits on the number of posts any account can make during an hour, day, or week should be developed and human-verification systems should be employed by all social-media companies to reduce automated broadcasting. 2:33:07 Clint Watts: Lastly, I admire those social-media companies that have begun working to fact-check news articles in the wake of last year’s elections. These efforts should continue but will be completely inadequate. Stopping false information—the artillery barrage landing on social-media users comes only when those outlets distributing bogus stories are silenced. Silence the guns, and the barrage will end. I propose the equivalent of nutrition labels for information outlets, a rating icon for news-producing outlets displayed next to their news links and social-media feeds and search engines. The icon provides users an assessment of the news outlet’s ratio of fact versus fiction and opinion versus reporting. The rating system would be opt-in. It would not infringe on freedom of speech or freedom of the press. Should not be part of the U.S. government, should sit separate from the social-media companies but be utilized by them. Users wanting to consume information from outlets with a poor rating wouldn’t be prohibited. If they are misled about the truth, they have only themselves to blame. 2:44:20 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): Mr. Watts, you’ve been a U.S. Army infantry officer, you’ve been an FBI special agent on the Joint Terrorism Task Force, you’ve been executive officer of the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, and you’ve been a consultant to the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division and National Security Branch, so you clearly take American national security very seriously. It is, and has been, your life’s work. So, when you say, ”The Kremlin disinformation playbook,” which we’re talking about here, “will also be adopted by authoritarians, dark political campaigns, and unregulated global corporations who will use this type of social-media manipulation to influence weaker countries; harm less-educated, vulnerable populations; and mire business challengers,” you’re not just talking about the Russian election-manipulation operation getting worse and having to be contained. You’re talking about it as if it’s a technology that other bad actors can adopt and have it metastasized entirely into new fields of dissimulation, propaganda, and so forth. Clint Watts: Yes. Whitehouse: Correct? Watts: Everybody will duplicate this if they don’t believe in the rule of law, if they want to destroy democracies from the inside out. Anyone with enough resources and time and effort, if they put it against us, they can duplicate this. I could duplicate it if I chose to. Whitehouse: So, if we don’t stop it now, it’s going to get exponentially worse. Watts: Yes. And I think the one thing that we should recognize is even in the U.S. political context, if we don’t put some sort of regulation around it, if bodies like this don’t decide how we want American politics to work, everybody will be incentivized to use this same system against their political opponents, and if you don’t, you will lose. 2:51:35 Sen. John Kennedy (LA): The First Amendment implications of all of this concern me as well. I mean, what’s fake news? What do you think fake news is? Clint Watts: Fake news, over the years since I’ve been involved and talking about this, is any news the other side doesn’t like, doesn’t matter what side it is. Kennedy: That’s right. Michael Smith: Senator, if I may. I’m teaching undergrads a course at Georgia State University this semester titled Media, Culture, and Society; and we’re about to start classes focused on fake news later this week. I would submit that fake news might best be defined as deliberate mis- or disinformation, which is tailored or engineered to achieve a particular outcome in the way of behaviors, to persuade perceptions in a manner that lead to behaviors such as perhaps a vote for or against somebody. Kennedy: Well, that’s a good definition, but I’ll end on this: in whose opinion? Watts: But I think there are parameters that we could come around. I mean, reporting versus opinion is a key point of it. I think also in terms of fact versus fiction, I’ve actually set up rating systems on foreign media outlets before the U.S. Government’s paid me to do that, you know, in the Iraq/Afghanistan campaigns. House Energy and Commerce Communications and Technology Subcommittee: FCC Oversight; October 25, 2017 Witnesses: Ajit Pai: FCC Chairman 14:00 Rep. Greg Walden: Ultimately, Congress is the appropriate forum to settle the net neutrality debate. I think you hear a little of that passion here on both sides. And I’ve been continuing my efforts to negotiate a compromise. Although my staff continues to engage in the various affected parties in productive discussions toward that end, my colleagues in the minority have, unfortunately, seemed largely uninterested at this point. Love to see that change, by the way. Door remains open. We’re willing and able to codify net neutrality protections and establish a federal framework in statute for providing certainty to all participants in the Internet ecosystem. I don’t think we need Title II to do that. 1:31:45 Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH): Voice-activated virtual assistants like Siri, Alexa, and Google Assistant are becoming an increasingly popular consumer gateway to the Internet. Some day soon they might even become consumer-preferred interface with the Internet, leaving the age of the desktop Google Search behind. You get Yelp results in Siri, OpenTable in Google, TuneIn radio from Alexa. These interactions are occurring through private partnerships among these companies to have their apps interact. However, it creates a situation where, by definition, the consumers’ access to other Internet content is limited or completely blocked. It’s the question of, who answers Siri’s question when you ask Siri something? Chairman Pai, can the FCC do anything about this? Ajit Pai: Congressman, under our current Internet regulations, we cannot. Those do not apply to edge providers. 1:36:12 Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA): Will you commit to us that you’ll apply or consider applying broadcast-transparency requirements to state-sponsored media outlets like RT? And if not, why not? Ajit Pai: Congresswoman, thank you for the question. As I under— Eshoo: Uh-huh, you’re welcome. Pai: As I understand the law— Eshoo: Uh-huh, mm-hmm. Pai: —there is no jurisdictional hook at this point, no transfer of a license, for example, that allows the FCC to a certain jurisdiction. Eshoo: But what about those that have a license and carry them? Do you have—doesn’t the FCC have any say so in that, or is this, as the Intelligence Community said, that they are a principle international propaganda outlet? So are they just going to operate in the United States no matter what? Pai: Congresswoman, again, under the Communications Act and the Constitution, the First Amendment, we do not have currently a jurisdictional hook for taking and doing an investigation of that kind. If you’re privy to, obviously, classified or unclassified information that suggests that there might be another agency that has, obviously, a direct interest in the issue—and we’re, obviously, happy to work with them—but at the current time, as I’ve been advised, neither under the First Amendment nor under the Communications Act do we have the ability to— Eshoo: Well, First Amendment applies to free speech in our country. It doesn’t mean that the Kremlin can distribute propaganda in our country through our airwaves. I just—I don’t know if you’re looking hard enough. 1:40:05 Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY): In 2013, and I was one of the households affected by this, there was a carriage dispute between CBS and Time Warner Cable. And CBS blocked Time Warner Cable Internet customers from viewing its shows online through a CBS.com website. So I couldn’t get any of CBS or SHOWTIME or any of that on TV. If you went to the website, because Time Warner Cable was our cable provider and Internet service provider, you couldn’t go to CBS.com—it was blocked. Or SHOWTIME to watch any of the shows that was coming out. And that was when some new ones were coming out that August, so we were trying to find that. But some members of Congress said, bring this up, and I think Chairwoman Clyburn was acting chairwoman at the time and said that she didn’t believe the agency had the jurisdiction to intervene in this situation. And Chairman Pai, do you think if it happened now, do you think the FCC would have the opportunity to intervene in a similar case? Ajit Pai: Congressman, I think the legal authorities have not changed to the extent that the FCC gets a complaint that a party is acting in bad faith in the context of retransmission dispute, then we would be able to adjudicate it. But absence to such a complaint or additional authority from Congress, we couldn’t take further action. Guthrie: But currently the Title II, open Internet, is still in effect. Is that—how would that affect it? Pai: Oh, currently, yes. Just to be clear, I should have added was well then, our Internet regulations would not apply to that kind of content to the extent you’re talking about, the blocking of online distribution of [unclear]. Guthrie: Because it only applies to the service provider, not to the content provider? Pai: That is correct, sir. Federal Communications Commission: Open Internet Rules; February 26, 2015 (Open Internet Rules) Witnesses: Agit Pai: FCC Commissioner 38:05 Ajit Pai: For 20 years, there has been a bipartisan consensus in favor of a free and open Internet. A Democratic president and Republican Congress enshrined in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 the principle that the Internet should be a vibrant and competitive free market “unfettered by federal and state regulation.” And dating back to the Clinton administration, every FCC chairman—Republican and Democrat—has let the Internet grow free from utility-style regulation. The results speak for themselves. But today the FCC abandons those policies. It reclassifies broadband Internet access service as a Title II telecommunications service. It seizes unilateral authority to regulate Internet conduct to direct where Internet service providers, or ISPs, make their investments and to determine what service plans will be available to the American public. This is not only a radical departure from the bipartisan market-oriented policies that have serviced so well over the past two decades, it is also an about-face from the proposals the FCC itself made just last May. So why is the FCC turning its back on Internet freedom? Is it because we now have evidence that the Internet is broken? No. We are flip-flopping for one reason and one reason only: President Obama told us to do so. Barack Obama: I’m asking the FCC to reclassify Internet service under Title II of a law known as the Telecommunications Act. Pai: On November 10, President Obama asked the FCC to implement his plan for regulating the Internet, one that favors government regulation over marketplace competition. As has been widely reported in the press, the FCC has been scrambling ever since to figure out a way to do just that. The courts will ultimately decide this order’s fate. Litigants are already lawyering up to seek a judicial review of these new rules. And given this order’s many glaring legal flaws, they’ll have plenty of fodder. 40:46 Ajit Pai: This order imposes intrusive government regulations that won’t work, to solve a problem that doesn’t exist, using legal authority the FCC doesn’t have. Accordingly, I dissent. 1:03:15 Ajit Pai: And I’m optimistic that we will look back on today’s vote as an aberration, a temporary deviation from the bipartisan consensus that has served us so well. I don’t know whether this plan will be vacated by a court, reversed by Congress, or overturned by a future commission, but I do believe its days are numbered. Telecommunications Bill Signing: February 8, 1996 (Bill Signing) 4:59 Vice President Al Gore: I firmly believe that the proper role of government in the development of the information superhighway is to promote and achieve at every stage of growth, at every level of operation, at every scale, the public interest values of democracy, education, and economic and social well-being for all of our citizens. If we do not see to it that every project, every network, every system addresses the public interest at the beginning, then when will it be addressed? How can we expect the final organism to express these values if they are not included in its DNA, so to speak, at the beginning? For that reason, in 1993, on behalf of the president, I presented five principles that the Clinton administration would seek in any telecommunication reform legislation: private investment, competition, universal service, open access, and flexible regulations. Telecommunications Act Conference: December 12, 1995 (Conference) 22:15 Rep. Rick Boucher: In the very near future, most homes are going to have two broadband wires that will offer the combination of telephone service and cable TV service. One of those will have started as a telephone wire; the other will have started as a cable television wire. The programming that is affiliated with the owners of those wires obviously is going to be available to consumers in the homes, but other programmers may very well be denied access. And if access to other programming is denied, consumers will be deprived of video offerings to which they should be entitled. Telecommunications Act Conference: December 6, 1995 (Conference) 27:14 Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL): No one has a right to give pornography to children. While we have not previously criminalized this area on the federal level, it’s necessary to do so now. This is because of the advent of the Internet, which enables someone in one location to instantly send or make available pornography to children in every city in America. Children don’t have the right to buy pornography in any store in America, yet some would argue there’s a right to give it to them free, delivered to their home by computer. Telecommunications Act Conference: Telecommunications Reform Act of 1995; October 25, 1995 8:58 Sen. John McCain: I believe the Senate bill in its present form is far too regulatory. Any bill that gives 80 new tasks to the Federal Communications Commission, in my view, does not meet the standard that we have set for ourselves of trying to allow everyone to compete in a deregulated—in an environment that is changing so quickly that none of us predicted five years ago that it would look like it is today. And today we have no idea what the industry will look like in five years. 32:00 Rep. Steve Buyer (R-IN): One thing that does please me is when I think about one of the last renaissance of electricity, electricity goes to the big cities and leaves out the rural areas, and then we have to come up with the REMCs. When we move America to the World Wide Web, though, we’re not allowing cherry-picking and to move to the great resources in the big cities, but the rural areas will be included in the World Wide Web. And so I congratulate both of you to making sure that that happens, that some of the strength of this country lies in the heart of America, and I think that’s pretty exciting. House Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance: Telecommunications Act Part 1; May 11, 1995 1:25:36 Rep. Dan Schaefer (R-CO): Unlike the case for telephone service, every American household has access to at least one, and soon many more, competitive video providers today. The case simply has not yet been made that the federal government has a duty to do anything other than provide for access to alternative in the case of a purely entertainment service like the upper tier of cable. We have provided that access. We will expand that access in this bill. It is time we focus on the real issues addressed by 1555, the building of advanced broadband networks and the benefits that it will bring to all Americans. House Energy & Commerce Committee: Cable Television Deregulation; February 2, 1994 Witnesses: Bill Reddersen - Bell South Corporation Senior Vice President Jeffery Chester - Center for Media Education Executive Director Edward Reilly - President of McGraw-HIll Broadcasting 7:27 Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA): As telephone companies are able to offer cable TV service inside their telephone-service areas, they’ll have the financial incentive to deploy the broadband technology that will facilitate the simultaneous transport of voice and cable TV service and data messages, building out the infrastructure, creating the last mile of the information highway, that distance from the telephone company’s central office into the premises of the user homes and businesses throughout the nation. 24:36 Bill Reddersen: It is our goal to have you pass legislation this year that enables us to deploy a second broadband network that will compete effectively with cable and bring consumers new and innovative educational healthcare information and entertainment services. 25:12 Bill Reddersen: However, unless you eliminate the competitive advantages this bill confers upon cable companies, our industry will not be able to compete effectively against companies that already have a dominant, if not monopoly, position in programming markets, nor will the bill encourage telephone companies to make or continue the substantial investments required for widespread development of broadband networks. Cable companies are formidable competitors and do not need protection. Cable is a 21-billion-dollar-a-year-gross business, passing over 90% of U.S. homes. According to a recent survey, only 53 out of over 10,000 cable systems compete against a second cable operator. Cable has vertically integrated and diversified into multi-billion-dollar programming and communications businesses. Cable companies and the emerging cable telco alliances clearly do not need protection from telephone companies that currently have no video programming market share, virtually no broadband facilities to the home, and little or no operational experience in the video marketplace. 37:55 Jeffrey Chester: While we share the goal of this committee that every community be served by at least two wires, there are no guarantees that this will be achieved in the near future, even with the proposed legislation. We are also troubled by the unprecedented wave of mergers and acquisitions taking place in the media industries. Serious concerns are raised by the emergence of new media giants controlling regional Bell operating companies, cable systems, TV and film studios, newspapers, broadcasting properties, and information service providers. Without federal intervention, control of the nation’s media system will be in the hands of fewer and less-accountable companies, possessing even more concentrated power. 40:45 Bill Reddersen: Just as we have established private librar—public libraries—and public highways, we need to create public arenas in the electronic commons in the media landscape. A vibrant telecommunication civic sector will be an essential counterbalance to the commercial forces that will dominate the information superhighway. 2:24:38 Bill Reddersen: The common carrier requirements of this legislation are essentially, if executed the way they have in the telephone industry, the second model that you articulated, and that is that if additional capacity was required and someone shows up, we build. Okay? That is the fundamental premise underlying common carrier regulation. 2:30:04 Rep. Michael Oxley (R-OH): Does it really matter if BellSouth builds the wire, the limitless wire, or the cable industry builds the limitless wire if indeed it is essentially a limitless technology that is open to everyone who wants to sell his or her product, including Mr. Reilly, on that particular technology? If you have the common carrier status and you have the ability to deliver your programming, is it really relevant whether BellSouth owns the wire or Mr. Angstrom owns the wire, and if it is indeed relevant, why is it relevant, Mr. Reilly? Edward Reilly: Well, it’s relevant in any instance where the company that owns the wire is also engaged in the programming business at all. If someone is prepared to build a wire and agree that they would never want to be in the programming business, and that we were given very strong safeguards— Oxley: Why is that a problem? Reilly: Well, because we end up inevitably competing with our programming— Oxley: Of course you do. Reilly: —against someone who owns both the wire and the programming content that goes on that wire. Reilly: Why is it relevant, though, if BellSouth owns the wire and you’ve got limitless access and limitless capacity, why does it make any difference that the people who supposedly own the wire are competing against you? They’re competing head to head. You are simply paying the same shelf space for your product as the owner of the product that’s providing that kind of service. Oxley: Well, we have—we believe that there is ample opportunity in that type of environment for a number of anti-competitive activities that would certainly damage our ability to try and be an equal player. Where we get positioned on the wire, what comes up when the menu first comes up, how the billing is organized—there’s a whole host of issues that go along with owning the wire and setting up the infrastructure that can create a significant competitive advantage to someone who chooses to use that for their own program service. 2:38:47 Rep. Billy Tauzin (D-LA): I think the key for us here is to guarantee that there are comparable providers of services and how they get it to us, as long as it’s comparable and we have choice and all people have access to it. If we guarantee that kind of policy for America, we don’t much have to worry about the risk. Consumers take over from there as long as we guarantee, if we do have common carriage on a line, that the owner of the line can’t discriminate; can’t play games with the competitors who own that line; that you can’t play bottleneck games, as publishers are complaining about in the other bill we’re going to debate pretty soon on MMJ; that, in fact, there’s fairness on the playing field. Here’s a question for you in regard to that fairness: If the telephone companies or the utility companies can in fact do what you can’t do—produce their own programs and send them over those lines, even if we restrict them in the number of channels they can use, which I really have a problem with, as Mr. Boucher does—are we going to make sure that the same provisions of program access apply to those producers of programs that we’ve applied to the cable producers? You raised the issue in your testimony. You talked about the problems we had in cable where they own both the software and the hardware—in essence, the content and the conduit—and the problems consumers had as a result of that. Are we going to require the cable companies make 75% of their channels available to competitors? Are we going to require that the utility companies, when they build lines, fiber optic lines, are going to be similarly required to make access available to their competitors? If we’re talking about a real competitive world here, are we going to build a world where some have obligations others don’t have? Some must carry and some don’t? Some must give access to their programs to competitors, as cable is now required to do because of the bill we successfully passed over the president’s veto last year, and over cable’s objection? Are we going to make that same requirement now available—enforced upon other competitors who build wires, or who build some other systems, who decide to deliver it under some particle-beam technology we haven’t dreamed of yet, or the satellite delivery systems that are coming into play? Are we going to create some real equality in this competition, that’s going to give consumers comparable choices? That’s the key word to me—comparable choices. Are we going to do that? Or are we going to dictate the technology, confine you to so many channels, not require you to carry what others have to carry, put requirements on one competitor—the cable company can get on the telephone company’s lines, but the telephone company can’t get on the cable system’s line? Come on. It seems to me if we’re going to build policy that gets consumers real, comparable choices out there, we have to answer all those questions. Video: What the world looks like without net neutrality Video: Net Neutrality II: Last Week Tongight with John Oliver Special Thanks! To Adam Hettler for performing The Most Dangerous time of the Year! See more of Adam here! Background music for The Most Dangerous Time of the Year. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)  

This edition of the West Coast Foreclosure Hour features California attorney Charles Marshall who will address sanctions and motions directed at you as litigant and/or your attorney including:  - removing lis pendens; - supposed failure to respond properly to discovery; - maintaining a 'frivolous' lawsuit, such as where there has been a possible res judicata issue Charles Marshall who specializes in wrongful foreclosure, will discuss why homeowners should reconsider taking their foreclosure attorney to the Bar and the potential ramifications for you as a litigant or would be litigant.  He will cover why doing so can result in a decision that can hurt all homeowners and others trying to take on the Big Banks. Charles Marshall, Esq. Law Office of Charles T. Marshall 415 Laurel St., #405 San Diego, CA 92101 cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com Phone 619.807.2628

Susanna L. Blumenthal is a professor of law and associate professor of history at the University of Minnesota. Her book, Law and the Modern Mind: Consciousness and Responsibility in American Legal Culture (Harvard University Press, 2016) won the 2017 Merle Curti Prize from the Organization of American Historians. Blumenthal offers a historical examination of the jurisprudence of insanity, legal capacity, and accountability from post-revolutionary America through the nineteenth century. Americans struggling to set the boundaries of ordered liberty turned to Common Sense philosophy that held to divinely given rational faculties of intellect, volition, and moral sense. Republican citizenship assumed that a reasonable man, as a legal person, would act accordingly. The market economy of self-made men, the new field of medical psychology, will and contract challenges over wealth and property, tort law and increased liability claims exposed the inadequacy of social and political norms in defining human fallibility, and the limits of responsibility. Litigants, lawyers, judges, and medical experts struggled to find a reliable way to settle issues of mental competency and define the bounds of freedom. The incapacity of married women, children, and slaves provided a means of comparison for the male citizen involving metaphysical, political, social, and economic ideas wrapped up in the concept of self-government. Blumenthal has produced a remarkable piece of intellectual and legal history situated in the rapidly changing market environment of a young republic. Lilian Calles Barger, www.lilianbarger.com, is a cultural, intellectual and gender historian. Her current book project is tentatively entitled The World Come of Age: Religion, Intellectuals and the Challenge of Human Liberation is forthcoming from Oxford University Press. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Susanna L. Blumenthal is a professor of law and associate professor of history at the University of Minnesota. Her book, Law and the Modern Mind: Consciousness and Responsibility in American Legal Culture (Harvard University Press, 2016) won the 2017 Merle Curti Prize from the Organization of American Historians. Blumenthal offers a historical examination of the jurisprudence of insanity, legal capacity, and accountability from post-revolutionary America through the nineteenth century. Americans struggling to set the boundaries of ordered liberty turned to Common Sense philosophy that held to divinely given rational faculties of intellect, volition, and moral sense. Republican citizenship assumed that a reasonable man, as a legal person, would act accordingly. The market economy of self-made men, the new field of medical psychology, will and contract challenges over wealth and property, tort law and increased liability claims exposed the inadequacy of social and political norms in defining human fallibility, and the limits of responsibility. Litigants, lawyers, judges, and medical experts struggled to find a reliable way to settle issues of mental competency and define the bounds of freedom. The incapacity of married women, children, and slaves provided a means of comparison for the male citizen involving metaphysical, political, social, and economic ideas wrapped up in the concept of self-government. Blumenthal has produced a remarkable piece of intellectual and legal history situated in the rapidly changing market environment of a young republic. Lilian Calles Barger, www.lilianbarger.com, is a cultural, intellectual and gender historian. Her current book project is tentatively entitled The World Come of Age: Religion, Intellectuals and the Challenge of Human Liberation is forthcoming from Oxford University Press. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Susanna L. Blumenthal is a professor of law and associate professor of history at the University of Minnesota. Her book, Law and the Modern Mind: Consciousness and Responsibility in American Legal Culture (Harvard University Press, 2016) won the 2017 Merle Curti Prize from the Organization of American Historians. Blumenthal offers a historical examination of the jurisprudence of insanity, legal capacity, and accountability from post-revolutionary America through the nineteenth century. Americans struggling to set the boundaries of ordered liberty turned to Common Sense philosophy that held to divinely given rational faculties of intellect, volition, and moral sense. Republican citizenship assumed that a reasonable man, as a legal person, would act accordingly. The market economy of self-made men, the new field of medical psychology, will and contract challenges over wealth and property, tort law and increased liability claims exposed the inadequacy of social and political norms in defining human fallibility, and the limits of responsibility. Litigants, lawyers, judges, and medical experts struggled to find a reliable way to settle issues of mental competency and define the bounds of freedom. The incapacity of married women, children, and slaves provided a means of comparison for the male citizen involving metaphysical, political, social, and economic ideas wrapped up in the concept of self-government. Blumenthal has produced a remarkable piece of intellectual and legal history situated in the rapidly changing market environment of a young republic. Lilian Calles Barger, www.lilianbarger.com, is a cultural, intellectual and gender historian. Her current book project is tentatively entitled The World Come of Age: Religion, Intellectuals and the Challenge of Human Liberation is forthcoming from Oxford University Press. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Susanna L. Blumenthal is a professor of law and associate professor of history at the University of Minnesota. Her book, Law and the Modern Mind: Consciousness and Responsibility in American Legal Culture (Harvard University Press, 2016) won the 2017 Merle Curti Prize from the Organization of American Historians. Blumenthal offers a historical examination of the jurisprudence of insanity, legal capacity, and accountability from post-revolutionary America through the nineteenth century. Americans struggling to set the boundaries of ordered liberty turned to Common Sense philosophy that held to divinely given rational faculties of intellect, volition, and moral sense. Republican citizenship assumed that a reasonable man, as a legal person, would act accordingly. The market economy of self-made men, the new field of medical psychology, will and contract challenges over wealth and property, tort law and increased liability claims exposed the inadequacy of social and political norms in defining human fallibility, and the limits of responsibility. Litigants, lawyers, judges, and medical experts struggled to find a reliable way to settle issues of mental competency and define the bounds of freedom. The incapacity of married women, children, and slaves provided a means of comparison for the male citizen involving metaphysical, political, social, and economic ideas wrapped up in the concept of self-government. Blumenthal has produced a remarkable piece of intellectual and legal history situated in the rapidly changing market environment of a young republic. Lilian Calles Barger, www.lilianbarger.com, is a cultural, intellectual and gender historian. Her current book project is tentatively entitled The World Come of Age: Religion, Intellectuals and the Challenge of Human Liberation is forthcoming from Oxford University Press. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Susanna L. Blumenthal is a professor of law and associate professor of history at the University of Minnesota. Her book, Law and the Modern Mind: Consciousness and Responsibility in American Legal Culture (Harvard University Press, 2016) won the 2017 Merle Curti Prize from the Organization of American Historians. Blumenthal offers a historical examination of the jurisprudence of insanity, legal capacity, and accountability from post-revolutionary America through the nineteenth century. Americans struggling to set the boundaries of ordered liberty turned to Common Sense philosophy that held to divinely given rational faculties of intellect, volition, and moral sense. Republican citizenship assumed that a reasonable man, as a legal person, would act accordingly. The market economy of self-made men, the new field of medical psychology, will and contract challenges over wealth and property, tort law and increased liability claims exposed the inadequacy of social and political norms in defining human fallibility, and the limits of responsibility. Litigants, lawyers, judges, and medical experts struggled to find a reliable way to settle issues of mental competency and define the bounds of freedom. The incapacity of married women, children, and slaves provided a means of comparison for the male citizen involving metaphysical, political, social, and economic ideas wrapped up in the concept of self-government. Blumenthal has produced a remarkable piece of intellectual and legal history situated in the rapidly changing market environment of a young republic. Lilian Calles Barger, www.lilianbarger.com, is a cultural, intellectual and gender historian. Her current book project is tentatively entitled The World Come of Age: Religion, Intellectuals and the Challenge of Human Liberation is forthcoming from Oxford University Press. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Susanna L. Blumenthal is a professor of law and associate professor of history at the University of Minnesota. Her book, Law and the Modern Mind: Consciousness and Responsibility in American Legal Culture (Harvard University Press, 2016) won the 2017 Merle Curti Prize from the Organization of American Historians. Blumenthal offers a historical examination of the jurisprudence of insanity, legal capacity, and accountability from post-revolutionary America through the nineteenth century. Americans struggling to set the boundaries of ordered liberty turned to Common Sense philosophy that held to divinely given rational faculties of intellect, volition, and moral sense. Republican citizenship assumed that a reasonable man, as a legal person, would act accordingly. The market economy of self-made men, the new field of medical psychology, will and contract challenges over wealth and property, tort law and increased liability claims exposed the inadequacy of social and political norms in defining human fallibility, and the limits of responsibility. Litigants, lawyers, judges, and medical experts struggled to find a reliable way to settle issues of mental competency and define the bounds of freedom. The incapacity of married women, children, and slaves provided a means of comparison for the male citizen involving metaphysical, political, social, and economic ideas wrapped up in the concept of self-government. Blumenthal has produced a remarkable piece of intellectual and legal history situated in the rapidly changing market environment of a young republic. Lilian Calles Barger, www.lilianbarger.com, is a cultural, intellectual and gender historian. Her current book project is tentatively entitled The World Come of Age: Religion, Intellectuals and the Challenge of Human Liberation is forthcoming from Oxford University Press. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/medicine

I spoke with Dr. Gavin Manes, the founder and CEO of Avansic, a firm that provides the legal, business, and government sectors with e-discovery, digital forensics, data preservation, and online review services. We discussed the genesis of Avansic, the biggest challenges that litigants are facing in 2015, the need to normalize vocabulary in discovery, and key legal trends to watch.

I spoke with Dr. Gavin Manes, the founder and CEO of Avansic, a firm that provides the legal, business, and government sectors with e-discovery, digital forensics, data preservation, and online review services. We discussed the genesis of Avansic, the biggest challenges that litigants are facing in 2015, the need to normalize vocabulary in discovery, and key legal trends to watch.

I spoke with Dr. Gavin Manes, the founder and CEO of Avansic, a firm that provides the legal, business, and government sectors with e-discovery, digital forensics, data preservation, and online review services. We discussed the genesis of Avansic, the biggest challenges that litigants are facing in 2015, the need to normalize vocabulary in discovery, and key legal trends to watch.

I spoke with Dr. Gavin Manes, the founder and CEO of Avansic, a firm that provides the legal, business, and government sectors with e-discovery, digital forensics, data preservation, and online review services. We discussed the genesis of Avansic, the biggest challenges that litigants are facing in 2015, the need to normalize vocabulary in discovery, and key legal trends to watch.

Last year, 29 year old Robert Wilson was accused of a felony-level crime and faced the possibility of three and a half to seven years in prison. On Monday, after representing himself “pro se," the jury found him not guilty. Generally speaking, this doesn’t happen. Litigants represent themselves frequently in civil court, but rarely do criminal defendants argue by themselves before a jury. Wilson had even refused stand-by council. Rockingham County Attorney Patricia Conway prosecuted the case. She says after 18 years as a prosecutor, “this is the second time I’ve had a jury trial with a pro se individual.” The first time, she won. Three attorneys from Conway’s office sat in the gallery as the trial began. They were there purely there out of curiosity, they said. The state doesn’t keep data on self-representing defendants. However, Superior Court Chief Justice Tina Nadeau says, from her experience, “they’re not likely to be successful.” Rob Wilson talks in paragraphs. He’s 29, grew up

This show will feature Real Estate lawyer Steve Vondran sharing his general legal overview of Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure (A.R.C.P. 26.1) involving the duty to disclose via a disclosure statement 9 things in every litigation case.  The rule applies to both Plaintiff's and Defendants and generally the rule must be complied with 40 days after a responsive pleading is filed.  This all occurs basically at the start of a lawsuit.  Listen in for some valueable litigation information from Attorney Steve's "Litigation Warrior" series.  

What dos the future hold for the seconfd amendment.  With its incorporation against the states post-McDonald, the Second Amendment now leaves the netherworld it inhabited previously, and enters the realm of what might be considered “normal constitutional law.” We now have a constitutional right recognized in no uncertain terms by the Supreme Court, and incorporated against the states. Litigants may now invoke that right without having to overcome questions of whether the right exists, whether it can be invoked by individuals, or whether it applies only against the states. For this reason, the Second Amendment, long treated like an embarrassing stepchild, joins other provisions of the Bill of Rights, not as some odd exception, but as normal constitutional law.McDonald v. Chicago.Guest Frank Fiamingo

This week's radio show parses Mitt Romney's "faith in America" speech, reports on seasonal state/church entanglements, and features interviews with two recent victors in the legal battle to keep church and state separate. Guest Ray Ideus talks about his victory this week over religion at the Spokane police department. Kay Staley talks about her major victory at the Supreme Court level, removing a monument to the bible from government steps in Houston. Listen in, get acquainted with freethinkers and enjoy some good news!

It took prosecutors just over four years to work their way up the Enron food chain but now the failed energy company's top former executives Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling are facing a jury in a federal criminal fraud trial expected to last at least four months. How can each side best present a complex story that involves exotic derivatives products off-books accounting and strange subsidiaries with names like Raptor? Experts say they should apply lessons learned in the other high-profile corporate fraud cases of the Enron era: Keep it simple. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.