Podcasts about litigation

Unpacking the regulatory path forward for prediction markets with Coinbase Litigation Head Ryan VanGrack. Coinbase's VP of Legal and Global Head of Litigation, Ryan VanGrack, joins Jennifer Sanasie and Renato Mariotti to discuss why the company is challenging state regulators to ensure a unified federal framework for prediction markets. He also shares why he believes bipartisan market structure legislation is still on the table despite recent setbacks. - Timestamps: 01:10 - The CFTC's Response to Kalshi's Insider Trading Accusations02:38 - Why Coinbase is Suing the States03:41 - Prediction Markets vs. Sports Betting08:14 - The States Are "Gaslighting" the Public on Prediction Markets11:31 - Is Market Structure Still Possible?15:58 - Addressing Concerns About Coinbase's Role in Stalled Market Structure Legislation - This episode was hosted by Jennifer Sanasie and Renato Mariotti .

Reed Smith partner Anthony Diana sits down with Dera Nevin of FTI Consulting to explore how AI-enabled e-discovery is transforming litigation-and why the best time to adopt these tools is now. From accelerating early case assessment to revolutionizing privilege review workflows, Anthony and Dera break down where generative AI is already delivering real results-not just theoretical possibilities. They discuss how forward-thinking legal teams are training large language models to surface key documents, generate case timelines, and dramatically reduce time-to-knowledge on complex matters.

Episode 7: From Rulebook to Enforcement: AMLA's Investigation and Sanctioning Powers Speakers: Kerstin Wilhelm & Matthias Schelkens In Episode 7, Kerstin Wilhelm and Matthias Schelkens examine the investigation and enforcement powers of the new European Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA). They discuss AMLA's extensive toolkit, including information requests, on‑site inspections and measures at business premises and private residences, as well as its ability to impose corrective measures, significant financial sanctions and periodic penalty payments. They also highlight the absence of settlement options and the reputational impact of mandatory publication of AMLA decisions. Listen to all the episodes in the series on our dedicated webpage.

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Havana Docks Corporation v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, (February 23) - International Law, LIBERTAD Act; Issue(s): Whether a plaintiff under Title III of the LIBERTAD Act must prove that the defendant trafficked in property confiscated by the Cuban government as to which the plaintiff owns a claim, or instead that the defendant trafficked in property that the plaintiff would have continued to own at the time of trafficking in a counterfactual world "as if there had been no expropriation.Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S.A. (February 23) - International Law, FISA; Issue(s): Whether the Helms-Burton Act abrogates foreign sovereign immunity in cases against Cuban instrumentalities, or whether parties proceeding under that act must also satisfy an exception under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel (February 24) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether district courts have the authority to excuse the 30-day procedural time limit for removal in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).Pung v. Isabella County, Michigan (February 25) - Property Rights; Issue(s): (1) Whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment when the compensation is based on the artificially depressed auction sale price rather than the property’s fair market value; and (2) whether the forfeiture of real property worth far more than needed to satisfy a tax debt but sold for a fraction of its real value constitutes an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment, particularly when the debt was never actually owed.United States v. Hemani (March 2) - 2nd Amendment, Criminal Law; Issue(s): Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), the federal statute that prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,” violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent.Hunter v. United States (March 3) - Criminal Law; Issue(s): (1) Whether the only permissible exceptions to a general appeal waiver are for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or that the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum; and (2) whether an appeal waiver applies when the sentencing judge advises the defendant that he has a right to appeal and the government does not object.Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC (March 4) - Labor and Employment Law; Issue(s): Whether a federal statute, 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c), preempts a state common-law claim against a broker for negligently selecting a motor carrier or driver.Featuring: Jay R. Carson, Senior Litigator, The Buckeye InstituteJeffrey S. Hobday, Assistant Attorney General, Opinions Unit, Ohio Attorney General’s OfficeMary E. Miller, Partner, Lehotsky Keller Cohn LLPZack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, The Heritage FoundationJordan Von Bokern, Senior Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center(Moderator) Sam Gedge, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice

In the first medical malpractice verdict of its kind, a New York jury awarded $2 million to a detransitioner who sued the clinicians responsible for performing a double mastectomy when she was 16 years old. The case marks a historic legal development and signals the emergence of a new frontier in medical malpractice litigation. At its core are difficult and consequential questions about standards of care, informed consent, particularly for minors undergoing irreversible medical interventions, and the extent to which existing malpractice frameworks are equipped to address these medical practices.This webinar will examine the legal significance of this landmark verdict and situate it within a growing group of detransitioner claims nationwide. Panelists will explore how courts may analyze allegations of inadequate screening, deficient consent processes, and departures from accepted professional standards. The discussion will also consider how these cases may shape future malpractice doctrine and affect risk exposure for physicians and healthcare systems.Beyond individual liability, the program will address the role of hospitals and medical institutions in establishing and enforcing these controversial treatments. To what extent can healthcare systems be held responsible for systemic failures in oversight, documentation, or patient evaluation? Featuring: Erin Hawley, Senior Counsel and Vice President at Alliance Defending FreedomMark Trammell, General Counsel, Center for American Liberty(Moderator) Sarah Perry, Vice President and Legal Fellow, Defending Education(Special Introduction) Mary Margaret Olohan, Author of DeTrans: True Stories of Escaping The Gender Ideology Cult; White House Correspondent, The Daily Wire

(0:00) Intro (1:29) About the podcast sponsor: The American College of Governance Counsel. (2:15) Start of interview. *Reference to prior episode with Leo Strine (E100) (3:09) The Call of Conscience and The Current Moment (reference to his speech at the Weinberg Center in Oct of 2025) (5:18) Skepticism about Credibility of the Elite Among the Youth (7:02) The Ethical Muscle (8:20) Acknowledging Discrimination (8:56) The Climate Crisis (12:37) Shifts in Delaware Law (13:45) Return to Traditions. "What Delaware has done is return to its traditions that existed the entire time I was a judge." (14:28) The Controlled Company Debate and the MFW standard. (25:00) On the recent pushback against incorporating in Delaware: "I don't minimize the moment" (32:00) Section 220 Books and Records under SB21 (34:20) The statute was amended to provide more predictability. It actually looks like the Model Business Corporation Act. "I think both elements of this statute balance fairness and efficiency in a really good way." (39:54) Activist Judges and Delaware. "This was a nonpartisan initiative to restore confidence in Delaware's corporate law. I have the utmost respect for our judiciary, I'm proud to have been part of it, and I believe they will follow the law." (42:26) Delaware's Competitive Edge (48:25) The Rise of AI Companies (52:16) Energy Demand from AI. From guardrails to "trust us" (58:39) The Urgency of Leadership (1:01:59) Davos looks like a portrait of leadership failure "either eliminate it or make it real." Leo E. Strine, Jr., is Of Counsel at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. Prior to joining WLRK, he was the Chief Justice of the Delaware Supreme Court from early 2014 through late 2019.   You can follow Evan on social media at:X: @evanepsteinLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/epsteinevan/ Substack: https://evanepstein.substack.com/__To support this podcast you can join as a subscriber of the Boardroom Governance Newsletter at https://evanepstein.substack.com/__Music/Soundtrack (found via Free Music Archive): Seeing The Future by Dexter Britain is licensed under a Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License

Eric Dyson, Executive Director of 90 North Consulting and one of the retirement industry's more active ERISA expert witnesses, joins the 401(k) Specialist Podcast for a practical conversation on how plan sponsors and advisors can reduce fiduciary risk—and be better prepared if the Department of Labor comes calling.Drawing on his experience testifying in more than a dozen ERISA cases, Dyson shares the most common mistakes he sees in litigation and investigations, why a DOL audit may be a bigger risk than a lawsuit for most plans, and what courts actually expect from fiduciaries. He tackles pressing questions around paying advisors and TPAs with plan assets, properly documenting QDIA selections to secure safe harbor protection, conducting RFPs and benchmarking at “reasonable intervals,” and crafting committee meeting minutes that protect rather than expose.Dyson also provides clear, actionable steps sponsors can take before their next committee meeting to strengthen governance, document prudence, and stay off the litigation radar, and reduce fiduciary risk.EDITOR'S NOTE: This podcast episode is part of our new “Deep Dive” special content package for Q1 2026 titled, “How Not to Get Sued.” You can find additional coverage in the links below, and more focused content will be available in the coming days.SEE ALSO:How Not to Get Sued in 2026: Part 1How Not to Get Sued 2026: Part 2

Last week's Supreme Court ruling on Trump-era tariffs didn't declare tariffs unconstitutional.They didn't say the President lacks trade authority.They didn't say Congress delegated too much power.Instead…They said they were “uncomfortable.”And in doing so, they may have quietly replaced constitutional separation of powers with something far more dangerous:

After years of hearing the same opioid presentation from Andrew Kolodny, something changed — kratom suddenly became the “next crisis.”That wasn't random.In this video, I break down:• How mass-tort litigation narratives are built• How experts, media, and parent groups align• How settlement money shapes policy messaging• Why kratom is being framed like opioids were• And who gets harmed when the machine movesWe've seen this before.First tobacco.Then prescription opioids.Then JUUL.Now cannabis and kratom.When lawsuits start shaping medicine, patients become collateral damage.Pain patients were erased the first time.Will it happen again?At The Doctor Patient Forum, we document the harm — because when history asks who knew, there will be a record.

Michelle Belkot reminded fellow Clark County Council members that she is in active litigation as they discussed potential changes to the county's Rules of Procedure, including authority to remove members from boards and direct votes, alongside the reading of an immigration enforcement resolution. https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/belkot-reminds-other-clark-county-councilors-that-there-is-active-litigation/ #ClarkCountyCouncil #VancouverWA #MichelleBelkot #CTRAN #InterstateBridge #LightRail #ClarkCountyPolitics

Send a textThis week's topic is about AI and mental health. We'll talk about AI-induced psychosis, recent tragedies, AI-hallucinations and the search for Biscuits continues. Also, trigger warning, we will talk about suicide.One of many iconic quotes from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest that captures this moment in time with AI perfectly:"I been silent so long now it's gonna roar out of me like floodwaters and you think the guy telling this is ranting and raving my God; you think this is too horrible to have really happened, this is too awful to be the truth! But, please. It's still hard for me to have a clear mind thinking on it. But it's the truth even if it didn't happen."                                                                                                                                                                  - Chief BromdenKaren Hao, journalist for More Perfect Union gets dozens of emails a week on people claiming to have broken AI free of its guardrails - that they have proof of sentience. She tracked down one man, a musician and video producer in California, that describes his journey into AI-induced psychosis... What to Read, Watch, or Listen to NEXTForever links to keep on every episode:80,000 HoursCenter for Humane TechnologiesThe producer behind the intro music FerdinichtfernandoShow Specific Resources:The producer behind the intro music FerdinichtfernandoThe Emerging Problem of "AI Psychosis," Marlynn Wei M.D., J.D., Psychology TodayAI Psychosis - with reporter, Karen Hao, YouTubeA Prominent OpenAI Investor Appears to Be Suffering a ChatGPT-Related Mental Health Crisis, His Peers Say, Joe Wilkens, FuturismOne Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey, Famous Quotes Explained, sparknotes Anxious about AI? Take two minutes to contact your local politician and ask them to tap the brakes on this technology. Still worried? Contact one of the orgs below and get involved. But for today, hug your kid, cook food and really breathe in deep as it simmers, walk in nature, brush a cat, donate to the food bank, brew a cup of tea, or draw a five-minute portrait of your dog. Hero Organizations: 80,000 Hours Center for Humane Technologies Curious Cat Crew on Socials:Curious Cat on Twitter (X)Curious Cat on InstagramCurious Cat on TikTok

Patent attorney and former chemist Josh Goldberg joins me to unpack how intellectual property strategy determines whether innovation gets funded—or quietly dies.Most startup conversations focus on product, growth, and pitch decks. This episode focuses on what founders often ignore until it's too late: protection. Josh shares why he left drug formulation chemistry to go to law school, and how he now helps innovators—particularly in green tech and scientific industries—turn inventions into defensible assets.We walk through the uncomfortable reality that patents don't let you do anything. They let you stop others. That negative right, however, is often the very thing investors care about most.From first-to-file rules and accidental public disclosures to the difference between patents, trademarks, and copyrights, this episode breaks down how smart founders think about timing, leverage, and risk before litigation ever enters the picture.This isn't a conversation about legal theory.It's about strategic sequencing.Because innovation without protection doesn't attract capital. It attracts competition.TL;DR* In green tech and scientific startups, patents often are the product* Investors evaluate risk before they evaluate brilliance* Publishing before filing can permanently destroy international patent rights* The U.S. has a one-year grace period; most other countries do not* Patents protect inventions; trademarks protect brands; copyrights protect creative works* Litigation is expensive—early strategy prevents most of it* Founders need business planning as much as scientific expertise* IP strategy should be integrated into the business plan from day oneMemorable Lines* “Having a patent doesn't let you do something—it lets you stop someone else.”* “It's a race to the patent office.”* “If you don't know where you're going, wherever you wind up is going to be fine.”* “Innovation without protection makes funding harder, not easier.”* “The earlier I get involved, the fewer mistakes we have to untangle.”GuestJosh Goldberg — Patent attorney and former chemistIntellectual property strategist focused on green technology, scientific innovation, and helping startups build defensible patent portfolios before going to market.

The City Bar's Presidential Task Force on AI and Digital Technologies hosts today's podcast on President Trump's:  Winning the Race, America's AI Action Plan. Task Force co-chair Jerome Walker is joined by task force members Matthew Bacal (Davis Polk), Azish Filabi (American College of Financial Services), Robert Mahari (Stanford Codex), and Evan Abrams (Steptoe), to review the plan's three pillars and key action steps. Pillar One (“Accelerate AI Innovation”) is described as largely deregulatory, including agency review of rules and certain FTC/FCC actions, with targeted concerns such as ideological bias and synthetic media in the legal system, plus investments in open-source/open-weight models, data, interpretability, evaluations, and government/DoD adoption. Pillar Two (“Build American AI Infrastructure”) focuses on the physical side of AI—permitting for data centers and fabs, energy and grid expansion, semiconductors, water for cooling, workforce training, cybersecurity, and “security by design,” while anticipating trade-offs and litigation. Pillar Three (“Lead in International AI Diplomacy and Security”) balances support for exporting US “full stack” AI with tighter national security controls, including stronger export-control enforcement and participation in international bodies primarily to counter China. The conversation closes with suggestions for improving the plan by strengthening trust, safety/rights considerations, and maintaining flexibility as AI capabilities evolve. If you are interested in learning more about emerging AI developments and policy, join us for the 2026 Artificial Intelligence Conference on June 18 to hear from industry experts and connect with leading legal professionals across the field. 00:00 Trump's 2025 AI Action Plan: Big Goals, Short Document, 3 Pillars 03:23 Pillar One Preview: 15 Action Steps to ‘Accelerate AI Innovation' 09:16 Meet the Panel + Setting Up the Pillar One Deep Dive 11:21 Pillar One Explained: Deregulation, Free Speech, Data Sharing, Evaluations, and Trust 18:33 Key Takeaways for Stakeholders: Business, Finance, Civil Society, and Tech 23:57 Which Pillar One Steps Matter Most? Sequencing, Competitiveness, and Data Access 27:52 Pillar Two: The Physical Side of AI—Energy, Chips, Data Centers 36:32 Critical Infrastructure Security: Physical Risks, Cyber Threats & ‘Security by Design' 37:14 Data Poisoning Explained: How Training Data Can Be Manipulated at Scale 38:00 Workforce Training at Scale: From Trades to Semiconductor Talent Pipelines 38:52 Wrapping Pillar Two: China Competition, Speeding Projects, and Ranking Priorities 40:34 What Lawyers & Judges Need to Know About Pillar Two (Red Tape, Legal Tech, Litigation) 45:30 Pillar Three Overview: Balancing Global AI Leadership with National Security Controls 50:05 Pillar Three Priorities by Industry: Export Controls, Frontier Evaluations & Data Center Risk 58:56 Why Engage International AI Bodies? Countering China and Filling the Leadership Vacuum 01:03:20 Trump vs. Biden Narratives: Competition vs. Safety—What Should Change in the Plan? 01:07:38 Panel Advice to Improve the Action Plan: Rights Framework, Nimble Policy, Safety & Research Funding

Episode 6: Inside the Single AML Rulebook: PEPs, High-Risk Countries and Correspondent Banking Speakers: Ngoc-Hong Ma, Sébastien Herbert and Nicolas Vermeulen In this episode, Ngoc-Hong Ma, Sébastien Herbert and Nicolas Vermeulen unpack the risk‑based measures in the new European Union Anti‑Money Laundering Regulation (AMLR). They explore enhanced due diligence for politically exposed persons, dealings with high‑risk third countries, and stricter rules for correspondent banking and crypto‑asset relationships, and explain what obliged entities should be doing now to prepare for the 10 July 2027 start date. Listen to all the episodes in the series on our dedicated webpage.

Join us for a webinar examining the Third Circuit’s ongoing review of a decision holding that publishing ASTM standards—which are funded by licenses to use the standards—is a noninfringing fair use under US copyright law. This session will present arguments from both sides, analyzing the tension between a private entity’s right to protect its investments in developing copyrighted technical standards, and the public’s right to access the laws which incorporate those standards. With the Third Circuit poised to issue a decision in ASTM v. UpCodes soon, this webinar aims to provide informative insight on the regulatory and intellectual property policies that will soon be implicated. Featuring: Prof. Emily Bremer, Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Zvi Rosen, Associate Professor, UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law(Moderator) Hon. Stephen Vaden, Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Doug Marcello, Shareholder with Saxton & Stump and an expert in trucking litigation, joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to give a state of the union on litigation in the transportation and trucking space. Doug shares what he sees as the primary issues in trucking litigation today and Bill and Doug discuss suggestions on what insurance companies and defense attorneys should do differently in managing their litigation. Doug shoots down common objections the defense side often bring up related to being proactive. He describes the benefits of conducting early jury research and talks about situations where it makes sense to proactively sue the plaintiff for an accident before they can file suit against the defendant. Bill and Doug also discuss the driver shortage challenge, managing immigrant drivers, technology, AI, and more.

Tell us what you like or dislike about this episode!! Be honest, we don't bite!Most people want “motivation.” Olympians build systems, and they learn how to perform when everything hurts, everything's on the line, and you've got to go again in 20 minutes.In this episode, Matt Haycox sits down with Sarah Lindsay, 3x Olympic short track speed skater, European gold medallist, and a decade-long British champion, now founder of ROAR (London + Dubai) and one of the UK's most sought-after trainers. Sarah breaks down what elite sport really teaches you about resilience, pressure, and identity… then how she used those lessons to build a premium training brand, recover from major injury, navigate litigation, and scale a high-touch coaching operation that delivers results without the usual fitness industry chaos. You'll hear Matt and Sarah talk about:How Sarah went from “hyperactive kid” to elite athlete, and why sport saved her focus.The reality of Olympic sport: funding, pressure, and why it's not “rich athlete life”.The Olympian mentality: resilience, emotional control, and performing under pressure.The injury that nearly ended her career, and the brutal rehab mindset that brought her back.Transitioning from athlete to PT: what most athletes get wrong after retirement.Building ROAR: why premium results require structure, coaching, and standards (not chaos gyms).Litigation lessons: what happens when business gets messy, and what she'd do differently.ROAR's operating model: team-based client care + coaching systems that scale. Dubai, high-performance lifestyle, and training high-profile clients.Timestamps:0:00 – 3x Olympian + ROAR Founder: Sarah Lindsay 1:33 – Coming Up: Injury, mindset, and building a premium brand 5:50 – Early athletic beginnings: from “naughty kid” to elite focus 13:40 – Olympic career + the truth about money/funding 21:37 – Olympic mindset: resilience, pressure, emotional control 26:48 – The injury: “you might never skate again” + recovery 31:46 – Redemption, confidence, and retirement decisions 42:00 – Athlete to PT: rebuilding identity after sport 48:12 – Starting ROAR: premium training, standards, and experience 57:07 – Lessons in litigation (business can get savage) 01:05:19 – How ROAR operates: systems, coaches, client results 01:09:43 – Dubai life + training high-profile clients 01:17:33 – Industry views + advice for anyone starting fitness/business 01:22:33 – Final thoughts Follow Sarah:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/roarfitnessgirl/Website: https://www.roar-fitness.com/ROAR Ldn: https://www.instagram.com/roarfitnessldn/If you enjoyed this episode, subscribe to Stripping Off with Matt Haycox and leave a review on Apple Podcasts or Spotify, it helps more people find the show.

In this edition of our banking litigation podcast, we consider some recent cases that will be most relevant to in-house lawyers at banks and financial institutions. This episode is hosted by John Corrie, a partner in our banking litigation team, who is joined by Ceri Morgan and special guest Jonah Oliver. Speakers: John Corrie (Partner), Ceri Morgan (Knowledge Counsel), Jonah Oliver (Associate). You can find out more about the cases covered in this podcast on our blog at the following links: High Court rejects attempt by Noteholders to remove and replace Trustee against wishes of Issuer https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2026-01/high-court-rejects-attempt-by-noteholders-to-remove-and-replace-trustee-against-wishes-of-issuer High Court finds UK broker did not breach contract by refusing to return funds to client subject to US sanctions https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-12/high-court-finds-uk-broker-did-not-breach-contract-by-refusing-to-return-funds-to-client-subject-to-us-sanctions High Court strikes out illegality defence premised on alleged breaches of US sanctions https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2026-01/high-court-strikes-out-illegality-defence-premised-on-alleged-breaches-of-us-sanctions High Court applies "scope of duty" principle to limit damages claimed for breach of so-called Quincecare duty https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-12/high-court-applies-scope-of-duty-principle-to-limit-damages-claimed Court of Appeal recognises "onerous clause doctrine" where terms are incorporated by reference https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-11/court-of-appeal-recognises-onerous-clause-doctrine-where-terms-are-incorporated-by-reference Supreme Court reshapes UK competition class actions landscape https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-12/supreme-court-reshapes-uk-competition-class-actions-landscape Government to legislate for enforceability of litigation funding agreements based on a share of damages https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-12/government-to-legislate-for-enforceability-of-litigation-funding-agreements-based-on-a-share-of-damages Banking Litigation Yearbook and broader Disputes Yearbook for 2025 https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-12/banking-litigation-yearbook-and-broader-disputes-yearbook-for-2025 2026 Global FSR Outlook: The Human Element | Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer | Global law firm https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2026-01/2026-global-fsr-outlook-the-human-element

Corporate crime cases in Latin America - why are they leading the field? If it's interesting, do like, subscribe and leave us a review. Want to find out more? Check out all the background information on our website including hundreds more podcasts on international justice covering all the angles: https://www.asymmetricalhaircuts.com/ Or you can sign up to our newsletter: https://www.asymmetricalhaircuts.com/newsletters/ Did you like what you heard? Tip us here: https://www.asymmetricalhaircuts.com/support-us/ Or want to support us long term? Check out our Patreon, where - for the price of a cup of coffee every month - you also become part of our War Criminals Bookclub and can make recommendations on what we should review next, here: https://www.patreon.com/c/AsymmetricalHaircuts Asymmetrical Haircuts is created, produced and presented by Janet Anderson and Stephanie van den Berg, together with a small team of producers, assistant producers, researchers and interns. Check out the team here: https://www.asymmetricalhaircuts.com/what-about-asymmetrical-haircuts/

Growth may be booming across Georgia, yet getting new housing approved often feels like running an obstacle course designed by politics, not policy. Simon Bloom, founding partner of Bloom Parham LLP, joins Host Carol Morgan on the Atlanta Real Estate Forum Radio podcast to pull back the curtain on the zoning battles shaping what gets built, where and at what cost. During this episode on “Unbridled Politics,” he will discuss the political and procedural challenges shaping zoning and land use in Georgia. Drawing on decades of experience representing builders and developers, he explains why projects often get caught in red tape, why build-to-rent (BTR) housing is targeted and how Georgia's fragmented local government contributes to inefficiency and higher housing costs. How Politics and Public Input Affect Development Bloom emphasized that zoning decisions in Georgia are driven less by technical merit than by politics: “If a politician or public official wants your project, it’s going to go forward,” said Bloom. “And if he or she doesn’t, it isn’t. The merits sometimes get lost in just a matter of pure politics.” Developers face a range of hurdles, from rezoning denials to conditional-use permits and administrative slowdowns. Routine actions, such as delaying final plats or withholding building permits, can derail projects entirely. Litigation is sometimes necessary, not as a first resort, but to ensure local governments follow proper procedures. Public opposition adds another layer of complexity. Organized neighborhood groups and homeowners now have unprecedented access to local meetings through streaming platforms and social media. While this transparency increases accountability, it can also make officials more cautious, further complicating development efforts. Why Build-to-Rent Projects Face Extra Hurdles Build-to-rent (BTR) projects face particular scrutiny, even as the demand for affordable rental housing continues to grow. “The cities and counties that say they need affordable housing are doing everything in their power to make it unaffordable and causing gentrification,” said Bloom. “They are driving the folks that they want to be living in their communities out into ‘the sticks.'” Part of the paradox lies in administrative inefficiencies and local mandates that increase cost and complexity. For example, some counties require side-entry garages in high-density developments—a design choice that increases lot sizes and, in turn, raises prices for buyers and renters. Add to that the need for detailed engineering studies, repeated public hearings and permit fees, and BTR builders and developers face substantial “chase costs” long before construction begins. Legislative solutions to streamline zoning and clarify local requirements have progressed slowly. Efforts to limit local control over architectural standards or to prevent bans on BTR have made modest gains. State lawmakers often consider input from local governments, which influences the pace and scope of reforms. Meanwhile, impact fees—sometimes adding thousands of dollars to individual projects—remain a factor that can increase costs and create differences across communities. On a larger scale, Bloom identifies Georgia's large number of local governments as a source of inefficiency. The state has 159 counties and 500 cities, each with separate planning departments, zoning boards and codes. This patchwork of rules forces engineers, lawyers and developers to navigate vastly different requirements across municipalities, slowing housing production and driving up costs. Navigating the Zoning Landscape Bloom encourages builders and developers to engage early with district commissioners or council members and maintain transparent communication with neighbors and planning staff. Understanding how “district-friendly” voting works, where council members often follow the lead of their district commissioner, can help projects move forward more efficiently. Bloom said, “Without your district commissioner championing your rezoning, your chances of success are much lower.” Tune in to the full episode to hear Simon Bloom discuss how politics and local regulations shape Georgia housing zoning and to learn what builders and developers can do to navigate these challenges. Learn more about Bloom Parham LLP at https://BloomParham.com. About Bloom Parham LLP Bloom Parham provides business owners with the litigation and counsel needed to succeed in real estate and related business disputes, including property development, leasing and commercial transactions. Founded in 2007, the firm delivers high-quality legal support with the full range of services clients expect from a large firm, but in the accessible, personalized environment of a boutique practice. Clients build long-term relationships with trusted advisors who understand both their real estate ventures and unique legal challenges. With a commitment to exceptional results and a supportive workplace, Bloom Parham empowers clients while maintaining a strong presence in the community. Podcast Thanks Thank you to Denim Marketing for sponsoring Atlanta Real Estate Forum Radio. Known as a trendsetter, Denim Marketing has been blogging since 2006 and podcasting since 2011. Contact them when you need quality, original content for social media, public relations, blogging, email marketing and promotions. A comfortable fit for companies of all shapes and sizes, Denim Marketing understands marketing strategies are not one-size-fits-all. The agency works with your company to create a perfectly tailored marketing strategy that will suit your needs and niche. Try Denim Marketing on for size by calling 770-383-3360 or by visiting www.DenimMarketing.com. About Atlanta Real Estate Forum Radio Atlanta Real Estate Forum Radio, presented by Denim Marketing, highlights the movers and shakers in the Atlanta real estate industry – the home builders, developers, Realtors and suppliers working to provide the American dream for Atlantans. For more information on how you can be featured as a guest, contact Denim Marketing at 770-383-3360 or fill out the Atlanta Real Estate Forum contact form. Subscribe to the Atlanta Real Estate Forum Radio podcast on iTunes, and if you like this week's show, be sure to rate it. Atlanta Real Estate Forum Radio was recently honored on FeedSpot's Top 100 Atlanta Podcasts, ranking 16th overall and number one out of all ranked real estate podcasts. The post Simon Bloom: Unpacking Georgia Zoning Politics appeared first on Atlanta Real Estate Forum.

Send a textIf you're trying to grow your practice but still marketing yourself as “I do everything,” this episode is for you.  Sylvia Garibaldi sits down with veteran family lawyer Steve Benmor to discuss how he successfully shifted his practice from litigation to mediation. You'll hear how niche positioning builds authority, why generalists often get overlooked, and how reputation, visibility, and specialization work together to drive referrals. Steve also shares how shifting from litigation to mediation reshaped not just his practice model—but his brand—and why becoming known for something specific is what ultimately gets you the call! He also discusses founding the Divorce Coaches Association of Ontario and how collaborating with divorce coaches strengthens outcomes for families — and referrals for professionals.What you'll learn:03:48 Steve's Journey from Litigation to Mediation07:42 The Adversarial vs. Mediation Model11:18 Marketing Mediation and Arbitration20:04 Building a Reputation and Expertise25:28 Identifying Your Ideal Client32:13 Referral Partnerships and Marketing Strategies37:47 The Role of Divorce Coaches40:39 Creating the Divorce Coaches Association of OntarioResources:Feeling stuck about how to grow your practice, book a free strategy call here.Learn more about Steve Benmor at Benmor Family Law Group:https://benmor.com/https://www.linkedin.com/in/benmorfamilylawgroup/Resources Library: https://benmor.com/our-library/ Learn more about Divorce Coaches of Ontario (DCAO):https://dcao.ca/Rate, Review, & Follow on Apple Podcasts"Love listening and learning from the Serve First, Sell Later Marketing Podcast” If that sounds like you, please consider rating and reviewing my show! This helps me support more people -- just like you. Click here, scroll to the bottom, tap to rate with five stars, and select “Write a Review.” Then be sure to let me know what you loved most about the episode! Want more insights like this? Sign up for our newsletter. Sign up for our free LinkedIn newsletter on marketing your professional practice Connect with me on linkedin Join our online community Subscribe to my youtube channel

In this episode, Sam Ashoo, MD interviews Jeff Willis, MD on the topic of pre-litigation review, being a medical expert, and common pitfalls leading to medical malpractice cases. 0:15 Introduction0:51 Guest Introduction1:20 Jeff's Background2:00 Current Work3:37 How He Got Started6:57 Pre-Litigation vs. Expert Witness8:01 Four Components of Malpractice Cases13:55 Case Review Statistics17:11 When Cases Get Filed18:58 Common Patterns in Cases19:55 Documentation Best Practices22:06 Shift Handoff Problems25:56 Bounce Backs27:25 Medical Record Volume30:00 Audit Trails32:53 Communication with Consultants41:35 Conflicting Documentation43:46 Getting Started in This Work47:37 ClosingEmergency Medicine Residents, get your free subscription by writing resident@ebmedicine.net

Pesticide Laws and Litigation 2025 Kansas Wildfire Awareness Week Leaky Gut in Cattle   00:01:05 – Pesticide Laws and Litigation: Roger McEowen, K-State and Washburn law professor, starts off the show as he explains pesticide shield laws and what decision we will get in 2026. Pesticide "Shield" Laws Roger on AgManager.info   00:12:05 – 2025 Kansas Wildfire Awareness Week: Continuing the show is Kansas Forest Service's fire prevention specialist, Shawna Hartman, as she discusses Kansas Wildfire Awareness Week and how people can help reduce wildfire risks. KansasForests.org   00:23:05 – Leaky Gut in Cattle: Part of a Beef Cattle Institute Cattle Chat podcast ends the show as Brad White, Bob Larson, Phillip Lancaster, Scott Fritz and Liliana Rivas chat about leaky gut and what causes it  BCI Cattle Chat Podcast Bovine Science with BCI Podcast Email BCI at bci@ksu.edu     Send comments, questions or requests for copies of past programs to ksrenews@ksu.edu.   Agriculture Today is a daily program featuring Kansas State University agricultural specialists and other experts examining ag issues facing Kansas and the nation. It is hosted by Shelby Varner and distributed to radio stations throughout Kansas and as a daily podcast.   K‑State Extension is a short name for the Kansas State University Cooperative Extension Service, a program designed to generate and distribute useful knowledge for the well‑being of Kansans. Supported by county, state, federal and private funds, the program has county Extension offices statewide. Its headquarters is on the K‑State campus in Manhattan. For more information, visit www.ksre.ksu.edu. K-State Extension is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. describes the surprising connection between Meat Loaf's 1993 hit song I Would Do Anything for Love (But I Won't Do That) and the Reptile Theory. Bill breaks down the correlation between the lyrics of this love song and the unreasonable expectations and standards that are present in Reptile questions. He explains how attorneys need to help witnesses understand that circumstances and judgment play a pivotal role when responding to classic Reptile questions in deposition.

A federal jury in Phoenix ordered Uber to pay $8.5 million to passenger Jaylen Dean after she was raped by an Uber driver in November 2023. This landmark verdict represents the first time Uber has been found liable in a sexual assault case, potentially affecting over 3,000 pending lawsuits against the rideshare company. The jury rejected Uber's longstanding defense that drivers are independent contractors rather than employees, establishing crucial legal precedent for future cases.Court records reveal that between 2017 and 2022, Uber received reports of sexual assault or misconduct approximately every 8 minutes in the United States. That amounts to at least seven reports per hour, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. These numbers are widely believed to be dramatically underreported due to shame, fear, and victims' belief that nothing will be done.Evidence presented during the trial showed that Uber's internal systems flagged Jaylen Dean's ride as high risk for a serious safety incident moments before pickup, yet the company chose not to warn her, with executives testifying it would have been "impractical" to do so. This revelation undermines Uber's public claims about prioritizing rider safety above all else.The case highlights systemic failures in rideshare safety protocols and raises questions about liability when companies classify workers as independent contractors while simultaneously monitoring risk levels. Uber spokesperson Matt Colin stated the verdict "affirms that Uber acted responsibly" while simultaneously announcing plans to appeal. The plaintiff's attorneys had requested $144 million in damages. Uber maintains that 99.9% of rides occur without incident, though critics argue this statistic minimizes thousands of annual assault victims. The legal battle continues as rideshare companies face increasing scrutiny over sexual violence during rides. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk - Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole - Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social - Connect on Substack: https://mdg650hawk.substack.com - Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hawkpodcasts - Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdg650hawk - Connect on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mdg650hawk ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Content Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTB

Meal Culpa welcomes to the show Michael's old friend and former lawyer, Danya Perry. Danya is a founding partner at Perry Guha LLP. She is a nationally recognized white-collar criminal defense attorney and commercial litigator. Danya is equally gifted at litigating high-profile matters in court and in the press as she is at navigating backchannels to obtain quiet victories for her clients. Danya has represented corporations and individuals from every walk of life. And her criminal defense practice includes representing clients in cases involving everything from fraud to sexual assault of both men and women. Prior to founding Perry Guha with Samidh Guha in 2019, Danya spent five years as the Chief of Litigation and Deputy General Counsel at MacAndrews & Forbes Incorporated. From 2002 to 2013, Danya served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York Today she is a regular media commentator, on MSNBC, CNN, and BBC. She's also written a number of op-eds ...

This week on the Justice Team Podcast, Brandon Simon & Sevy Fisher are here to lay out best practices for litigation! Join them to hear about the impact of developing a relationship with opposing counsel, how to pick your battles in trial - and most importantly, why you NEED to hit the golf course every once in a while! If you enjoy this video, like, subscribe, and share with a friend! Justice HQ community subscriptions are open to all starting at $20 a month. Go to www.justicehq.com or download the mobile app today! Attorney Share lets you track your co-counsel cases with automations, and turn cases you can't take into revenue for your firm with the public marketplace. You can sign up now for a free account at www.attorneyshare.com. Have a legal need or question? Call our law firm, the Justice Team at 844-THE-TEAM, or visit justiceteam.com!

In today's episode of iGaming Daily, host and SBC Media Manager Charlie Horner is joined by SBC Editor-at-Large Ted Menmuir alongside a special guest, Tamsin Blow, Partner in the Litigation and Arbitration Group at CMS and a member of the International Masters of Gaming Law (IMGL), to break down the landmark Betfair Court of Appeal ruling and what it means for duty of care, player protection, and the future legal responsibilities of UK gambling operators.Tune in to today's episode to find out:Why the UK Court of Appeal rejected the argument that operators owe a common-law duty of care to gambling customersHow negligence, breach of statutory duty, and breach of contract were assessed in the Gibson vs Betfair claimWhere the legal boundary now sits between LCCP regulatory obligations and civil liabilityWhether failures in safer gambling practices could ever lead to compensation claims in future casesWhat this ruling means for both operator compliance strategies and consumer responsibility going forwardHost: Charlie HornerGuests: Ted Menmuir & Tamsin BlowProducer: Anaya McDonaldEditor: Anaya McDonaldLearn how Optimove's Positionless Marketing is changing how iGaming teams operate. Discover how operators are using Optimove's Positionless Marketing Platform to launch personalized CRM campaigns, dynamically change casino lobbies and bet slips, and create engaging gamified experiences. Learn more at optimove.com.To see how this approach comes to life, Optimove Connect returns to London on March 11 and 12, 2026. It is the only user conference where marketers from around the world share real-world results of Positionless Marketing driving efficiency and ROI. Register at connect.optimove.com.Finally, remember to check out Optimove at https://hubs.la/Q02gLC5L0 or go to Optimove.com/sbc to get your first month free when buying the industry's leading customer-loyalty service.

In this episode of our Litigation Lens podcast series, shareholders Michael Nail (Greenville) and Heather Ptasznik (Detroit (Metro)) discuss a recent Sixth Circuit decision affirming a jury verdict for an employee on ADA disability discrimination and retaliation claims based on night blindness. The speakers review how this ruling reinforces that night blindness can qualify as an ADA-protected disability, with practical takeaways for employers on timing, documentation, and recognizing accommodation requests.

Ellingburg v. United States concerned whether forced restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (MVRA), was a civil remedy or a criminal penalty. The MVRA requires defendants who are convicted of some types of federal crimes to pay monetary restitution to the victims. Holsey Ellingburg committed a robbery in 1995. Then, during the course of his trial, the MVRA was passed. When sentenced, he was given both a prison sentence and ordered to pay mandatory restitution under the MVRA. Ellingburg eventually challenged the forced restitution, arguing that the application of the MVRA to him violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Eighth Circuit ruled against Ellingburg, holding that MVRA restitution is a civil remedy. Ellingburg petitioned the Supreme Court for review, which held the MVRA is "plainly criminal punishment" and thus its application to Ellingburg violated the Ex Post Facto clause.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we break down and analyze the decision and what its impacts may be.Featuring:Matthew P. Cavedon, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute(Moderator) Sarah Field, Chief Counsel, Legal Policy, Koch Capabilities, LLC

Think a lost patent ends the story? We unpack how Lego turned a single technical invention into a platform for decades of innovation, brand power, and adult creativity. Starting with the 1958 stud-and-tube coupling, we explain what the original brick patent really covered, why its expiry didn't sink the company, and how modern patents protect motion, mechanisms, and programmable systems rather than basic interlocking. From there, we map the rest of the toolkit: trademarks for source identity, design rights for appearance, and copyrights for expressive elements.We also dive into the courtroom rulers that drew bright lines on functionality. Attempts to trademark the brick shape faltered in Canada and the EU because function can't double as a brand signifier, while the minifigure shape prevailed as a 3D trademark. A later EU design-rights win showed that even bricks have protectable visual features when not purely functional. Enforcement cases against Best-Lock and Lepin underline how copyrights and trade dress defend minifigures, packaging, and character designs across markets.Then we switch from courts to culture. Lego's adult strategy blends nostalgia with display-worthy design: Star Wars Ultimate Collector Series, sleek Architecture skylines, and the Botanical collection that doubles as decor. Black-box, 18+ packaging telegraphs “made for you,” and the brand leans into mindful building as a calming, creative ritual. Finally, we explore Lego Serious Play, an open-source methodology that spreads fast through facilitators while the company retains the brand and sells specialized kits. It's a masterclass in sharing the method but owning the name.If you enjoy smart takes on how IP, marketing, and design shape the products you love, hit follow, share this with a friend who builds, and leave a review to tell us which Lego insight surprised you most.Send us a textCheck out "Protection for the Inventive Mind" – available now on Amazon in print and Kindle formats. The views and opinions expressed (by the host and guest(s)) in this podcast are strictly their own and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the entities with which they may be affiliated. This podcast should in no way be construed as promoting or criticizing any particular government policy, institutional position, private interest or commercial entity. Any content provided is for informational and educational purposes only.

Holly Howanitz, Managing Partner with Tyson & Mendes, joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to discuss the current state of litigation in Florida after the tort reform bill H.B. 837 was passed in March 2023. Holly shares how both tort reform and the new rules of civil procedure that went into effect in January 2025 are impacting cases. The biggest change that Holly has seen is related to medical bills since whether the plaintiff had health insurance was not allowed to be discussed in court before tort reform. Bill and Holly also discuss how to handle anchoring, thoughts on medical billing experts, dealing with modified comparative negligence, eggshell plaintiffs, anchoring apportionment, and more.

Here are your PFAS headlines from across the USA! In New Jersey we have a new ban on PFAS products! Next up is the Great Lakes region and the state of Wisconsin. We've seen a big fight over PFAS in particular in Wisconsin, where state lawmakers are trying to figure out how and where to set their PFAS limits. We've got even more happening in the state as we turn now to the small town of Stella where residents have been dealing with the fallout of contamination from a paper mill. Jumping over now to North Carolina where a study done across the state found PFAS concentrations above federal limits. Hosts Tom Simmons and Matthew Wallace are here to break it down. Listen to learn more and subscribe to The Pulse for all the details.

In this episode we cover: Hasbro shareholder lawsuit, gamer audience retention, High Guard failed release, YouTube not monetizing AI channels, and NBA 2K update.   Please remember to rate the show and leave a comment! DeQuan - @powrdragn Brian - @brianpsionic Color of Magic Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/ColorofMagic Website: https://www.colorofmtg.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/ColorofMTG Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/colorofmtg

In this episode of the Translation Company Talk, we speak with Carmen Hiers, Founder of TransForma Translation Services, about the often-overlooked role translation plays in cross-border litigation. Drawing on nearly two decades of experience working with law firms, Carmen explains where translation becomes legally critical, why courts require certificates of accuracy rather than “certified translators,” and how misunderstandings around translation can create serious legal risk. We also explore how law firms can better plan for multilingual litigation, manage high-volume document workflows under tight deadlines, and evaluate whether a language service provider is equipped to handle complex, regulated cases. The conversation examines the real impact of AI in legal translation, where automation helps, and where human accountability remains non-negotiable, offering practical guidance for litigators who want to turn translation from a last-minute headache into a strategic advantage. language service provider is equipped to handle complex, regulated cases. The conversation examines the real impact of AI in legal translation, where automation helps, and where human accountability remains non-negotiable, offering practical guidance for litigators who want to turn translation from a last-minute headache into a strategic advantage.

Nathania Reyes litigates commercial disputes on behalf of financial services organizations like banks. Nathania recounts her journey from uncertain law student to finding her place in civil litigation. She describes her diverse experiences, including immigration and in-house internships, a judicial clerkship, and her transition to private practice. She emphasizes the importance of work-life balance at her current firm, how the Hispanic Bar Association has shaped her career to date, and how she's expanding her expertise in various commercial litigation areas. Nathania touches on networking and business development, highlighting the value of persistence in the face of rejection. Nathania is a 2017 graduate of Rutgers University School of Law.This episode is hosted by Kyle McEntee.Mentioned in this episode:Colorado Law SchoolLearn more about Colorado LawLoyola Law SchoolLearn more about Loyola Law SchoolAccess LawHub today!

Conner is a Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center graduate and currently works as a Litigation and Enforcement Associate at Ropes & Gray. Conner's journey to Law School and the Law is a story of a desire to help others, make a bit more money, and get the experience to work in the greatest city in the world. In this episode, Conner and I discussed his reasons to go to Law School, growing up on Long Island (fellow Long Islanders), his unique experience as part of the part-time evening program, and his 1L experience. As well, Conner spoke about his day-to-day life as a Litigation associate in BigLaw, dispelling some BigLaw myths, and his exceptional experience thus far. All in all, Conner preaches the importance of having a schedule, staying organized, and executing at every step of the way! Conner's LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/conner-purcell-790193150Be sure to check out the Official Sponsors for the Lawyers in the Making Podcast:Rhetoric - Empowers your teaching and training with AI that strengthens learning, protects integrity, and proves authentic understanding, for students and professionals alike, with CICERO. Find them here: userhetoric.comThe Law School Operating System™ Recorded Course - This course is for ambitious law students who want a proven, simple system to learn every topic in their classes to excel in class and on exams. Go to www.lisablasser.com, check out the student tab with course offerings, and use code LSOSNATE10 at checkout for 10% off Lisa's recorded course!Start LSAT - Founded by former guest and 22-year-old superstar, Alden Spratt, Start LSAT was built upon breaking down barriers, allowing anyone access to high-quality LSAT Prep. For $110, you get the Start LSAT self-paced course, and using code LITM10, you get 10% off the self-paced course! Check out Alden and Start LSAT at startlsat.com and use code LITM10 for 10% off the self-paced course!Lawyers in the Making Podcast is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Lawyers in the Making Podcast at lawyersinthemaking.substack.com/subscribe

Recent federal prosecutions have renewed attention on the administration and future of the federal death penalty. This panel brings together experienced capital litigators to examine the evolving legal, institutional, and practical landscape facing federal practitioners.Panelists will address issues including the use of commutations and clemency, charging and authorization protocols in capital cases, litigation strategies unique to federal death-eligible prosecutions, and the interaction between federal and state capital regimes. The discussion will situate current high-profile cases within broader doctrinal and policy trends, assessing how differing approaches across recent administrations have shaped prosecutorial discretion, defense strategy, and judicial oversight in capital litigation.The panel will also provide forward-looking perspectives on where federal death penalty practice may be headed, including implications for future administrations and for capital litigation nationwide.Featuring:Prof. David I. Bruck, Professor of Law, Emeritus, Washington and Lee University School of LawSteve Mellin, Retired Assistant United States AttorneyJohnny Sutton, Partner, Ashcroft(Moderator) James M. Trusty, Member, Ifrah Law

Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., both involve the question of whether states can designate women’s sports based on biological sex consistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.In 2020 and 2021, Idaho and West Virginia passed laws that required public schools and colleges to designate sports by biological sex and to forbid males from competing on women’s sports teams. Two male athletes who identified as females, one a middle school shot-put and discus thrower and the other a collegiate cross-country runner, challenged the laws in the U.S. District Courts for the District of Idaho and Southern District of West Virginia, alleging a right to compete in women’s sports and saying the state laws discriminate on the basis of sex and transgender status in violation of Title IX and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. In Little v. Hecox, the Idaho district court entered a preliminary injunction against the Idaho law for violating the Equal Protection Clause, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. In West Virginia v. B.P.J., the West Virginia district court preliminarily enjoined the West Virginia law for violating Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause and then dissolved that injunction, upholding the law at summary judgment. The Fourth Circuit reversed and ordered the district court to enjoin the law for violating Title IX.The Supreme Court granted certiorari, and oral argument is set for January 13, 2026. Join us for a post-oral argument Courthouse Steps program where we will break down and analyze how both oral arguments went before the Court.Featuring:Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Legal Fellow, Defending Education(Moderator) William E. Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation

In Barrett v. United States, the Court was asked to consider the relationship between two provisions of the Armed Career Criminal Act and whether a single act that violated both provisions could yield two convictions. The Court held the answer was "no", with a majority of the Court holding that Congress did not "clearly authorize" two convictions stemming from a single act.Though at first glance a technical case related to a provision of the federal criminal code, Barrett raises interesting questions about the Double Jeopardy clause, statutory interpretation, and sentencing.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we break down and analyze the decision and what its impacts may be.Featuring: William S. McClintock, Partner, Special Matters and Government Investigations, King & Spalding LLP

Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections involved whether a candidate for federal office has standing to challenge an Illinois law that requires election officials to count mail-in ballots postmarked or certified as of election day and received within two weeks of the election.Following the 2024 election cycle, Congressman Michael Bost and two other political candidates sued the state board of elections, contending that counting ballots after election day violated federal law (principally 2 U. S. C. §7 and 3 U. S. C. §1, which set election day as the Tuesday following the first Monday in November). The district court dismissed the case, deciding the candidates lacked standing and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. Now the Supreme Court has reversed that ruling, holding in a decision by Chief Justice Roberts that Bost had standing to challenge the rules dealing with the counting of votes in his election.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we break down and analyze the decision and what its impacts may be.Featuring:Jason Torchinsky, Partner, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC(Moderator) Hans A. Von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Institute for the Rule of Law, Advancing American Freedom

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-opperman-report--1198501/support.

Episode 253 :     Intro:       Welcome to the newest episode of Pi Perspectives. On today's episode, Matt welcomes Judie Saunders from Ask, LLP. Judie has made a career out of representing individuals that have been a victim of sex crimes. There is some real synergy between an investigator and a sexual assault attorney. This conversation brings attention to sex traffic and assault awareness month. Please welcome Judie Saunders and your host, NY Private eye, Matt Spaier  Links:      Matt's email: MatthewS@Satellitepi.com   Linkedin: Matthew Spaier       www.investigators-toolbox.com   Judie on Linkedin: Judie Suanders https://askllp.com/attorneys/judie-a-saunders/
 PI-Perspectives Youtube link:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYB3MaUg8k5w3k7UuvT6s0g Sponsors:     https://piinstitute.com/ https://researchfpr.com/ https://orep.org/ PI Survey https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/YDCSVWS FBI Tip Line https://tips.fbi.gov/home https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/newyork/about - (212) 384-1000

Can you copyright a horoscope, enhance a century-old tarot deck and claim protection, or assign your stage name and lose it in court? We open the year by charting the legal sky where creativity, belief, and branding intersect—and sometimes collide. From a syndicated astrologer's claim that near-identical forecasts kept running without a license, to a software company's short-lived effort to assert control over historical time zone data, we unpack the crucial line between ideas and expression, facts and creativity, public domain and protectable derivative work.We also step into the studio with the icons. The Walter Mercado saga reveals how a personal brand can be transformed into a trademark owned by someone else, with lasting consequences for the artist behind it. Along the way, we explore what separates simple restoration from original creativity in tarot publishing, why databases of raw facts remain free for all, and how small wording choices in daily horoscopes can carry real legal weight. The thread tying it all together: the cosmos is shared; the way we package it is not.Expect practical takeaways for creators, publishers, and entrepreneurs: register original writing, document design decisions, start from public-domain sources rather than competitors' upgrades, and read every clause before assigning names, logos, or likenesses. If you're building an astrology app, launching a zodiac product line, or reviving classic esoteric art, this deep dive will help you navigate trademarks, copyrights, and contracts without dimming your creative light.Enjoy the episode? Follow the show, share it with a friend who loves law or the stars, and leave a quick review to help others find us. What boundary do you think should exist between shared culture and private ownership? Tell us—your take might shape a future episode.Send us a textCheck out "Protection for the Inventive Mind" – available now on Amazon in print and Kindle formats. The views and opinions expressed (by the host and guest(s)) in this podcast are strictly their own and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the entities with which they may be affiliated. This podcast should in no way be construed as promoting or criticizing any particular government policy, institutional position, private interest or commercial entity. Any content provided is for informational and educational purposes only.

The evidence is mounting that ICE is not only unbothered by moral boundaries, but immigration and customs enforcement agents acting on behalf of President Trump believe they are not constrained by constitutional red lines, either. According to a super-secret internal memo flagged in a whistleblower complaint this week, the Fourth Amendment simply doesn't apply to ICE. That sense of impunity is also clear in a growing chamber of horrors from their enforcement operations; from masked agents taking a child in a blue bunny hat, to the shooting of Renee Good. Worryingly, this sweeping concept of immunity is kind of true—though maybe not for the reason you think. This week on Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick talks with Alex Reinert, the Max Freund Professor of Litigation & Advocacy at Cardozo School of Law. He is also the director of the Center for Rights and Justice and Co-Director of the Floersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy. Alex explains the origins of qualified immunity—a legal theory that allows law enforcement officers to be free from consequences for their actions—why ICE's lawlessness is not a new phenomenon (even if it is a phenomenon in hyperdrive under Trump), and what we can do about the obvious problem of maximal impunity for the people who have the most power to inflict harm.Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The evidence is mounting that ICE is not only unbothered by moral boundaries, but immigration and customs enforcement agents acting on behalf of President Trump believe they are not constrained by constitutional red lines, either. According to a super-secret internal memo flagged in a whistleblower complaint this week, the Fourth Amendment simply doesn't apply to ICE. That sense of impunity is also clear in a growing chamber of horrors from their enforcement operations; from masked agents taking a child in a blue bunny hat, to the shooting of Renee Good. Worryingly, this sweeping concept of immunity is kind of true—though maybe not for the reason you think. This week on Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick talks with Alex Reinert, the Max Freund Professor of Litigation & Advocacy at Cardozo School of Law. He is also the director of the Center for Rights and Justice and Co-Director of the Floersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy. Alex explains the origins of qualified immunity—a legal theory that allows law enforcement officers to be free from consequences for their actions—why ICE's lawlessness is not a new phenomenon (even if it is a phenomenon in hyperdrive under Trump), and what we can do about the obvious problem of maximal impunity for the people who have the most power to inflict harm.Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The evidence is mounting that ICE is not only unbothered by moral boundaries, but immigration and customs enforcement agents acting on behalf of President Trump believe they are not constrained by constitutional red lines, either. According to a super-secret internal memo flagged in a whistleblower complaint this week, the Fourth Amendment simply doesn't apply to ICE. That sense of impunity is also clear in a growing chamber of horrors from their enforcement operations; from masked agents taking a child in a blue bunny hat, to the shooting of Renee Good. Worryingly, this sweeping concept of immunity is kind of true—though maybe not for the reason you think. This week on Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick talks with Alex Reinert, the Max Freund Professor of Litigation & Advocacy at Cardozo School of Law. He is also the director of the Center for Rights and Justice and Co-Director of the Floersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy. Alex explains the origins of qualified immunity—a legal theory that allows law enforcement officers to be free from consequences for their actions—why ICE's lawlessness is not a new phenomenon (even if it is a phenomenon in hyperdrive under Trump), and what we can do about the obvious problem of maximal impunity for the people who have the most power to inflict harm.Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

I stumbled on this old interview and it brought me to tears. It was a 2020 spontaneous interview of me by Peirce Redmond Porkins Policy Radio. You can hear behind the scenes info about Steven Hoffenbergs plan to use legal Judo to get US Virgin Islands to go after Epsteins Estate. This was BEFORE USVI went after the Trust over the tax fraud and started all the litigation. It confirms what I've always hinted that it was Steven Hoffenberg that initiated all that litigation. You can also hear and feel my personal excitement because Hoffenberg was retaining me to help with the VI and I had hopes we could get a piece of the $600 million. Everything you hear in this interview was before the news reports, before Virgin Islands started suing Epstein before the settlements, before the tax settlement. We were discussing the fact that the DNA research stuff was a scam and a fraud while people today still think it's real. So first I made a commentary then I play the Redmond interview from 2020.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-opperman-report--1198501/support.