Podcasts about The Long Arm

Your money is ready for retirement. Are you? Get started on Future You. _________________________ What might happen if retirement gives you permission to become a beginner again? After more than four decades in journalism, including a long career at The Wall Street Journal, Neil Lipschutz began an entirely different chapter—as a mystery novelist. In this conversation, Neil discusses career identity, creative work and the importance of giving retirement some structure without locking yourself into a rigid plan. He also shares a powerful lesson from his own second act: enjoy the process of pursuing something meaningful without making your satisfaction dependent on how other people measure the outcome. _________________________ Bio Neal Lipschutz, a long-time journalist, was formerly a deputy editor-in-chief at The Wall Street Journal. He also previously served as WSJ’s ethics and standards editor. He also at one time was the top editor at Dow Jones Newswires. His short fiction has appeared in a number of publications. “Long Arm of the Past” is his second novel in the Scott Morgan series following his debut novel  “No Write Way to Die” in 2025. __________________________ For More on Neal Lipschutz Author Website Long Arm of the Past (A Scott Morgan Mystery) No Write Way to Die ___________________________ Other Retirement Podcast Conversations You’ll Love How to Flourish…in Retirement – Daniel Coyle Change Your Questions, Change Your Life…in Retirement – Marilee Adams, PhD Mattering…in Retirement – Jennifer Breheny Wallace ____________________________ Wise Quotes On Retiring External Validation “Enjoy the process… and try to separate that from whether it was ultimately a success in some other person’s eyes.” On Finding a New Center “It’s such an opportunity to try something new, to find some new purpose, to find some new center around which to organize your life.” On Idenity “I felt like a human being before I had a career…I’m not sure I need a career to justify my identity now.” _____________________________ About The Retirement Wisdom Podcast There are many podcasts on retirement, often hosted by financial advisors with their own financial motives, that cover the money side of the street. This podcast is different. You'll get smarter about the investment decisions you'll make about the most important asset you'll have in retirement: your time. About Retirement Wisdom I help people who are retiring, but aren't quite done yet, discover what's next and build their custom version of their next life. A meaningful retirement doesn't just happen by accident. Schedule a call today to discuss how the Designing Your Life process created by Bill Burnett & Dave Evans can help you make your life in retirement a great one — on your own terms. About Your Podcast Host Joe Casey is an executive coach who helps people design their next life after their primary career and create their version of The Multipurpose Retirement.™ He created his own next chapter after a 26-year career at Merrill Lynch, where he was Senior Vice President and Head of HR for Global Markets & Investment Banking. Joe has earned Master's degrees from the University of Southern California in Gerontology (at age 60), the University of Pennsylvania, and Middlesex University (UK), a BA in Psychology from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, and his coaching certification from Columbia University. In addition to his work with clients, Joe hosts The Retirement Wisdom Podcast, ranked in the top 1% globally in popularity by Listen Notes, with over 2 million downloads. Business Insider recognized Joe as one of 23 innovative coaches who are making a difference. He's the author of Win the Retirement Game: How to Outsmart the 9 Forces Trying to Steal Your Joy.    

Professor Beck Strah and Producer Brit discuss a 7-Layer Dessert Dip, family podcasts, Flora, Illinois's bid to get a prison in their town, Brown County's bid for a prison and prison experience night, an early viral rap song, and The Last Seduction (1994)Chief Ed Guyott and the Long Arm of the Law Band - All We Want'sa Prison - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZVrckq-D-cBarbed Wire Choir - Is We Is -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5-d2WOgpfQ

Piero Tozzi and Gordon Chang explore the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) "long arm" influence in the U.S., specifically regarding a Purdue University professor pressured to cancel a speech at a Catholic conference. Tozzi explains that the CCP uses "patriotic churches" to "sinicize" Catholicism, which involves forcing the religion to conform to Party dictates. Tozzi criticizes the Vatican's "accommodationist approach" under the 2018 Sino-Vatican Accord, noting it neglects the persecuted "underground" church. He highlights that figures like Cardinal Zen and Archbishop Cordileone have been vocal defenders of figures like Jimmy Lai. Tozzi argues that the Catholic hierarchy must understand the totalitarian nature of the CCP, which seeks absolute control over all institutions. The discussion emphasizes that Chinese officials use intimidation to project dominance even within American universities and religious organizations. (4)

I am Rolf Claessen and my co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 177 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Dr. Ernst-Peter Heilein, who is a German and European patent attorney, the founder of HEILEIN IP LAW, and a long-time IP leader at BSH Home Appliances. He is the mastermind behind the BSH v. Electrolux decision of the European Court of Justice about long-arm jurisdiction in Europe that has the whole patent world stirring in Europe at the moment! But before we jump into this fascinating interview, I have news for you! Emboline v. AorticLab (UPC Court of Appeal) The UPC Court of Appeal has clarified for the first time how a conditional revocation counterclaim should be handled, in a dispute over Emboline’s embolic protection patent EP 2 129 425 against AorticLab. A defendant can validly make its revocation counterclaim conditional on infringement being found first, meaning no ruling on the counterclaim is needed if the infringement claim fails, as the Munich Local Division had held. The Court of Appeal also closed a related gap: if the claimant appeals a non-infringement finding, the counterclaimant may conditionally appeal the unresolved counterclaim too. AorticLab missed its own appeal deadline and can now at best seek re-establishment of rights, while Emboline has already appealed the non-infringement finding. FujiFilm v. Kodak (UPC Court of Appeal) Following the closely watched long-arm jurisdiction ruling of June 2, the UPC Court of Appeal, chaired by Rian Kalden, has now granted FujiFilm an injunction against Kodak in a second proceeding. The Court upheld the limited printing plate patent and found that Kodak’s Sonora XTRA 3 plate infringes it. Kodak can no longer sell or use that plate in Germany. OpenAI v. EUIPO (General Court of the EU, T-555/25) The General Court’s Eighth Chamber dismissed OpenAI’s action against the EUIPO decision to partially cancel the OPENAI trademark. The partial refusal for classes 9, 42, and 45 rests decisively on Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR, the descriptiveness ground. For a significant part of the English-speaking public, “OPENAI” directly conveys that the goods or services are provided using freely accessible artificial intelligence. Dental Monitoring v. Align Technology (CAFC) On July 7, 2026, the Federal Circuit confirmed that AI and deep-learning patent claims covering dental image analysis are not patent-eligible under Section 101. Simply training a “deep learning device” on a specific dataset does not amount to a patent-eligible technical solution. Publisher v. Google (Munich I Regional Court) The Munich I Regional Court issued a preliminary injunction barring Google from spreading false factual claims about a publishing company in its AI Overviews. A search query combining the company’s name with the German term for “fraud scheme” had triggered an AI-generated summary containing entirely fabricated accusations of subscription traps. KPN v. Oppo (Federal Court of Justice, X ZR 103/24) On July 1, the Federal Court of Justice dismissed KPN’s appeal against the revocation of a central claim of its LTE patent EP 2 291 033. Oppo had successfully challenged the claim, leaving KPN’s infringement action against Oppo’s German distribution entity without a legal basis for now. BSH v. Electrolux: What the ECJ Ruling Means for Your Company’s Patent Enforcement Strategy A vacuum cleaner from 2001 has reshaped the European patent landscape. That sounds like an overstatement. It isn’t. For IP Fridays, I spoke with Dr. Ernst-Peter Heilein, founder of HEILEIN IP LAW and long-time Senior IP Leader at BSH Home Appliances. He guided the case BSH v. Electrolux from its first strategic idea all the way to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice, a case that earned the 2025 Managing IP Award as “Europe Impact Case of the Year.” For managing directors, IP heads, and R&D leaders at German Mittelstand companies, this case is not a legal footnote. It changes where you can enforce your patents, and it changes where you yourself can be sued if your company operates across several European markets. That is what this article is about. Background: How a Patent Dispute Became an ECJ Case The invention dates back to 2001 and concerns a new vacuum cleaner technology. In 2006, BSH identified what it believed was an unauthorized use of that invention and contacted Electrolux to clarify the situation. The European patent was granted in 2009 and validated in a number of European countries. Nobody, Heilein says, could have imagined at the time that this matter would eventually reach the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice almost twenty years later. In late 2018, BSH successfully defended the patent through opposition and appeal proceedings before the European Patent Office. In 2019, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf found that certain Electrolux vacuum cleaner models infringed the patent. A classic milestone win, the kind that occurs regularly in patent practice. Except the patent had been validated in many countries. Winning in Germany did not solve the enforcement problem everywhere else. Heilein describes the starting point in very concrete terms: how do you enforce a patent that exists in many countries without filing a separate lawsuit in every single one? And how do you prevent claims from becoming time-barred while you work that out? Running parallel proceedings in multiple countries is not just legally complex. It consumes time, personnel, and money that a mid-sized company rarely has in that quantity to spare. This is exactly where the real value of this case for you begins. From the outset, this was never an academic debate about jurisdiction. It was a question that every company holding rights in more than one country eventually faces: how do you enforce your rights efficiently without burning your budget on ten parallel proceedings? Brussels Ia Regulation: The Underrated Article 4 While searching for a solution, the BSH team came across Article 4 of the Brussels Ia Regulation. The underlying idea is simple: a person can generally be sued in the country where that person is based. In the BSH case, that pointed toward the Swedish home court, because Electrolux is headquartered in Stockholm. For a long time, this rule played no real role in patent practice. The widely held view was that cross-border patent litigation in Europe was effectively dead the moment a defendant challenged the validity of the patent. Anyone wanting to enforce a patent across several countries appeared to have no choice but to litigate country by country. Heilein and his team questioned that assumption instead of simply accepting it. This is the point I find most instructive: challenging accepted assumptions in your own field is often the difference between a standard solution and a strategic one. In 2020, the team decided to file the action in Sweden, aware that they were looking at a possibility, not a guarantee. Cross-Border Enforcement: The Three Questions Referred to Luxembourg After Electrolux challenged the validity of the patents, the Swedish home court declared itself not competent to hear the case. BSH appealed, and the Swedish Court of Appeal agreed to refer three questions to the European Court of Justice. The first question addressed the core problem: does a home court that would otherwise have jurisdiction over an infringement claim lose that jurisdiction simply because the defendant argues the patent is invalid? The second question concerned a feature common to many legal systems, including Germany’s, where infringement and validity are decided in separate proceedings. The third question originally concerned Turkey. Today, most people immediately think of the United Kingdom, and some even think of US patents. Originally, the question was simpler: do the same jurisdiction rules apply to patents from countries outside the European Union? The fact that the ECJ first assigned the case to a Chamber of seven judges and later referred it to the Grand Chamber of 15 judges already signaled how much weight the Court placed on these questions. The Judgment: What the ECJ Actually Decided A home court does not automatically lose jurisdiction simply because the defendant argues the patent is invalid. For many years, the opposite was widely assumed to be settled law. The ECJ made clear that this reading was too narrow. The court where the defendant is based can generally continue to hear the infringement case. One point matters for how you read this ruling: questions concerning the validity of a European patent still fall to the national courts of the country for which the patent was granted, as provided in Article 24(4) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. What is new is that the infringement case does not automatically collapse the moment validity is challenged. The home court keeps control of the overall proceeding. For patents from EU Member States, the home court does not automatically lose jurisdiction. It assesses the validity challenge. If it looks strong, the home court may stay the infringement case. If it looks weak, the home court may proceed. For patents from non-EU countries, the home court may stay the case if a validity proceeding is already pending there, drawing on Articles 33 and 34 of the Brussels Ia Regulation. The result is a considerably more flexible system than most observers expected . Patents from Outside the EU: Long-Arm Jurisdiction The part of the judgment with the greatest international reach concerns patents from countries outside the EU. The ECJ ruled that the special jurisdiction rule for patent validity generally does not apply to non-European patents. That means the general rule can apply instead, opening the door for infringement claims based on non-European patents to be brought before a home court where the defendant is based in the EU. Commentators quickly started calling this “long-arm jurisdiction.” One clarification matters here, because it tends to get lost in the public discussion: the ECJ did not say that a European home court can revoke or invalidate a foreign patent. That remains a matter for the authorities and courts of the country that granted it. What the ECJ said is that a European home court may assess the claims between the parties. That distinction is essential to how you should read this ruling. Consequences in Practice: Fujifilm, Regeneron, and Onesta Three recent cases show how quickly practice is already adapting to the new possibilities. Fujifilm v. Kodak: the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court accepted jurisdiction over the UK part of a European patent even before the ECJ delivered its judgment, building on reasoning the Advocate General had already signaled in the BSH case. In June 2026, the UPC Court of Appeal further developed that approach based on the principles confirmed in BSH. Regeneron v. Formycon: the Munich home court applied the BSH framework and granted a Europe-wide injunction based on a European patent, one of the first examples of a national home court putting the BSH logic into practice. Onesta v. BMW: this case shows the debate has moved well beyond Europe. After Onesta attempted to assert two US patents before the Munich home court, BMW obtained an anti-suit injunction from a Texas federal court. Judge Albright took the view that US patents should generally be decided by US courts. The injunction was directed against Onesta, not against the Munich court, and Onesta has appealed the Texas decision. The Munich home court stayed the proceeding but did not reject its own jurisdiction. Whether a European home court can ultimately decide infringement claims based on US patents remains an open question, one that has turned from a European jurisdiction issue into an international jurisdiction conflict. What This Means for Your Company Heilein sums up twenty years of litigation in three lessons, and I share this assessment without reservation when advising my Mittelstand clients. First: patent enforcement has become more international. National litigation still matters, but companies should think across borders from the very beginning, not only once the first cease-and-desist letter has been sent. Second: choice of forum now carries real strategic weight. Where you bring a case can matter just as much as the legal arguments themselves. Third: long-term commitment pays off. Major developments rarely result from a single filing or a single hearing. They come from pursuing a clear strategy consistently over many years. For you as a managing director, R&D lead, or Head of IP at an innovative Mittelstand company, this translates into two concrete points. First, if you hold rights in several European countries and a competitor infringes them, you no longer necessarily have to fund five or six parallel national proceedings. A single action at the infringer’s home base can be the economically smarter option. Second, and this side of the ruling gets less attention in public discussion, if your company is based in Germany and operates across several countries, you can now be sued at your own home base over patent infringement claims tied to activities in other countries. That risk belongs in every freedom-to-operate analysis and in every assessment tied to acquisitions or market entry. Here is the full transcript of the interview: Host Today's interview guest is Dr. Ernst-Peter Heilein. If you don't know Ernst-Peter, he is a German and European patent attorney, the founder of HEILEIN IP LAW, and a long-time IP leader at BSH Home Appliances. Thank you for being on IP Fridays. Answer Yeah, great to be here! BLOCK 1 – THE PERSON BEHIND THE CASE Host When looking at your career, one thing stands out: you never really followed the traditional path of either private practice or industry. Er, how did your professional journey begin, actually? Answer My professional roots are actually in private practice. After qualifying as a Patent Attorney, I worked in private practice and fairly early founded my own law firm, which later became HEILEIN IP LAW. Host So you never completely left private practice behind? Answer Exactly. In 2005, I had the opportunity to take on additional responsibilities on the BSH side. There, I was able to build and lead a new unit within the IP organization. The team was responsible for patents in the small appliances business, as well as global design and trademark protection. At the same time, I helped build an international network of internal and external IP counsel and coordinated their work. Host That still sounds fairly like traditional IP work. When did international disputes become part of your career? Answer Over time, my focus gradually shifted from traditional IP protection to strategic enforcement. That included anti-counterfeiting activities, global trademark and design matters, and cross-border patent disputes. Host So your work became more about enforcing rights rather than simply obtaining and managing them, right? Answer Exactly. And that development eventually led me to play a strategic role in the case BSH Home Appliances versus Electrolux, a case that still accompanies me today. Host Looking back now — from private practice, to building an international IP organization, and eventually becoming involved in a case before the European Court of Justice — did you ever imagine that path? Answer No, not at all. Looking back, this combination of private practice, responsibilities on the business side, and international enforcement experience turned out to be very useful when our case eventually reached the European Court of Justice. BLOCK 2 – HOW IT ALL STARTED Host Yeah, talking about this case. The case BSH versus Electrolux started long before it reached the European Court of Justice. When did the story actually begin? Answer The story actually begins much earlier than most people would expect. The invention itself dates back to 2001 and concerns a new vacuum cleaner technology. In 2006, we identified what we believed to be an unauthorized use of the invention and contacted Electrolux to clarify the situation. The European patent in suit was granted in 2009 and validated in a number of European countries. At the time, nobody could have imagined that this would eventually lead to a decision of the European Court of Justice almost twenty years later. Host Wow, 20 years! That's a long time. So, at first this was simply a normal patent dispute? Answer Yes, absolutely! After many years of opposition and appeal proceedings before the European Patent Office, we were finally able to defend the patent successfully in late 2018. Less than one year later, in the summer of 2019, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf found that certain Electrolux vacuum cleaner models infringed the patent. Host Er, at that point, one might think, that the patent owner had achieved its goal, right? Answer That is what many people would think. But that judgment did not bring the dispute to an end. A new challenge emerged. The patent had been validated in many European countries. Winning in one country, like Germany, did not automatically solve the enforcement issue in all the other countries. Host What was the practical problem then? Answer We were facing a very simple question: How do we enforce a patent that exists in many countries? And how do we prevent claims from becoming time-barred without filing separate infringement actions in every single country? Doing that would not only be legally complex. It would also require a huge amount of time, effort, and money. Host That sounds less like a major legal question and more like a business problem. Answer Exactly. At the beginning, this was not an academic discussion about jurisdiction. It was a very practical business question. How can we enforce our rights efficiently without running parallel lawsuits all over Europe? That was the real challenge we were trying to solve. BLOCK 3 – THE IDEA OF A CENTRAL ACTION Host So, how did the idea of one central action emerge? Answer While looking for possible solutions, we came across Article 4 of the Brussels Ia Regulation. The idea behind that rule is very simple. In general, a person can be sued in the country where that person is based. In our case, that pointed us toward the Swedish home court because Electrolux is based in Stockholm. Host That sounds like a fairly ordinary jurisdiction rule. Answer Yes. And that was exactly what made it interesting. Article 4 is the general rule. The question was whether that rule could also be used for patent infringement claims covering several countries. Host Was that a common approach at the time? Answer No. Quite the opposite. Many people believed that cross-border patent litigation in Europe was effectively dead. Host That sounds rather dramatic. Why did people think that? Answer Because there was a widely held view that a central patent case could be stopped as soon as the defendant challenged the validity of the patent. As a result, many companies assumed they had no real choice but to litigate country by country. Host Yet you decided to look at the issue differently. Answer Yes. Sometimes it is worth taking a fresh look at accepted assumptions. We felt that Article 4 might play a much more important role than many people believed. Host So at that point, you already saw an opportunity, right? Answer Yes, we saw a possibility! Not a guarantee. But we believed there was a strong legal basis for bringing all claims before the Swedish home court. Host And that eventually led to the lawsuit being filed in Sweden, right? Answer Exactly. In 2020, we decided to file the action in Sweden. That followed our success before the European Patent Office in late 2018 and in the Düsseldorf infringement proceedings in 2019. At that stage, our objective was very practical. We were simply trying to find an efficient way to enforce rights that exist in many countries. Host At that point, you already think the case might end up before the European Court of Justice? Answer No. Not at all. We were focused on solving a business problem. The idea that the case would eventually reach the European Court of Justice came much later. BLOCK 4 – THE OBSTACLE: GAT v. LuK Host You mentioned that, er, many people believed cross-border patent litigation in Europe was no longer a realistic option. Why was that? Answer The main reason was an earlier decision of the European Court of Justice known as GAT versus LuK, decided in 2006. For many years, that decision was understood to mean that a home court could lose its ability to hear a patent infringement case as soon as the defendant challenged the validity of the patent. In practice, that understanding made many cross-border patent cases extremely difficult. As a result, many people believed that cross-border patent litigation was not effective. Host And yet you decided to follow exactly that path, right? Answer Yes. Sometimes it is worth questioning assumptions that have been accepted for many years. We believed that Article 4 of the Brussels Ia Regulation played a more important role than many people thought. That is why, in 2020, we decided to file the case in Sweden. Host And at that point, did you already realize that the case might eventually reach the European Court of Justice? Answer No. Not at all. Our goal was simply to find a practical solution to a real enforcement problem. The idea that this would eventually become a case before the European Court of Justice was far from our minds. BLOCK 5 – THE QUESTIONS REFERRED TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE Host So, how did the case eventually reach the European Court of Justice then? Answer After we filed the lawsuit in Sweden in 2020, Electrolux challenged the validity of the patents. The Swedish home court then concluded that it could not hear the case and declared itself not competent to proceed. We appealed that decision, because the issues were important and affected far more than just our case. We suggested that several questions should be referred to the European Court of Justice. The Swedish Court of Appeal agreed and sent those questions to Luxembourg. Host So, what were these main questions? Answer At the heart of the case, there were three questions: First: if a home court has jurisdiction over a patent infringement case, does it lose that jurisdiction simply because the defendant argues that the patent is invalid? Second: Does it make a difference if the national legal system requires validity issues to be decided in a separate proceeding? And third: Do this jurisdiction rules also apply to patents from countries outside the European Union? Host The third question sounds particularly interesting. Answer Yes, at the time, the discussion in our case focused on Turkey. Today, many people immediately think about the United Kingdom, and some even think about US patents. But originally, the question was much simpler. We wanted to know, whether the same jurisdiction rules also apply when patents from non-European countries are involved. Host And, did you realize how important that third question might become? Answer No, certainly not to that extent. At the beginning, most of the discussion focused on the relationship between the different jurisdiction rules within Europe. Only later did it become clear that the European Court of Justice’s answers might have consequences far beyond the European Union. Host So, how did the European Court of Justice react then? Answer That was actually quite interesting. The European Court of Justice first heard the case before a Chamber of seven judges. Later, it referred the case to the Grand Chamber of 15 judges. That already showed that the European Court of Justice considered the issues to be important. And when the judgment finally came out, some of the answers were very different from what many observers had expected. BLOCK 6 – THE DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE Host Let’s talk about the European Court of Justice’s answers. What was, in your view, the most important part of the decision? Answer The most important point was this: A home court does not automatically lose jurisdiction just because the defendant argues that the patent is invalid. For many years, many people believed exactly the opposite. The European Court of Justice made it clear that this understanding was too narrow. The home court where the defendant is based can generally continue to hear the infringement case. That is really the key message of the decision. Host Why is that so important? Answer Because it gives new momentum to cross-border patent enforcement in Europe. Before this decision, many people assumed that a defendant could effectively stop a central infringement case simply by challenging the validity of the patent. The European Court of Justice made clear that this is not automatically the case. Host Does that mean the home court hearing the infringement case will now also decide whether the patent is valid? Answer No, and that is a very important point. The European Court of Justice confirmed that questions about the validity of a European patent should still be decided by the national courts of the country for which the patent was granted, as provided for in Article 24(4) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. What is new, is that the infringement case does not automatically fall apart because of a validity challenge. The home court can keep control of the overall case. Host So, how does that work in practice? Answer The European Court of Justice gives the home court some flexibility. For patents from Member States of the European Union, the home court does not automatically lose its power if the defendant says the patent is invalid. The home court can look at the validity challenge. If it seems strong, the home court may stay the infringement case. If it seems weak, the home court may continue the infringement case. For patents from countries outside the European Union, the home court may also stay the case if there is already a validity case pending in that country. In such situations, Articles 33 and 34 of the Brussels Ia Regulation may apply. That creates a much more flexible system than many people expected. Host Er, we have discussed the implications for patents from Member States of the European Union, but a lot of attention has been given to another part of the decision, that we already talked about briefly, namely patents from countries outside the European Union. Answer Absolutely, and that may be the part of the judgment with the biggest international impact. Host Why? Answer Because the European Court of Justice decided that the special jurisdiction rule for patent validity does not generally apply to patents from non-European countries. In simple terms, that means the general rule can still apply. And that opens the possibility of bringing infringement cases based on non-European patents before the home court where the defendant is based in the European Union. Host That sounds like a very far-reaching statement. Answer It is. That is why many commentators started talking about what is often called “long-arm jurisdiction.” In other words, a European home court may, under certain circumstances, deal with infringement claims relating to patents from countries outside the European Union. Host So, many listeners may now wonder: Can a Swedish or a German home court really decide a dispute involving a British or Turkish patent? Answer Ah, we need to be careful here. The European Court of Justice did not say that a European home court can cancel or revoke a foreign patent. That remains a matter for the authorities and national courts of the country that granted the patent. What the European Court of Justice said is that a European home court may assess the claims between the parties in a dispute. That is an important distinction. Host Did you realize during the proceedings how important this part of the decision might become? Answer Not to this extent. We started with a very practical enforcement problem. Only later did it become clear that the European Court of Justice’s answers might have consequences far beyond the original case. Today, the decision is discussed not only in connection with Turkish patents, but also British patents and even possible claims involving US patents. Host If you had to summarize the decision in one sentence, and I know, this is a very difficult task, what would that sentence be? Answer The European Court of Justice did not re-invent cross-border patent enforcement in Europe. But after many years, it clearly gave it much more room to develop. BLOCK 7 – THE REACTION OF THE IP COMMUNITY Host So, how was the decision received after it was published? Answer Ah, the reaction was very strong. It quickly became clear that many people saw the decision as much more than just another patent case. Many articles and commentaries described it as an important development in European patent litigation. Host Did that surprise you? Answer To some extent, yes. Of course, we knew that the questions referred to the European Court of Justice were important. But I was surprised by how quickly the decision became a major topic of discussion across the European patent community. Host Er, you later presented the decision at several conferences yourself, right? Answer Yes. The discussion started right away. I had the opportunity to discuss and present the case at several conferences and events, including the annual VPP conference in Germany and the Ingolstadt Patent Symposium. I recently received an invitation to serve as a panel speaker on cross-border litigation at the AIPPI World Congress 2026 in Hamburg. What struck me most was that both internal and external IP counsel were trying to understand the practice consequences of the decision. Host So, what was the question you were asked most often? Answer Almost always the same one: How far does this decision really go? People wanted to know whether this was simply a correction of earlier case law or whether it marked the beginning of a new phase in cross-border patent enforcement. Host And what did you say? Answer I would describe it as: neither a revolution nor a minor adjustment. The European Court of Justice did not rewrite the system. But it clearly changed the balance between the different jurisdiction rules. That is why I believe the decision will continue to be discussed for many years, both in practice and in academia. Host Er, one year later, the case received the Managing IP Award as the “Europe Impact Case of the Year.” What did that recognition mean to you? Answer First of all, it was a great honor for everyone involved. But for me, the most important thing was the message behind the award. The award showed that the decision affects much more than the parties involved in the case. It has an impact on European patent practice as a whole. And it also shows that the underlying jurisdiction questions reach far beyond patent law. They are relevant whenever companies have to enforce rights across borders in an increasing international world. That is what makes this case special. Host You often describe this case as a team effort. Answer Absolutely. A case of this size is never the work of one person. Many people contributed over many years. On the BSH side, team members from different functions played an important role throughout the proceedings. And we worked closely with external advisors in several countries. So I see the award as recognition of a shared achievement rather than an individual success. Host Looking at the discussions today, would you say the debate is over? Answer Not at all. I actually think we are only at the beginning. There are still many practical questions that home courts will have to answer in the coming years. That is exactly why the decision remains so interesting. BLOCK 8 – WHAT DOES THE DECISION MEAN IN PRACTICE? Host Let’s move from legal theory to practical business implications. What does this decision mean for patent owners and companies? Answer In my view, the biggest change is strategic. Patent owners now have better opportunities to bring cross-border disputes together in one central proceeding. At the same time, companies need to be aware that they may face claims at their European headquarters covering activities in several countries. So the decision creates opportunities, but it also creates new risks. Host That sounds really like a significant shift; right? Answer I would call it a rebalancing rather than a revolution. The European Court of Justice did not create a completely new system. But it made clear that the general rule — suing a defendant where it is based — plays a much bigger role than many people had assumed. As a result, the court at the defendant’s home base becomes much more important strategically. Host In the patent community, people often talk about cases such as Fujifilm v. Kodak, or Regeneron v. Formycon or Onesta v. BMW. Why are those cases attracting so much attention now? Answer Because they show how quickly practice is already adapting to the new possibilities. Fujifilm was important because it was one of the first UPC cases to test the logic that was later confirmed in BSH. At that time, the BSH case was already pending before the European Court of Justice, and the Advocate General had expressed a view that pointed in that direction. Against that background, the Düsseldorf Local Division accepted jurisdiction over the UK part of a European patent even before the European Court of Justice delivered its judgment. In June 2026, based on the principles confirmed in BSH, the UPC Court of Appeal further developed that approach. Host And what happened in Regeneron v. Formycon ? Answer In the Regeneron case, the Munich home court applied the approach confirmed in BSH and granted a Europe-wide injunction based on a European patent. That was one of the first examples of a national home court using the BSH framework in practice. That demonstrates that the decision is not just an academic discussion. It already has practical consequences. Host And what about the Onesta case? Answer The Onesta case shows that the debate has moved beyond Europe. After Onesta attempted to assert two U.S. patents before the Munich home court, BMW obtained an anti-suit injunction from a Texas federal court. Judge Albright took the view that U.S. patents should generally be decided by U.S. courts. The Onesta case therefore illustrates that the limits of the BSH logic are now being tested internationally. Host Did that end the proceedings in Munich? Answer Not necessarily. What makes the case interesting is that the Texas injunction was directed against Onesta, not against the Munich home court. At the same time, Onesta appealed Judge Albright’s decision in the United States. The Munich home court therefore decided to stay the case for the time being. Importantly, however, the Munich home court did not reject its own jurisdiction. So, at least for the moment, the underlying question remains open. Host Can a European home court ultimately decide infringement claims based on U.S. patents? Answer That question has not yet been answered. But the case has already shown that such an attempt can trigger strong reactions outside Europe. In that sense, the debate has moved from a European jurisdiction question to an international jurisdiction conflict. Host For our audience of internal and external IP counsel, what are the main lessons from this decision? Answer For me, there are three key takeaways. First: Patent enforcement has become more international. National litigation remains important, but companies should think across borders from the very beginning. Second: The choice of forum is becoming more important. Where you bring a case may be just as important as the legal arguments themselves. And third: Long-term commitment matters. This case shows that major developments rarely happen because of a single filing or a single hearing. They usually result from pursuing a clear strategy consistently over many years. Host Do you think this decision will also influence the Unified Patent Court, the UPC? Answer Yes, I believe so. The decision fits into a broader trend toward more centralized patent litigation. Both, the UPC and the BSH decision are driven by the same idea: Handling cross-border disputes more efficiently and more consistently. What is interesting is that many of the questions were faced in BSH versus Electrolux are now reappearing in a new form before the UPC. Cases like Fujifilm versus Kodak show that the discussion about jurisdiction, scope, and cross-border effects is far from over. Institutions may be new. But the underlying challenge remains the same: How do we enforce patents effectively across borders? Host Some commentators even see this as a step toward a more independent European patent judiciary. Do you agree? Answer To some extent, yes. Professor Hanns Ullrich, who supervised my doctoral studies on the legal protection of a then new semiconductor technology many years ago, recently observed that the UPC is gradually developing its own European case law.[DH1] I think that is — again — a very accurate observation. If you look at the developments since BSH and the first UPC decisions, you can see that European patent litigation is becoming more connected. National courts will remain important. But at the same time, we are seeing a more integrated European patent system taking shape. How far that development will go remains to be seen. Host Looking back on the entire journey — from a vacuum cleaner patent, through litigation in several countries, all the way to the European Court of Justice and an award-winning decision — what is your personal conclusion? Answer My main conclusion is that innovation needs effective legal protection. But it also requires the willingness to challenge established assumptions and explore new approaches. For me, the BSH versus Electrolux case shows that persistence, teamwork, a willingness to challenge accepted assumptions, and a long-term strategic view can sometimes lead to developments that go far beyond the original dispute. BLOCK 9 – THE PERSON BEHIND THE DECISION Host Ernst-Peter, today we have talked a lot about jurisdiction, patent enforcement, and European case law. When you look back at this journey, which has lasted almost twenty years, what impressed you most? Answer Probably the realization that major developments rarely follow a straight line. When we started thinking about the case, we were dealing with a very practical problem. Nobody said: Let’s create a landmark decision of the European Court of Justice. We were simply looking for a reasonable and practical solution for a company. The fact that this would eventually lead to a decision with Europe-wide impact was something nobody could foresee at the time. Host Were there moments when you thought the case might fail? Answer Of course. Whenever a case lasts many years, there will be setbacks, new questions, and unexpected developments. That is exactly why persistence is so important. In the end, success is often not about one filing or one hearing. It is about staying focused on a clear objective over a long period of time. Host You often talk about teamwork. Is that one of the main lessons from this case? Answer Absolutely. A case of this size requires commitment from many people and institutes over many years. On the BSH side, my role was to help maintain the strategic direction and long-term commitment that such a case requires. At the same time, experts from different functions within BSH contributed technical expertise, testing, documentation, and practical support throughout the proceedings. On the legal side, Roman Sedlmaier and his team at IP-Counsels Gigerich & Sedlmaier (IPCGS) helped develop the cross-border litigation strategy and the overall case architecture. Our Swedish litigation team then carried the arguments through all stages of the proceedings. Looking back, it was the combination of institutional commitment, technical expertise, strategic leadership, well-designed case architecture, and consistent execution that made the difference. Host One final question. What advice would you give to young internal or external IP counsel? Answer Stay curious: Don’t be afraid to question accepted assumptions. Be patient: Intellectual property is usually a marathon, not a sprint. And never forget that every patent dispute involves an invention, a business, and many people who have worked hard to bring that innovation to market. For me, that connection between technology, law, and strategy is what still makes this profession so fascinating today. Host Ernst-Peter, thank you very much for joining us today on IP Fridays. Answer Thank you. It was a pleasure to be here.

Follow the chilling trail of blood left across the globe by Iran's elite, state-sanctioned execution squads. This investigative episode unravels the terrifying true stories of dissidents and politicians hunted down in broad daylight on foreign soil by the ruthless Quds Force. From botched plots to cold-blooded executions, we expose the shocking evidence, police investigations, and international conspiracies behind Iran's ongoing shadow war.

For decades, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force has operated a clandestine global network responsible for assassinations, proxy warfare, and targeted operations against dissidents, intelligence officers, and American interests across multiple continents. This episode pulls back the curtain on how the Quds Force is structured, how it recruits and runs assets, and what its most audacious operations reveal about the strategic logic behind Tehran's shadow war. Drawing on open-source intelligence, defector accounts, and documented operations, we examine the machine built by Qasem Soleimani and what it continues to do after his death.

In this episode, we're coming to you straight from the Osage Hills Retreat Center for a triple-celebration filled with pickles, swallows, and sparrows! Leslie recaps her intensive three-day workshop with Angela, sharing how she finally found the confidence to start her grandmother's legacy quilt. We dive deep into the great longarm debate, comparing the maneuverability of the Amara 20 versus the 24 for custom work. Rochelle also shares the reality of tackling massive 112-inch quilts and her latest adventures in sourdough baking. It's a jam-packed session full of quilting wins, "oops" moments, and plenty of laughs.We also get into the nitty-gritty of our favorite tools, from Magic Clips to the search for the perfect seam ripper. Plus, we're talking book club picks that tackle the tough stuff and sharing details on our upcoming August retreat! Whether you're curious about the Moxie XL or just want to hear about Rochelle's custom quilting business, there's something here for every maker. We wrap things up with some heart-to-heart life lessons on peace, generosity, and the power of self-love. Don't miss out on the latest updates and a sneak peek into our upcoming travel plans!Send us Fan MailSupport the showFollow Leslie on Instagram at @leslie_quilts and Rochelle at @doughnutwarrior

Yuru, a young hunter who lives in a small village deep in the mountains, hunts wild game and leads a humble life with Asa, his younger twin sister. Their peaceful lives are torn apart when a dragon's roar echoes across the sky. What secrets lurk within their village? What fate awaits them? Enter a breathtaking mystical fantasy as exciting Daemon battles intertwine the mysterious and supernatural.E10: While shopping in the city, Yuru and Dera sense that they're being followed.Join this channel to get access to perks:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCh4XoDo9hUz0UMSunku69Fg/joinhttps://www.twitch.tv/geekvariantshttps://spotifyanchor-web.app.link/e/wtvTDi0kUzbhttps://www.facebook.com/groups/176901704469900https://www.instagram.com/geekvariants/https://linktr.ee/geekvariants

President Trump Says He Doesn't Need Xi's Help on IranPresident Trump on His Way to Summit With China's XiU.S. Sanctions China-Linked Iran Oil NetworkChina Extends Olive Branches Before Trump-Xi SummitMajor U.S. CEOs Join President Trump on China TripTaiwan President Thanks U.S. for Defense SupportPres. Trump to Bring Up Jimmy Lai, Pastor Jin With XiCalifornia Mayor to Plead Guilty as Chinese AgentJury Begins Deliberations in CCP NYC Police Station TrialBeijing Attempts to Recruit U.S. Congressional AideU.S. Intel Probes 120+ U.S.-Funded Biolabs AbroadWuhan Lab Under More U.S. ScrutinyState Shield CEO on How States Are Combating the CCPU.S. States Step Up on Foreign Agent LawsU.S. Cracks Down on Foreign Influence in EducationFighting China's Long Arm at State Level

In this episode, we host Edmund Fitton-Brown to explore how Iran projects power beyond its borders through proxies, criminal networks, intelligence services, and deniable operations. Drawing on his experience as a former British Ambassador to Yemen and former senior United Nations expert on ISIS, al-Qaeda and the Taliban, Edmund explains why Iran's external operations cannot be understood simply through the language of “sleeper cells” or conventional state espionage.We discuss why Iran's threat model is increasingly hybrid, asymmetric, and difficult to categorise. From the Houthis' role in the Red Sea and Hezbollah's weakened but still significant position in Lebanon, to alleged Iranian-backed plots in the UK, the use of organised criminals, the evolving relationship between Iran and al-Qaeda, and the wider breakdown of international counterterrorism cooperation after Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, this conversation offers a timely guide to how state-backed coercion, terrorism, proxy warfare, and organised crime now overlap.Edmund Fitton-Brown is a former British diplomat and counterterrorism specialist. He joined the UK Foreign Service in 1984 and served in several Middle Eastern and European postings, including as British Ambassador to Yemen from 2015 to 2017. He later joined the United Nations Security Council Sanctions Monitoring Team, becoming Coordinator in 2018 and leading work on sanctions and global threat assessment relating to ISIS, al-Qaeda and the Taliban until 2022. He is currently a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Senior Advisor at the Counter Extremism Project, a RUSI Senior Associate Fellow, and co-host of the CounterPod podcast. His work focuses on Iran, terrorism, proxy warfare, Middle East security and the state-backed threats that blur the boundaries between intelligence activity, organised crime and political violence. The International Risk Podcast brings you conversations with global experts, frontline practitioners, and senior decision-makers who are shaping how we understand and respond to international risk. From geopolitical instability and organised crime to cybersecurity threats and hybrid warfare, each episode explores the forces transforming our world and what smart leaders must do to navigate them. Whether you're a board member, policymaker, or risk professional, The International Risk Podcast delivers actionable insights, sharp analysis, and real-world stories that matter.The International Risk Podcast is sponsored by Conducttr, a realistic crisis exercise platform. Conducttr offers crisis exercising software for corporates, consultants, humanitarian, and defence & security clients. Visit Conducttr to learn more.Dominic Bowen is the host of The International Risk Podcast and Europe's leading expert on international risk and crisis management. As Head of Strategic Advisory and Partner at one of Europe's leading risk management consulting firms, Dominic advises CEOs, boards, and senior executives across the continent on how to prepare for uncertainty and act with intent. He has spent decades working in war zones, advising multinational companies, and supporting Europe's business leaders. Dominic is the go-to business advisor for leaders navigating risk, crisis, and strategy; trusted for his clarity, calmness under pressure, and ability to turn volatility into competitive advantage. Dominic equips today's business leaders with the insight and confidence to lead through disruption and deliver sustained strategic advantage.Subscribe for all our updates! Tell us what Tell us what you liked!

This episode delves into the gritty, atmospheric world of Raymond Chandler's most famous character, Philip Marlowe. Through a detailed exploration of the 1947 radio adaptation "The Long Arm," we uncover how Chandler's storytelling creates a compelling blend of crime, morality, and atmosphere, revealing key insights into noir fiction and detective work.Most detective stories promise x, but this one delivers a knockout dose of gritty reality, a tangled web of murder, corruption, and betrayal in Bay City. When seasoned private eye Philip Marlowe gets a frantic call from a jailed friend claiming his wife has been murdered—and that he's been framed—he steps into a deepening conspiracy that threatens to swallow him whole.In this gripping episode, you'll discover how Marlowe peels back layers of deception, navigating crooked cops, sly gamblers, and shadowy figures who all have secrets to hide. We break down:The dangerous game of small-town corruption and how it ensnares even the savviest playersThe real story behind a frame-up that could topple a city's entire underbellyThe innovative tactics Marlowe uses to outsmart powerful foes and expose the truthThe surprising role of a fat fry cook and a blackjack-sharp gambler in unraveling the killer's identityAnd the chance to see how one man's integrity can turn the tide when everything's on the lineWhy do so many chase secrets that threaten their lives? Because missing this insight could mean staying blind to the patterns of crime that shape cities—and lives. If you're ready to see beneath the surface of every smoke-and-mirrors game, this episode is essential listening. It's for crime fans, mystery seekers, and anyone who believes in the power of clarity when chaos surrounds us.Perfect for those who love stories of resilience and cunning—this isn't just a tale; it's a blueprint for thinking smarter in dangerous times. Hit play, and see the long arm of truth stretch farther than you expected.

On this episode of the video and/or audio podcast, Phillip is joined once again by 1 of the 3 hosts of The Cinemigos Podcast, Rob Papp. The two discuss 1978's Jackie Chan classic, Drunken Master. This is the beginning of where Jackie can be seen using all the things that would make him a household name almost 20 years later. Phillip plays a Tarantino Talks about his love of Jackie Chan. Then Phillip and Rob talk about when they first experienced a Jackie Chan movie. Phillip then reads the general information about the movie as well as some trivia along the way. It's then time for Listener' Opinions from Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. Rob and Phillip then talk all about the greatness of this movie. It's a fun time and a great conversation. They then answer the question of whether they noticed anything in this mvoe that Tarantino might have liked or used in a film. Then it's time for them to individually rate the movie. Phillip then asks if they would rent this movie, buy it, or find it for free. It's then time for Phil's Film Favorite of the Week; Long Arm of the Law (1984). Rob talks about a movie that he rewatched recently; Tenet (2020). It's then time for Phillip to promote next week's show when he will be joined once again by Sam Panico from B and S about Movies podcast as well as Drive-In Asylum on Facebook and YouTube for...that's right from 1981, it's The Incubus AKA Incubus. Thanks for watching and/or listening.

At Bethany, We are God's People who are: Gathered! Connected! Sent!We want to connect with you through this Podcast! Leave us a comment! Tell us where you are at! Leave a Review to help our audience grow!--March 22, 2026 -- Pr. Kevin Kritzer -- "The Long Arm of The Gospel!" -- Romans 8:1-11(8) So those who are believers in Christ Jesus can no longer be condemned. 2 The standards of the Spirit, who gives life through Christ Jesus, have set you free from the standards of sin and death. 3 It is impossible to do what God's standards demand because of the weakness our human nature has. But God sent his Son to have a human nature as sinners have and to pay for sin. That way God condemned sin in our corrupt nature. 4 Therefore, we, who do not live by our corrupt nature but by our spiritual nature, are able to meet God's standards in Moses' Teachings. 5 Those who live by the corrupt nature have the corrupt nature's attitude. But those who live by the spiritual nature have the spiritual nature's attitude. 6 The corrupt nature's attitude leads to death. But the spiritual nature's attitude leads to life and peace. 7 This is so because the corrupt nature has a hostile attitude toward God. It refuses to place itself under the authority of God's standards because it can't. 8 Those who are under the control of the corrupt nature can't please God. 9 But if God's Spirit lives in you, you are under the control of your spiritual nature, not your corrupt nature. Whoever doesn't have the Spirit of Christ doesn't belong to him. 10 However, if Christ lives in you, your bodies are dead because of sin, but your spirits are alive because you have God's approval. 11 Does the Spirit of the one who brought Jesus back to life live in you? Then the one who brought Christ back to life will also make your mortal bodies alive by his Spirit who lives in you. --GWhttp://www.bethanylutheran.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://www.facebook.com/Bethany.Long.Beach⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.youtube.com/c/BethanyLutheranLongBeach

At Bethany, We are God's People who are: Gathered! Connected! Sent!We want to connect with you through this Podcast! Leave us a comment! Tell us where you are at! Leave a Review to help our audience grow!--March 15, 2026 -- Pr. John Alwood -- "The Long Arm of the Gospel!" -- Rom. 6:8-148 If we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, who was brought back to life, will never die again. Death no longer has any power over him. 10 When he died, he died once and for all to sin's power. But now he lives, and he lives for God. 11 So consider yourselves dead to sin's power but living for God in the power Christ Jesus gives you. 12 Therefore, never let sin rule your physical body so that you obey its desires. 13 Never offer any part of your body to sin's power. No part of your body should ever be used to do any ungodly thing. Instead, offer yourselves to God as people who have come back from death and are now alive. Offer all the parts of your body to God. Use them to do everything that God approves of. 14 Certainly, sin shouldn't have power over you because you're not controlled by God's laws, but by God's favor. --GWhttp://www.bethanylutheran.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://www.facebook.com/Bethany.Long.Beach⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.youtube.com/c/BethanyLutheranLongBeach

Even when sin reaches its darkest depths, the long arm of God's grace can still reach a repentant heart—so hear God's voice today, turn from sin, and cry out to Jesus while mercy is still calling.

At Bethany, We are God's People who are: Gathered! Connected! Sent!We want to connect with you through this Podcast! Leave us a comment! Tell us where you are at! Leave a Review to help our audience grow!--March 1, 2026 -- Pr. Seth Moorman -- "The Long Arm of The Gospel!" -- Romans 4:1-8; 13-174 What can we say that we have discovered about our ancestor Abraham? 2 If Abraham had God's approval because of something he did, he would have had a reason to brag. But he could not brag to God about it. 3 What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and that faith was regarded as the basis of Abraham's approval by God.”(4 When people work, their pay is not regarded as a gift but something they have earned. 5 However, when people don't work but believe God, the one who approves ungodly people, their faith is regarded as the basis of God's approval. 6 David says the same thing about those who are blessed: God approves of people without their earning it. David said, 7 “Blessed are those whose disobedience is forgiven and whose sins are pardoned. 8 Blessed is the person whom the Lord no longer considers sinful.” ...13 So it was not by obeying the laws in Moses' Teachings that Abraham or his descendants received the promise that he would inherit the world. Rather, he received this promise through God's approval that comes by faith. 14 If those who obey Moses' Teachings are the heirs, then faith is useless and the promise is worthless. 15 The laws in Moses' Teachings bring about anger. But where those laws don't exist, they can't be broken. 16 Therefore, the promise is based on faith so that it can be a gift. Consequently, the promise is guaranteed for every descendant, not only for those who are descendants by obeying Moses' Teachings but also for those who are descendants by believing as Abraham did. He is the father of all of us, 17 as Scripture says: “I have made you a father of many nations.” Abraham believed when he stood in the presence of the God who gives life to dead people and calls into existence things that don't even exist. --GWhttp://www.bethanylutheran.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://www.facebook.com/Bethany.Long.Beach⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.youtube.com/c/BethanyLutheranLongBeach

Speaker: Pastor Myron Friesen

At Bethany, We are God's People who are: Gathered! Connected! Sent!We want to connect with you through this Podcast! Leave us a comment! Tell us where you are at! Leave a Review to help our audience grow!--February 22, 2026 -- Pr. Kevin Kritzer -- "The Long Arm of the Gospel" -- Romans 5:12-1912 Sin came into the world through one person, and death came through sin. So death spread to everyone, because everyone sinned. 13 Sin was in the world before there were any laws. But no record of sin can be kept when there are no laws. 14 Yet, death ruled from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin in the same way Adam did when he disobeyed. Adam is an image of the one who would come. 15 There is no comparison between God's gift and ⌞Adam's⌟ failure. If humanity died as the result of one person's failure, it is certainly true that God's kindness [a] and the gift given through the kindness of one person, Jesus Christ, have been showered on humanity. 16 There is also no comparison between ⌞God's⌟ gift and the one who sinned. The verdict which followed one person's failure condemned everyone. But, even after many failures, the gift brought God's approval. 17 It is certain that death ruled because of one person's failure. It's even more certain that those who receive God's overflowing kindness and the gift of his approval will rule in life because of one person, Jesus Christ. 18 Therefore, everyone was condemned through one failure, and everyone received God's life-giving approval through one verdict. 19 Clearly, through one person's disobedience humanity became sinful, and through one person's obedience humanity will receive God's approval. --GWhttp://www.bethanylutheran.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://www.facebook.com/Bethany.Long.Beach⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.youtube.com/c/BethanyLutheranLongBeach

The show-ending “Smoking Gun” segment on the Friday Bob Rose Show 2-27-26

If you've ever dreamed of building a thriving longarm quilting business—or you're looking to grow the one you already have—this episode is packed with valuable insight. Elizabeth Chappell sits down with longarm expert Tia Curtis, a sought-after quilter known for her artistry, efficiency, and strong client relationships. Tia has grown her longarm business into a full and flourishing creative career. In this conversation, she shares her journey, the lessons she's learned, and the business strategies that have helped her stand out in a growing and competitive industry. Whether you're a brand-new longarmer, a seasoned quilter, or a pattern designer looking to add longarm services, you'll walk away with practical guidance and inspiration. What You'll Learn in This Episode 1. How Tia Got Started in Longarm Quilting Hear how Tia first discovered longarm quilting and what drew her to the craft, and how this is the most lucrative part of her business. 2. Pricing and Profitability Tips Tia breaks down how she prices her work, how she sets boundaries, and what it takes to run a sustainable longarm business. 3. How to Build Strong Client Relationships Great longarmers don't just deliver beautiful quilting. They deliver a great experience. Tia shares her approach to communication to create loyal (and happy) repeat clients. 4. Mistakes New Longarmers Should Avoid Tia offers honest, encouraging advice on what to watch out for, what to prioritize, and how to grow confidently. Who This Episode Is For New longarm quilters looking for guidance Quilt pattern designers wanting to expand into longarm services Seasoned longarmers wanting to grow their client base Makers who want to turn quilting into a profitable business Anyone who is curious about the longarm quilting industry Why You'll Love This Episode Tia's approach to longarm quilting is both artistic and strategic. She is generous with her knowledge and transparent about what it really takes to grow a thriving business. This episode will leave you inspired, encouraged, and equipped with actionable steps you can apply immediately.

Jeffrey Epstein's story is about far more than one predator; it's about the powerful network that protected him. While survivor accounts have finally come to light, the elite figures who surrounded Epstein—politicians, billionaires, academics, and global power brokers—have largely avoided scrutiny. His influence wasn't rooted only in wealth, but in access and the willingness of institutions to shield him long after credible allegations surfaced.The failures that enabled him remain unresolved: a 2007 plea deal that granted immunity to unnamed co-conspirators, missing evidence, and a justice system seemingly designed to protect the influential at the expense of victims. Epstein's death eliminated the one person who could have named names, leaving the broader structure untouched. Until the enablers are exposed, accountability remains an illusion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Jeffrey Epstein's story is about far more than one predator; it's about the powerful network that protected him. While survivor accounts have finally come to light, the elite figures who surrounded Epstein—politicians, billionaires, academics, and global power brokers—have largely avoided scrutiny. His influence wasn't rooted only in wealth, but in access and the willingness of institutions to shield him long after credible allegations surfaced.The failures that enabled him remain unresolved: a 2007 plea deal that granted immunity to unnamed co-conspirators, missing evidence, and a justice system seemingly designed to protect the influential at the expense of victims. Epstein's death eliminated the one person who could have named names, leaving the broader structure untouched. Until the enablers are exposed, accountability remains an illusion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Jeffrey Epstein's story is about far more than one predator; it's about the powerful network that protected him. While survivor accounts have finally come to light, the elite figures who surrounded Epstein—politicians, billionaires, academics, and global power brokers—have largely avoided scrutiny. His influence wasn't rooted only in wealth, but in access and the willingness of institutions to shield him long after credible allegations surfaced.The failures that enabled him remain unresolved: a 2007 plea deal that granted immunity to unnamed co-conspirators, missing evidence, and a justice system seemingly designed to protect the influential at the expense of victims. Epstein's death eliminated the one person who could have named names, leaving the broader structure untouched. Until the enablers are exposed, accountability remains an illusion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

A Sermon Series in the Book of Deuteronomy

Step into the world of Irish mythology as we uncover the legend of Brionac, the mystical spear wielded by Lugh of the Long Arm. From icy powers and lightning-fast strikes to its decisive role in the epic Battle of Mag Tuired, Brionac's story is one of divine strength, fearsome magic, and battlefield glory. We'll explore its origins, legendary abilities, mythological battles, and how this ancient weapon still inspires modern culture through video games and fantasy literature. Could Brionac be more than just a weapon? Tune in and find out.Read more at https://mythlok.com/brionac/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/mythlok-the-home-of-mythology--5090355/support.

63 MinutesPG-13LongArm is an active duty law enforcement officer.LongArm joins Pete To talk about the recent Substack he wrote for the Old Glory Club, The Cops and You.The Cops and YouPete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

Award-winning journalist John Beck joins Chris to discuss Those Who Should Be Seized Should Be Seized, his harrowing account of China's campaign against Uyghurs, ethnic Kazakhs, and other Muslim minorities. Beck traces the lives of four people—from re-education camps in Xinjiang to exile in Turkey, Kazakhstan, and the US—revealing how Beijing's reach extends far beyond its borders through intimidation, surveillance, and coercion. They explore mass detention, forced labor, and the destruction of culture; the weaponization of bureaucracy; and the role of literature and quiet resistance in preserving identity. Beck also examines the muted global response, the complicity of some governments, and the authoritarian playbook that turns Xinjiang into both a warning and a testing ground for repression worldwide. Subscribe and share to stay ahead in the world of intelligence, geopolitics, and current affairs. Order Those Who Should Be Seized Should Be Seized: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/774464/those-who-should-be-seized-should-be-seized-by-john-beck/ Follow John on Twitter/X: https://x.com/jm_beck Please share this episode using these links Audio: https://pod.fo/e/314e5b YouTube: https://youtu.be/h-FPBf1jIJY Join Chris on a one-day podcast course Podcast Workshop Monday 22nd September 10am - 5pm @ The Guildford Institute:  https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/1477046087609 Support Secrets and Spies Become a “Friend of the Podcast” on Patreon for £3/$4: https://www.patreon.com/SecretsAndSpies Buy merchandise from our shop: https://www.redbubble.com/shop/ap/60934996 Subscribe to our YouTube page: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDVB23lrHr3KFeXq4VU36dg For more information about the podcast, check out our website: https://secretsandspiespodcast.com Connect with us on social media Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/secretsandspies.bsky.social Instagram: https://instagram.com/secretsandspies Facebook: https://facebook.com/secretsandspies Spoutible: https://spoutible.com/SecretsAndSpies Follow Chris and Matt on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/chriscarrfilm.bsky.social https://bsky.app/profile/mattfulton.net Secrets and Spies is produced by F & P LTD. Music by Andrew R. Bird Photos by Kemal Aslan/Depo Photos Secrets and Spies sits at the intersection of intelligence, covert action, real-world espionage, and broader geopolitics in a way that is digestible but serious. Hosted by filmmaker Chris Carr and writer Matt Fulton, each episode examines the very topics that real intelligence officers and analysts consider on a daily basis through the lens of global events and geopolitics, featuring expert insights from former spies, authors, and journalists.

Trailer for the novel 'The Prince with the Silver Hand', if you like this, you'll like that.

From fentanyl pouring across our borders, to secret Chinese police stations on U.S. soil, to efforts to silence freedom of speech in our universities …While awareness of the Chinese communist regime's insidious nature grows around the world, one group has been peacefully standing up to its atrocities for decades.It's been over a quarter century since the Chinese Communist Party launched a nationwide campaign to wipe out the spiritual group Falun Gong.Their crime? Following the tenets of truthfulness, compassion, and forbearance.That persecution continues to this day. China's regime has even expanded its efforts to surveil and influence events beyond its own borders—even here on American soil.Join us as we uncover why a brutal clampdown that began 26 years ago inside China is now spilling over into America.

This episode we review a classic HK 1980s film, the unusually gritty Long Arm of the Law.https://letterboxd.com/film/long-arm-of-the-law/Email us: zafilm2film@gmail.comTwitter: https://twitter.com/zafilm2film

Wednesday July 16, 2025

For decades, we've been reporting on the ways the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) crushes the religious freedom of its citizens. But in recent years, the CCP has been escalating its tactics against a religious group here—on American soil.In this episode, I sit down with religious freedom lawyers Justin Butterfield and Lea Patterson to understand what's going on and discuss their response to a recent lawsuit against Shen Yun, the performing arts company founded by Falun Gong practitioners in New York. The case touches on vital questions about what it means to be able to practice your faith—and guide the education of your children in America.Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guests and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Hosts Josh and Jamie and special returning guest Noah Kulwin (of Blowback) discuss international crime action-thrillers (featuring insane helicopter stunts!) with a double feature of Swedish filmmaker Bo Widerberg's gritty 70s police corruption procedural with a surprisingly stunt-heavy finale MAN ON THE ROOF (1976) + Hong Kong filmmaker Johnny Mak's bleak and ugly heist-gone-wrong thriller that doubles as a grim time capsule of the socioeconomic conditions of 80s Hong Kong LONG ARM THE LAW (1984). Next week's episode is a patron-exclusive bonus episode on THE LOST WORLD (1925) + JURASSIC PARK (1993), you can get access to that episode (and all past + future bonus episodes) by subscribing to our $5 tier on Patreon: www.patreon.com/sleazoidspodcast Intro // 00:00-13:00 MAN ON THE ROOF // 13:00-1:00:00 LONG ARM THE LAW // 1:00:00-2:00:43 Outro // 2:00:43-2:03:36 MERCH: www.teepublic.com/stores/sleazoids?ref_id=17667 WEBSITE: www.sleazoidspodcast.com/ Pod Twitter: twitter.com/sleazoidspod Pod Letterboxd: letterboxd.com/SLEAZOIDS/ Josh's Twitter: twitter.com/thejoshl Josh's Letterboxd: letterboxd.com/thejoshl Jamie's Twitter: twitter.com/jamiemilleracas Jamie's Letterboxd: letterboxd.com/jamiemiller

On The Other Side of Midnight, Lionel starts the show talking about legal eccentricities and incidents with the law. The legal definition of a thong, legal ways of killing vermin and arresting minors all come into question. Lionel later talks about his disdain for excessive regulation. He talks about prostitution, family dynamics and simple narratives that are used to mislead the public. Lionel starts the third hour talking about the thoughtless support for NYC socialist mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani. He moves on to talk about the importance of revealing the truth, 9/11 and destruction of American society. Lionel wraps up the show talking about Juneteenth. He is joined by many callers that talk about cultural differences across races. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

“Get this and get it straight!” We're celebrating Gerald Mohr - the radio actor who brought a two-fisted intensity to Philip Marlowe - in honor of his birthday on June 11. He was one of the best stars of the era, and his performance makes The Adventures of Philip Marlowe one of the best detective dramas of the day. We'll hear Mohr as Marlowe in “The Easy Mark” (originally aired on CBS on January 29, 1949) and “The Long Arm” (originally aired on CBS on February 7, 1950). Then, he's a less scrupulous character in “Lady with a Key” from The Whistler (originally aired on CBS on April 2, 1950). Finally, he co-stars with Jack Benny in “A Good and Faithful Servant,” a story of a $50,000 department store heist and the mild-mannered clerk who pulls it off, from Suspense (originally aired on CBS on June 2, 1952).

No Soap Radio - The Shadow: The Long Arm of Death Our 9th NO SOAP RADIO production created in September, 2024. This is a recreation of "The Shadow radio episode..."The Long Arm of Death". The original broadcast took place on November 7, 1954. There is no surviving recording of the original broadcast so this your chance to hear what it might have sounded like back in the day. This show was produced, directed and edited by Paul Kovit. CAST: Zach Dillinger as Lamont Cranston / The Shadow Victoria Gordon as Margo Lane Zach Eastman as The Announcer Annette Bochenek as Grace Randolph Tony Semczuk as George Randolph Paul Patterson as Doctor Low Laura Mirsky as Jennie

In this episode of The Board Drill Podcast, Kyle sits down with Coach Clayton Cason, Defensive Coordinator at Mandarin High School, to talk all things defensive line play. Coach Cason dives deep into his core teaching progressions, how he builds violence into strike technique, and how Mandarin teaches their D-linemen to dominate one-on-one matchups. From laws of D-line play to dealing with double teams and striking like Simba, this is a clinic episode you'll want to take notes on!

In this episode of The Board Drill Podcast, Kyle sits down with Coach Clayton Cason, Defensive Coordinator at Mandarin High School, to talk all things defensive line play. Coach Cason dives deep into his core teaching progressions, how he builds violence into strike technique, and how Mandarin teaches their D-linemen to dominate one-on-one matchups. From laws of D-line play to dealing with double teams and striking like Simba, this is a clinic episode you'll want to take notes on!

We're talking the season finale and reunion of Southern Hospitality today. The gang tries to confront Will about cheating accusations at a pretend law prom, but he sneaks away. Luckily, they get to pin him down at the Clubhouse reunion… or do they?? Vicious lies are exposed, and no one will ever be the same!!See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Episode 157 - The Enemy Within, Part 2: The Long Arm Of The Law by The Voice of the Valley

In this episode, Sherri and Chelsi discuss their preparations before attending the International Quilt Market each year. They also offer advice for anyone attending Quilt Market for the first time. Lastly, they share some insight and advice for people interested in starting a long-arm quilting business and how to find a new long-arm quilter.Help Support our Show Here: https://www.buzzsprout.com/1118069/supportShow Notes Blog Post: https://www.aquiltinglife.com/?p=30579Cozy Earth 40% off in October of 2024 with our link (or code AQUILTINGLIFE): https://cozyearth.com/pages/quiltinglifeNew Podcast Email Address: aquiltinglifepodcast@gmail.comShine Remix (Quilt on the Wall): https://tidd.ly/432zvPMMontage (Quilt on the Table): https://tidd.ly/3XUnEkfFamily Favorites Book: http://shrsl.com/4oiu0Brightly Kit: http://shrsl.com/4oiu1Brightly Backing: http://shrsl.com/4oiu3Sew Charming Dresden Charms: http://shrsl.com/4ovxkStrawberry Lemonade Fabric: http://shrsl.com/4p7lfLaguna Sunrise Fabric: http://shrsl.com/4p7liNOTE: Some of the links provided here are affiliate links.Where to Find Us:Facebook: A Quilting Life with Sherri & Chelsi: https://www.facebook.com/groups/459389991531728/A Quilting Life Blog: https://www.aquiltinglife.comChelsi Stratton Blog: https://chelsistratton.wordpress.com/A Quilting Life Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/aquiltinglifeA Quilting Life Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/aquiltinglife/Chelsi Stratton Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/chelsistratton/A Quilting Life Pattern Shop: https://www.etsy.com/shop/SherriQuiltsChelsi Stratton Pattern Shop: https://www.etsy.com/shop/StrattonHandmadeVisit the A Quilting Life YouTube channel for more great video content: https://www.youtube.com/aquiltinglifeEnjoy what you heard? Be sure to rate and review us on Apple Podcasts and your review could be read on the show.Support the show

Live show Dec 5 in Oxnard! Tickets here! LIFELINE ✨LUXURY✨ is available at patreon.com/lifelineluxury. Extra episodes every month, no advice, all for $5. Also has a full live show.

Send us a textMonologue:Barton Creek AC Comes ThroughWater Logged Cars Sold Across USAirplane GPS Hacking On The RiseLithium Battery FiresAI Takes On The PodcastGuest:Sheriff Gary Cutler was elected in November 2010 and has over 40 years of law enforcement experience, including roles at the Travis County and Williamson County Sheriff's Offices, and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission. He has 11 years of management and executive experience, overseeing approximately 350 staff at the Hays County Sheriff's Office. A native Texan from Hutchins, Cutler graduated from Sam Houston State University in 1973 with a degree in Criminal Justice. His career began at the Travis County Sheriff's Office in 1974, rising to Captain. He later served in major crime divisions in Williamson County and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission before taking office in 2010.Dripping Springs is one of the most friendly towns in Texas and Steve Mallett and Michelle Lewis meet the most interesting people, and discover the places and events that make Dripping Springs, Texas, a Hill Country oasis. Learn why every year, hundreds of people move to this small town just outside of Austin. Every episode features a local resident who's talent and past will make you want to know more about what draws so many unique people to this historical town. From ranchers to engineers, cowboys to entrepreneurs, bankers to bull riders. New episodes weekly!Support the show Sponsor: The Real Estate Pro's at The Mallett Integrity Team. Real Estate Done Right! Call them at 512-627-7018. Sponsor: The Lending Pros at Capital Farm Credit. Lending in Texas for over 100 years. Call them at 512-892-4425. Sponsor: Nomic Power Solutions your trusted partner in Austin for turnkey generator installation, service, and maintenance. Backup generators for your home. Call Cody and Dillon at 512-387-4232 Thanks for listening! Please follow us & leave a review. TELL A FRIEND! Apple PodcastsOur Website - Sign up for latest updates.mallettandmichelle@gmail.com

On this week's Case Closed, we begin with The Long Arm, the February 7, 1950, episode of The Adventures Of Philip Marlowe. (30:05) Broadway Is My Beat closes the show with The Silks Bergen Murder Case, from August 18, 1949. https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/archive.org/download/rr12024/CaseClosed916.mp3 Download CaseClosed916 | Subscribe | Support Case Closed Your donation of any amount keeps Case Closed coming [...]

The girlies get to the bottom of an age-old question: what type of woman are you? Normal or ugly? Through an exploration of aesthetic categorization trends, they interrogate the history of categorizing our bodies, choosing our colors, and finding new ways to hate ourselves. They also discuss their on-the-ground experiences at a color analysis studio and Kibbe typing themselves at home. Digressions include a dismal recap of The Debate That Makes You Old and decoding some listener's dreams. This episode was produced by Julia Hava and Eliza Mclamb and edited by Allison Hagan. Research assistance by Penelope Spurr.  Come see us on tour! Find tickets at linktr.ee/binchtopia To see the video version of this episode, access 50+ bonus episodes, mediasodes, zoom hangouts and more, visit patreon.com/binchtopia and become a patron today. SOURCES: A Color Notation A Dive into Chinese Colors American's Can't Escape Long-Disproven Body Stereotypes An Interview with Regina Lee Blaszczyk Are You a ‘Spring' or a ‘Winter'? It Could Cost You $500 to Find Out. Aristotle and Alexander of Aphrodisias on Colour Color and Consumption Color and Psychological Functioning Color Me a Season Color Symbolism Represented in Buddhist Traditions Embodying Normalcy: Anthropometry and the Long Arm of William H. Sheldon's Somatotyping Project Empedocles First Impressions of Personality Traits from Body Shapes Goethe on the Psychology of Color and Emotion How this retro beauty theory became the latest TikTok craze How to choose the right snacks for your body type Perkins Mauve: Ancestor of the Organic Chemical Industry Roger and Me The Color Revolution  The Colors That Suit You Are Set for Life — & Here's How I Found Mine The David Kibbe Story The Great Ivy League Nude Posture Photo Scandal The Industrial Design Reader The Kibbe Body Type Test The Laws of Contrast of Color The Natural History The Search for One's True Colors Theories Of Vision And Color Perception Of Empedocles What's Your Body Type? What's Your Kibbe Type?