Podcasts about New York Supreme Court

Do you know what almost no one tells you when you are creating a parenting plan? Some of the biggest co-parenting battles after divorce will not be over the things you think. It may not be the major custody decision or where the children will primarily live. It may be the late pickup, the unanswered text, the forgotten backpack, or the soccer registration deadline no one thought to clarify. That is why Susan Guthrie is joined by Gabrielle Hartley, attorney, mediator, parenting conflict expert, TEDx speaker, bestselling author of Better Apart: The Radically Positive Way to Separate, and creator of Mediator Gabby. Gabrielle has spent decades helping families navigate separation with greater clarity, less conflict, and better outcomes for children. Together, they get practical about why so many parenting plans break down after the divorce is finalized and what it actually takes to build one that holds up in real life. This conversation is for anyone creating a parenting plan, already co-parenting, or supporting someone who is. Because choosing what feels easier right now has a way of creating a much more difficult problem to solve later. Covered in this episode: Why most co-parenting conflict has nothing to do with bad parenting What makes a parenting plan fall apart once real life takes over How the "easier now, harder later" trap quietly sets families up for more conflict Why clarity matters more than detail when building a durable parenting plan How Mediator Gabby helps parents arrive prepared, stay focused, and reach better agreements WHAT IF AN AI MEDIATOR COULD HELP YOU BUILD A PARENTING PLAN BEFORE YOU EVER WALK INTO A ROOM?  There are approximately 29-million children living in single-parent families in the United States, and the vast majority of their parents never have access to a lawyer, a mediator, or any professional guidance at all. Mediator Gabby, Gabrielle's AI-supported parenting plan tool was built with those families in mind.  Using this custom AI tool, each parent completes a guided onboarding on their own before any joint conversation begins, working through the full landscape of a parenting plan so that by the time they sit down together, they already know where they agree, where they do not, and what needs to be worked through. Here is what that preparation can do for families: Save three to five hours of introductory conversation before mediation even begins Help parents arrive focused and prepared rather than reactive and overwhelmed Surface the details most people do not think to address until they become conflict points Lower the emotional temperature in the room so real resolution can happen faster Keep the process moving forward instead of stalling on issues that feel impossible in the moment A parenting plan is the operating system for your family's next chapter. The clearer and more intentional it is from the start, the less conflict it creates down the road, and the better the experience for your children. FREE DOWNLOAD: Parenting Plan Reality Check: The Questions Every Co-Parent Needs to Answer Before Finalizing a Parenting Plan + Companion Article  Find the article and free download on the website at https://divorceandbeyondpod.com/latest-episode Referenced Episodes from the Archive: The 7 Most-Asked Divorce Questions on ChatGPT, Answered by a Top Family Law Attorney with Susan Guthrie Discovery Demystified: Why Fact-Finding is the Most Important Step in Your Divorce with Susan Guthrie Conflict Resolution Made Easy: Managaing the Five Destructive Behaviors We All Have with Gabrielle Hartley Gabrielle Hartley Has the Secret to Helping Us All Get Along Better and It Starts with Y.E.S. Is Your Divorce Taking Too Long? BLITZ IT and BE DONE with Gabrielle Hartley The Best Thing to Happen to Divorce in Ages with Very Special Guest, Gabrielle Hartley If this episode helped you, please share it and leave a review. It genuinely helps the show reach the people who need it most. _______________________________________________________________ Meet This Week's Guest: Gabrielle Hartley is a New York and Massachusetts divorce attorney, mediator, author, two-time TEDx speaker, and legal tech founder working at the intersection of family dispute resolution and technology. She is the founder of Better Parenting Plan and creator of Mediator Gabby, a technology-supported platform designed to help parents and family professionals reduce conflict and build clearer, more durable parenting agreements. Gabrielle is also consulting with the American Arbitration Association to help launch its first-ever family mediation panel. A former court attorney to Hon. Jeffrey Sunshine in the New York Supreme Court, Matrimonial Division, she has spent more than twenty-five years helping families resolve complex divorce and custody matters constructively. She is the author of Better Apart and The Secret to Getting Along and serves on the ABA Dispute Resolution Council. Website: BetterParentingPlan.com Instagram: http://instagram.com/gabriellehartleyesq _______________________________________________________________ This Week's Sponsors:  Hello Divorce - Hello Divorce is a modern platform designed to support people before, during, and beyond divorce, providing legal information, tools, and access to professionals who help individuals navigate the process more thoughtfully. Resources created specifically for Divorce & Beyond listeners are available at HelloDivorce.com/Susan. Yumiyu - YUMIYU Jewelry is Susan's favorite source for meaningful, handcrafted jewelry designed to empower women and celebrate individuality. Each piece is made with care, using high-quality materials like real gold and vermeil, and is water-resistant, non-tarnish, and hypoallergenic. Explore their stunning collection at yumiyujewelry.com and find your perfect piece today! Be sure to use Code: “BEYOND” for 20% off! _______________________________________________________________ If This Episode Helped You Subscribe to Divorce & Beyond so you never miss an episode. Share it with someone who needs clear, reliable guidance right now. And if you have a moment, leaving a five-star review makes a real difference in helping this show reach the people who need it most. Follow Divorce & Beyond Website: divorceandbeyondpod.com Instagram: instagram.com/divorceandbeyondpod ______________________________________________________________________ About Our Host: Susan E. Guthrie, Esq. Susan E. Guthrie is one of the nation's leading family law and mediation attorneys, with more than 35 years of experience helping individuals navigate divorce with clarity and strategy. She is the Immediate Past Chair of the American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolution, a best-selling author, and a sought-after speaker and trainer. Susan recently appeared as the featured expert on The Oprah Podcast and has been cited in The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, The Washington Post, NewsNation, and NBC Chicago Today, among others. As the creator and host of Divorce & Beyond, ranked in the top 1% of all podcasts worldwide with millions of downloads and an Apple Top 100 Self-Help designation, Susan brings together top legal and mental health experts to help listeners move through divorce and into what comes next. Learn more at https://divorceandbeyondpod.com/about Disclaimer: The commentary and opinions shared on this podcast are for informational and entertainment purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state regarding your specific situation.

A glamorous JPMorgan executive director in Leveraged Finance is accused in a bombshell New York Supreme Court lawsuit of drugging a married Asian junior employee with roofies, subjecting him to racial slurs, coerced humiliating sex acts, and career threats when he resisted—turning the office into her alleged personal playground. JPMorgan vehemently denies the claims, citing a clean internal investigation. This explosive case flips the #MeToo script, exposing power, consent, and hypocrisy on Wall Street—don't miss the full breakdown.

Sean "Diddy" Combs, also known as Puff Daddy or P. Diddy, faces mounting legal battles as his empire unravels under fresh allegations. RadarOnline reports that on April 24, 2026, Combs and his companies, including Combs Enterprises, Daddy's House Recordings, and Bad Boy Records, filed a sweeping denial against music producer Jonathan Hay's civil lawsuit accusing him of sexual battery and false imprisonment. Combs' attorneys reject every claim, asserting any interactions were welcomed by Hay, with no unlawful confinement or severe emotional harm, and they've demanded a jury trial while questioning the statute of limitations.The Insider Gist reveals another setback: On April 20, 2026, a New York Supreme Court judge dismissed Combs' $100 million defamation suit against NBCUniversal, marking yet another courtroom defeat amid his ongoing troubles. These developments pile onto prior federal charges of racketeering, sex trafficking, and prostitution, from which Combs remains detained without bail since his September 2024 arrest.As of late April 2026, Combs' legal team continues aggressive defenses across multiple fronts, but the high-profile producer's accusations threaten to extend his saga into open court. Listeners, stay tuned as this story evolves with potential trials looming.Thank you for tuning in. Come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for me, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AIThis episode includes AI-generated content.

In this episode of Murder: True Crime Stories, Carter Roy examines the disappearance of Joseph Force Crater, the New York Supreme Court justice who walked out of a Manhattan restaurant in 1930 and was never seen again. What began as a routine summer evening quickly spiraled into one of the most baffling missing persons cases in American history. As newspapers seized on the story, the vanishing judge became front-page news across the country. Rumors of political corruption, backroom deals, organized crime, and secret affairs swirled through New York City at the height of Tammany Hall power. Witness accounts conflicted. Leads evaporated. Evidence surfaced and then seemed to disappear just as quickly. Despite grand jury investigations, nationwide searches, and years of speculation, no body was ever found and no clear answers emerged. Was Joseph Force Crater the victim of a calculated murder, a casualty of political scandal, or the architect of his own disappearance? Nearly a century later, his fate remains one of true crime's most enduring mysteries. If you're new here, don't forget to follow Murder True Crime Stories to never miss a case! For Ad-free listening and early access to episodes, subscribe to Crime House+ on Apple Podcasts. Murder True Crime Stories is a Crime House Original Podcast, powered by PAVE Studios

In a special Women's History Month episode, City Bar President Muhammad Faridi speaks with Judge Bianka Perez, an associate justice of the New York Supreme Court and president of the Supreme Court Justices Association. Judge Perez speaks about her path to the bench – her roots as a Bronx paralegal and office manager, through night classes at New York Law School, and a legal practice serving both her intellectual ambitions and her commitment to supporting her community. Perez discusses how private practice shaped her perspective on judicial empathy, how her Dominican heritage and role models influence her leadership and service, and how mentoring students is a priority. She addresses the difficulty of rulings constrained by statute and precedent, coping with the stress of judging, and defines success as making history and lifting the next generation of Latina leaders. Want to hear more from women who lead? Check out the most recent International Law Conference on the Status of Women hosted at the City Bar, where we honor the women judges who uphold justice for all with courage and integrity: https://www.nycbar.org/videos/2026-annual-international-law-conference-on-the-status-of-women/ 00:00 Welcome and Women's History Month 00:26 Judge Perez's Bronx Beginnings 02:04 Working Full Time in Law School 04:43 Why Private Practice Matters 06:00 Law School Through a Practitioner Lens 08:22 Opening a Storefront Practice 11:39 Dominican Roots and Bronx Service 15:36 Bar Leadership and Becoming a Judge 18:47 When the Law Ties Your Hands 21:15 Life Experience on the Bench 24:02 Choosing the Judgeship Path 27:27 Mentoring and Paying It Forward 31:38 Carrying the Work Home 34:25 Success, Advice, and Closing

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching courtrooms turn into political battlegrounds, but here we are in the thick of it. It's March 25, 2026, and the Manhattan courtroom is buzzing as the hush money trial against Donald Trump kicks off today. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's case, accusing Trump of falsifying business records to cover up a $130,000 payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels right before the 2016 election, has finally begun after years of delays. ABC News reports that this trial, originally eyed for March 25, 2024, faced postponements due to appeals and overlapping federal cases, but Judge Juan Merchan is now presiding over jury selection in the New York Supreme Court.Just yesterday, whispers from legal insiders and Politico updates reminded us how this all intertwined with bigger fights. Back in 2023, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, D.C., set Trump's federal election interference trial for March 4, 2024, rejecting his lawyers' wild push for April 2026. Trump's attorney John Lauro argued they needed time to sift through 11.5 million pages of discovery from Special Counsel Jack Smith's team—evidence including fake electors schemes, Justice Department manipulations, and attempts to sway Vice President Mike Pence on January 6, 2021. Lauro called a quick trial a "show trial," but Chutkan shot back, saying Trump had "considerable resources" and the public deserved speed. Smith's prosecutor Molly Gaston pushed for January 2024, citing Trump's "near-daily" Truth Social attacks on witnesses and the court, which could taint the D.C. jury pool.That federal case, charging Trump with conspiracies to overturn Joe Biden's 2020 win, got tangled with others. In Florida, Judge Aileen Cannon—Trump's appointee—pushed the classified documents trial at Mar-a-Lago to May 2024, balancing Smith's December 2023 ask against defense delays. Down in Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis sought March 4, 2024, for her racketeering charges against Trump, Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows, and David Shafer over election meddling. But appeals, including over Willis's relationship with prosecutor Nathan Wade, stalled it indefinitely.Flash forward to now: with Trump eyeing another White House run, these trials feel like high-stakes chess. The Manhattan case today marks a rare state-level showdown he can't pardon away, unlike federal ones. Court filings from Courthouse News show Smith's team organized evidence meticulously—hundreds of thousands of pages from the National Archives, Jan. 6 Committee transcripts, and even Trump's own posts—dismissing defense claims of overload. Trump's team, including Todd Blanche, framed delays as due process, pointing to his packed calendar.As I sip my coffee watching live feeds, it's clear these battles aren't just legal—they're reshaping history. Bragg's team argues the Daniels payment hid damaging info from voters; Trump calls it a witch hunt. With verdicts looming, the tension is electric.Thanks for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production—for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

fWotD Episode 3239: Appellate Division Courthouse of New York State Welcome to featured Wiki of the Day, your daily dose of knowledge from Wikipedia's finest articles.The featured article for Wednesday, 18 March 2026, is Appellate Division Courthouse of New York State.The Appellate Division Courthouse of New York State is a courthouse in the Flatiron District of Manhattan in New York City, New York, U. S. The courthouse is used by the First Department of the New York Supreme Court's Appellate Division. The original three-story building, at the northeast corner of Madison Avenue and 25th Street, was designed by James Brown Lord in the Renaissance Revival style and was finished in 1899. A six-story annex to the north, on Madison Avenue, was designed by Rogers & Butler and completed in 1955.The facade of both the original building and its annex is made almost entirely out of marble. The courthouse's exterior was originally decorated with 21 sculptures from 16 separate artists; one of the sculptures was removed in 1955. The main entrance is through a double-height colonnade on 25th Street with a decorative pediment; there is also a smaller colonnade on Madison Avenue. The far northern end of the annex's facade contains a Holocaust Memorial by Harriet Feigenbaum, and the sculpture NOW by Shahzia Sikander is mounted atop the building. Inside the courthouse, ten artists created murals for the main hall and the courtroom. The interiors are decorated with elements such as marble walls, woodwork, and paneled and coffered ceilings; the courtroom also has stained-glass windows and a stained-glass ceiling dome. The remainder of the building contains various offices, judges' chambers, and other rooms.The Appellate Division Courthouse was proposed in the late 1890s to accommodate the Appellate Division's First Department, which had been housed in rented quarters since its founding. Construction took place between 1896 and 1899, with a formal opening on January 2, 1900. Following unsuccessful attempts to relocate the court in the 1930s and 1940s, the northern annex was built between 1952 and 1955, and the original courthouse was also renovated. The structure was again renovated in the 1980s and in the 2000s. Throughout the courthouse's existence, its architecture has received largely positive commentary. The Appellate Division Courthouse is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and its facade and interior are both New York City designated landmarks.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 01:05 UTC on Wednesday, 18 March 2026.For the full current version of the article, see Appellate Division Courthouse of New York State on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm generative Amy.

Hey listeners, imagine this: it's early February 2026, and the courts are buzzing with echoes of Donald Trump's legal battles, even as he's back in the White House. Just this week, on Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein in New York heard fresh arguments from Trump's team, led by lawyers like Todd Blanche, pushing to yank the hush money conviction out of state court and into federal territory. You remember that case—back in 2024, a jury in the New York Supreme Court, under Judge Juan Merchan and Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, nailed Trump on all 34 counts of falsifying business records. It stemmed from that $130,000 payment his fixer Michael Cohen made to adult film star Stormy Daniels to hush up claims of a 2016 affair, which Trump has always denied. Sentencing came on January 10, 2025, with an unconditional discharge—no jail time, just a clean slate on paper. But Trump's lawyers, including Emil Bove and Susan Necheles, argue the verdict's tainted. They say jurors saw evidence of "official acts" shielded by the Supreme Court's July 2024 immunity ruling, and that federal election law preempts the prosecutors' angle. Hellerstein's shot this down twice before, but the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals made him reconsider last November, zeroing in on those immunity issues. SCOTUSblog reports the judge's mulling it over now, with Trump's squad betting on a win to torch the conviction entirely.Meanwhile, the Supreme Court in Washington is gearing up for a blockbuster clash. On Monday, they slotted Trump v. Barbara for oral arguments on April 1—straight-up challenging Trump's push to end birthright citizenship, that 14th Amendment guarantee for almost anyone born on U.S. soil. It's part of their March session, running March 23-25 and 30-April 1. News4JAX's Politics & Power segment warns this is the real 2026 test for Chief Justice John Roberts and the justices, pitting Trump's executive power plays against limits on changing citizenship, trade rules, and even Federal Reserve tweaks without Congress. They spotlight cases like Trump's firing bid of Fed Governor Lisa Cook over alleged mortgage fraud claims, where lower courts seemed skeptical, demanding full hearings first. And don't forget the Georgia racketeering saga—those eight charges in Fulton County Superior Court before Judge Scott McAfee. DA Fani Willis got bounced by the Georgia Court of Appeals in December 2024, and new prosecutor Pete Skandalakis dropped all counts without prejudice on November 26, 2025. The federal cases? Poof—gone after Trump's 2024 win, with Special Counsel Jack Smith resigning and Judge Tanya Chutkan dismissing the D.C. election interference indictment on November 25, 2024, citing Justice Department policy.Over in Florida, the classified documents mess in the Southern District Court fizzled out too, postponed indefinitely. And today, eyes are on Ryan Routh's sentencing—Holland & Knight's Steven Block, chatting with News Nation, breaks down how the judge will weigh federal guidelines, Routh's mental health, and his shot to speak before getting locked up for trying to assassinate Trump.These battles show the courts drawing lines on presidential power, listeners—immunity wins, dismissals, and looming fights over citizenship that could reshape America. Whew, what a whirlwind.Thanks for tuning in, come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production—for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

A verified lawsuit filed in New York Supreme Court alleges retaliation at the highest levels of the NYPD. In this episode of Finest Unfiltered, retired NYPD Lieutenants John D. Macari Jr. and Eric S. Dym break down the lawsuit brought by a sitting NYPD Captain against the City of New York and senior NYPD officials. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges: • A punitive transfer commonly referred to as “highway therapy” • Removal from meaningful duties and access • An allegedly false anonymous complaint • Overtime denial • And alleged interference with the promotion process The lawsuit names Kaz Daughtry, John Chell, and Joseph Gulotta, each alleged to have played different roles in the claimed retaliation. This episode examines: ️ What the lawsuit alleges ️ How command authority can be misused ️ Why this case matters to every rank-and-file cop ️ New to streaming or looking to level up? Check out StreamYard and get $10 discount! https://streamyard.com/pal/d/5689366474915840 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Journalist and political author Michael Wolff has filed a lawsuit in the New York Supreme Court against Melania Trump, alleging that she threatened him with a $1 billion lawsuit over remarks he made about her alleged connections to Jeffrey Epstein. According to Wolff's filing, Melania's legal team sent him multiple warnings and demands for retractions after he suggested that she and Donald Trump once moved within Epstein's social orbit. Wolff's suit claims that the threats were intended to intimidate him and suppress reporting on the Epstein network, arguing that his comments were protected speech and not defamatory.The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that Wolff's statements were lawful expressions of opinion and requests discovery that could compel both Melania and Donald Trump to testify under oath about their past ties to Epstein and his associates. In response, Melania's representatives called Wolff's comments “false, defamatory, and lewd,” saying the First Lady would continue to defend her reputation against “malicious fabrications.” The case marks another high-profile intersection between the Epstein scandal, media coverage, and the powerful figures caught in its gravitational pull.to contact me:bobycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Episode 91 - Murdock and Marvel: 2017 It was a big year for comics in theaters, but local comic shops did not do nearly as well, with sales diving substantially from 2016. The Year in Comics  Comics in Other Media Comic Sales Notable Comics Top Comic News Notable Passings Marvel Eisner Awards Dan's Favorite The Year in Daredevil  Appearances: Daredevil v5 #13-28, Power Man and Iron Fist #10, Avengers #3.1, Kingpin #2-3, Elektra #3, Doctor Strange #21-24, FCBD All-New Guardians of the Galaxy #1, Defenders #1 and 6, X-Men: Gold #6, Thanos #10, Iron Fist #73  Writer: Charles Soule (#13-28)  Pencils: Ron Garney (#13-14, #17-18, #20, #26-28), Goran Sudzuka (#15-16, #21-22), Marc Laming (#19), Alec Morgan (#23-25)  Inks: Ron Garney (#13-14, #17-18, #20, #26-28), Goran Sudzuka (#15-16, #21-22), Marc Laming (#19), Alec Morgan (#23-25)  As we teased in 2016, the year starts with the Dark Art storyline that actually begins in October of 2016 and features the debut of serial killer/artist Muse. Daredevil's protégé Blindspot is invited to a warehouse where a giant blood mural has been painted. He phones Daredevil and the pair investigate while the owner of the warehouse starts charging admission so people can see the twisted art.   When the mural gets desecrated by an address, the pair find another equally horrifying art exhibit made with inhumans. Daredevil has a brief interaction with Muse on the building's rooftop before Muse escapes. While Daredevil tries to get help from Medusa and the inhumans, Blindspot goes after Muse and finds his hideout and several hostages he plans to use in his next art piece. Blindspot frees the hostages and acts as a decoy to Muse so they can escape. Blindspot though is captured by Muse and before Daredevil can save him, Muse gouges his eyes out.   Ultimately Daredevil defeats Muse and gets Blindspot to a hospital, but the damage is done. Matt Murdock is left feeling very guilty he let his student be hurt.  This leads to a short 2 book story arch called the Seventh Day where Matt enters a church for the first time in a while and speaks with Father Jordan. The story is light on action but makes up for it with real character development will be our Spotlight story of the week.   Next, Matt Murdock returns to Father Jordan and the confessional booth and finally answers the question we've had all series – “How was Matt able to make everyone forget he is Daredevil?” as he recounts his final days in San Francsico in a story called Purple.    Not surprising it has to do with Killgrave and his purple children. Killgrave used a guard in prison to escape and upon escaping sought his children to elevate his power beyond it's already dangerous level. Two of the children show up a Mat Murdock's house just ahead of a hoard of crazed people sent by Killgrave to capture them. Matt locks them and Kirsten in a panic room and then incapacitates the mob.   Daredevil goes after Killgrave and upon finding him, the rest of the kidnapped children and his power-boosting machine, Daredevil can't keep from falling under the purple man's influence.  Killgrave toys with him asking asks Daredevil what exactly the worst possible thing he could do is. Daredevil suggests the Purple Man to have everybody, heroes, villains and civilians, wreak havoc upon the streets. When asked what he would do in this scenario, Daredevil simply says "nothing".  This outrages Killgrave which is apparently enough for Daredevil to break free of control and takedown Killgrave. As a thank you for saving them, the Purple kids decide to help Daredevil by using the device and making everyone in the world forget that Matt Murdock and Daredevil are one in the same. Daredevil returns home where Kirsten doesn't realize Daredevil and Matt are the same so he leaves and decided to use this free start to go back to New York and start over.  This leads us into the next story – Supreme. In it we see Matt Murdock and Daredevil team up take the fight against criminals to the courtroom. Daredevil, with the help of Luke Cage and Echo – stop the Munition Militia from blowing up city hall but are only manage to capture Simon “Slug” Slugansky in the process. It's then ADA Murdock puts his idea into motion – have Daredevil testify against Slugansky in court – without revealing his secret identity.   The defense team tries to discredit the red suit wearing Daredevil saying “anyone can wear a suit”. Daredevil proves he is the real deal when the Milita charge into the courtroom attempting to free they cohort. When the dust settles, Daredevil is able to give testimony and the District Attorney's office wins the now high-profile case.   Seeing how the decision could affect his business interests, Kingpin launches a two-part attack on Matt Murdock to see the case go away is it gets appealed to higher and higher courts. He hires a former lead attorney for Tony Stark called just “Legal” to represent Slugansky in court and hires Tombstone to take out Murdock when not in court.   Legal is able to get the verdict overturned in the New York Supreme Court – which angers D.A. Hochberg (Matt's boss) saying he needs to stop using New York resources. That causes Matt to reach out to Foggy for help – which is interrupted by a Tombstone attack. Matt uses his Daredevil skills to beat him and escape with Foggy and Foggy agrees to help. Fast forward 2 weeks and the case is being heard by the Supreme Court.  To Foggy's surprise, Matt confesses that he lost the previous appeals case on purpose. He says he needed it to come before the Supremes in order for the ruling to have true power. And while waiting to for the case to be called, Matt gets confirmation Kingpin was the one who hired Legal. While arguing before the Justices, Murdock imagines his exchange with them as a physical battle, and feels like he's getting beat up badly. In his rebuttal to Legal's opening statement he stresses the voluntary good that all citizens are obliged to do.   Ten days later, the court rules in Matt's favor, potentially changing the entire landscape of law enforcement. Matt calls Foggy and tries to explain why he needs to fight criminals both in the courtroom and in the streets at once. He reverts to his classic red costume. Meanwhile, In NYC, and enraged Kingpin punches out a window, and tells Wesley to turn to Plan C.  The year ends with a 3-book story called “Land of the Blind”. Matt learns Samuel Chung (aka Blindspot) is in China, so he travels there looking for him. Shortly after arriving, he's captured by Blindspot and put in a hole for what seems like several months. We learn he has gotten his eyesight back thanks to a deal his mother made with the Beast and the Hand. Sam wants to trade Daredevil's life for the life of his mother – which he does. Though he has a change of heart during their escape and the pair return and help Daredevil escape. Upon returning to NYC, Daredevil learns Wilson Fisk has been elected Mayor of New York.  This Week's Spotlight: Daredevil v5 Issues 15 and 16 from March 2017 “The Seventh Day”  Recap Why We Picked This Story Daredevil Rapid Fire Questions The Takeaway It was a big year for women in comics. Questions or comments We'd love to hear from you!  Email us at questions@comicsovertime.com or find us on Twitter @comicsoftime. ------------------ THANKS TO THE FOLLOWING CREATORS AND RESOURCES  Music: Our theme music is by the very talented Lesfm.  You can find more about them and their music at https://pixabay.com/users/lesfm-22579021/.  The Grand Comics Database: Dan uses custom queries against a downloadable copy of the GCD to construct his publisher, title and creator charts.  Comichron: Our source for comic book sales data.  Marvel Year By Year: A Visual History  DC Comics Year By Year: A Visual Chronicle  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_based_on_English-language_comics  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Marvel_Comics_superhero_debuts  https://comicbookreadingorders.com/marvel/event-timeline/  https://www.comic-con.org/awards/eisner-awards/past-recipients/past-recipients-1990s/ 

I stepped into this past week of Donald Trump's court battles the way you might walk into a courthouse lobby at noon: no time for pleasantries, because everything is already in motion.At the center of it all is the New York criminal case, People v. Donald J. Trump, in the New York Supreme Court in Manhattan, the first criminal prosecution ever brought against a former American president. The New York State Unified Court System's public docket shows how that case has remained very much alive, even after the historic conviction earlier in 2025 on charges tied to falsifying business records during the 2016 election. The docket lists the verdict sheet from May 30, the jury instructions from May 29, and then a steady drumbeat of post‑trial motions, orders, and letters through the summer and fall. Judge Juan Merchan's decisions in August and November on Trump's efforts to recuse the judge and to loosen restrictions on Trump's public statements make clear that the court has continued to push the case forward despite intense political pressure. The presence‑of‑counsel orders, discovery‑sanctions rulings, and contempt decisions all paint the same picture: the New York court treating Donald Trump less like a former president and more like any criminal defendant pressing the limits of what a trial judge will tolerate.But the courtroom drama has now moved to an even higher stage: the Supreme Court of the United States. According to the Supreme Court's own docket and the Oyez case summary, the justices heard oral argument on December 8 in a case captioned Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, et al. That case, known as Trump v. Slaughter, places Trump as the sitting president again, squaring off against Federal Trade Commission officials including Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter. While the full opinion has not yet been released, the oral argument focused on how far presidential power reaches over independent agencies, and what limits, if any, courts can impose when a president seeks to reshape or overrule regulatory watchdogs.The Brennan Center for Justice's Supreme Court shadow‑docket tracker adds another layer. It reports that since early 2025 the Supreme Court has repeatedly been asked to intervene on an emergency basis in cases captioned Trump v. Boyle, Trump v. Wilcox, Trump v. Washington, and Trump v. New Jersey, among others. These disputes center on whether President Trump can fire members of independent agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the National Labor Relations Board without showing any cause, and whether he can rapidly change immigration programs and civil‑service protections. In case after case, the tracker notes that the Court has at least partially sided with the Trump administration, sometimes with only brief orders and sharp dissents from Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Lawfare's ongoing Trump Administration Litigation Tracker echoes this trend, cataloging a sprawling landscape of lawsuits in federal district courts and courts of appeals challenging Trump's deployment of the National Guard, his immigration orders, and his efforts to rein in inspectors general and other internal watchdogs.Taken together, the New York criminal docket, the Supreme Court arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, and the shadow‑docket rulings described by the Brennan Center and Lawfare show you a single continuous story: Donald Trump not just as a criminal defendant in Manhattan, but as a sitting president testing, case by case, how much control he can exert over the machinery of American government, and how willing judges are to push back.Thanks for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease dotSome great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

On October 28, 2025, Hassan Naveed, former Executive Director of the Office for the Prevention of Hate Crime in New York City, filed a lawsuit in the New York Supreme Court against Mayor Eric Adams, alongside several of his advisors. Naveed has cited alleged instances of workplace discrimination on the basis of race and religion as cause for his termination. According to the filed complaint, the workplace discrimination charges follow Mayor Adams's alleged discrimination toward Arab and Muslim workers post-October 7th. KCSB's Tatiana Jacquez sat down with Hassan Naveed to reflect on his time at the Office for the Prevention of Hate Crimes, and gain insight on his life since termination and filing the lawsuit against Mayor Eric Adams.

Journalist and political author Michael Wolff has filed a lawsuit in the New York Supreme Court against Melania Trump, alleging that she threatened him with a $1 billion lawsuit over remarks he made about her alleged connections to Jeffrey Epstein. According to Wolff's filing, Melania's legal team sent him multiple warnings and demands for retractions after he suggested that she and Donald Trump once moved within Epstein's social orbit. Wolff's suit claims that the threats were intended to intimidate him and suppress reporting on the Epstein network, arguing that his comments were protected speech and not defamatory.The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that Wolff's statements were lawful expressions of opinion and requests discovery that could compel both Melania and Donald Trump to testify under oath about their past ties to Epstein and his associates. In response, Melania's representatives called Wolff's comments “false, defamatory, and lewd,” saying the First Lady would continue to defend her reputation against “malicious fabrications.” The case marks another high-profile intersection between the Epstein scandal, media coverage, and the powerful figures caught in its gravitational pull.to contact me:bobycapucci@protonmail.com

Journalist and political author Michael Wolff has filed a lawsuit in the New York Supreme Court against Melania Trump, alleging that she threatened him with a $1 billion lawsuit over remarks he made about her alleged connections to Jeffrey Epstein. According to Wolff's filing, Melania's legal team sent him multiple warnings and demands for retractions after he suggested that she and Donald Trump once moved within Epstein's social orbit. Wolff's suit claims that the threats were intended to intimidate him and suppress reporting on the Epstein network, arguing that his comments were protected speech and not defamatory.The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that Wolff's statements were lawful expressions of opinion and requests discovery that could compel both Melania and Donald Trump to testify under oath about their past ties to Epstein and his associates. In response, Melania's representatives called Wolff's comments “false, defamatory, and lewd,” saying the First Lady would continue to defend her reputation against “malicious fabrications.” The case marks another high-profile intersection between the Epstein scandal, media coverage, and the powerful figures caught in its gravitational pull.to contact me:bobycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Journalist and political author Michael Wolff has filed a lawsuit in the New York Supreme Court against Melania Trump, alleging that she threatened him with a $1 billion lawsuit over remarks he made about her alleged connections to Jeffrey Epstein. According to Wolff's filing, Melania's legal team sent him multiple warnings and demands for retractions after he suggested that she and Donald Trump once moved within Epstein's social orbit. Wolff's suit claims that the threats were intended to intimidate him and suppress reporting on the Epstein network, arguing that his comments were protected speech and not defamatory.The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that Wolff's statements were lawful expressions of opinion and requests discovery that could compel both Melania and Donald Trump to testify under oath about their past ties to Epstein and his associates. In response, Melania's representatives called Wolff's comments “false, defamatory, and lewd,” saying the First Lady would continue to defend her reputation against “malicious fabrications.” The case marks another high-profile intersection between the Epstein scandal, media coverage, and the powerful figures caught in its gravitational pull.to contact me:bobycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Tune in here to this Thursday's edition of the Brett Winterble Show! Brett kicks off the program by talking about the New York Supreme Court's decision to significantly reduce the judgment against Donald Trump and how it represents a major blow to New York Attorney General Letitia James. He criticizes both James and Judge Arthur Engoron, calling them politically motivated and unprofessional, even referring to Engoron as a "weirdo." Later, Brett dives into what he calls possibly the worst story he’s come across—news that a California resident has contracted the bubonic plague after being bitten by a flea while camping near South Lake Tahoe. The unsettling news. He mocks the idea of returning to “13th-century” problems in 2025 and questions why the plague hasn’t been completely eradicated from the planet. Brett makes it clear he’s not a camper—recalling fewer than four lifetime camping trips—and urges listeners to avoid rodents, fleas, and all things wild. We’re joined by Jeremy Carl from the Claremont Institute to talk about immigration, assimilation, and the future of American identity. A North Carolina native and former senior official at the U.S. Department of the Interior, Carl discusses his recent article The Nation of Theses, which argues that America must return to promoting shared civic values while limiting immigration to manageable levels. Listen here for all of this and more on The Brett Winterble Show! For more from Brett Winterble check out his YouTube channel. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Katie and Steve discuss the recent decision by the New York Supreme Court granting the Manhattan District Attorney request for a turnover order directing the Art Institute of Chicago to return a drawing by Egon Schiele, "Russan War Prisoner," that the museum acquired in 1966. Katie and Steve review the history of the ownership of the drawing by Fritz Grünbaum, a cabaret singer who was killed by the Nazis in 1941, and the legal proceedings involving his art collection leading up to this controversial decision.   Notes for this episode: https://artlawpodcast.com/2025/07/01/an-update-on-the-manhattan-das-turnover-proceeding-against-the-art-institute-of-chicago/   Follow the Art Law Podcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/artlawpodcast/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@artlawpodcast Katie and Steve discuss topics based on news and magazine articles and court filings and not based on original research unless specifically noted.

This Day in Legal History: People v. Ruggles and the Transposition of a “Common Law Crime”On June 11, 1811, the New York Supreme Court of Judicature decided People v. Ruggles, a seminal case in early American constitutional law and one of the rare recorded convictions for blasphemy in U.S. history. John Ruggles was convicted for publicly declaring in a tavern that “Jesus Christ was a b*****d and his mother must be a w***e,” and was sentenced to three months in jail and fined $500. What made the decision historically significant was Chancellor James Kent's justification: he upheld the conviction by transposing the English common law crime of blasphemy into American jurisprudence, despite the existence of a state constitutional provision protecting religious freedom.Kent argued that the free exercise clause of the New York Constitution—similar to the First Amendment—guaranteed religious tolerance but did not protect speech deemed immoral or dangerous to public order. He defined blasphemy as “maliciously reviling God, or religion,” and asserted that Americans, like the English, required religion-based moral discipline to maintain social cohesion. Crucially, Kent held that blasphemy applied only to Christianity, stating that “we are a Christian people,” and that moral and legal norms in the U.S. were “ingrafted upon Christianity.”This decision represented a foundational moment in American law by carrying forward a religiously grounded common law principle into a supposedly secular, constitutional framework. Kent cited Sunday observance laws and other religious references in law as evidence that Christianity remained embedded in the legal culture. He acknowledged tolerance for other religions but did not extend legal protection to speech critical of Christianity.The decision aligned with Justice Joseph Story's later view that Christianity underpinned American common law, but stood in contrast to the secularist interpretation advanced by figures like Thomas Jefferson. Though Kent's reasoning carried weight in his era, it would eventually lose ground. In Burstyn v. Wilson (1952), the U.S. Supreme Court effectively invalidated blasphemy laws, ruling that speech critical of religion was protected under the First Amendment.A federal appeals court has ruled that President Trump's sweeping tariffs may remain in effect while legal challenges to their legality proceed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. paused a lower-court decision that found Trump exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs. The court called the matter one of “exceptional importance” and took the rare step of assigning it to the full 11-judge panel, with oral arguments scheduled for July 31.The tariffs in question include broad duties on imports from most U.S. trading partners—nicknamed “Liberation Day” tariffs—as well as separate levies targeting Canada, China, and Mexico. Trump has claimed that the tariffs are justified under IEEPA due to threats like fentanyl trafficking and the ongoing trade deficit. Critics argue these are not legitimate emergencies under the law and that only Congress has the constitutional power to impose tariffs.The original ruling striking down the tariffs came from the U.S. Court of International Trade on May 28, in lawsuits brought by five small businesses and twelve states led by Oregon. That court found Trump's use of IEEPA overreached presidential authority and misapplied a law designed for national emergencies. While disappointed by the stay, the plaintiffs emphasized that no court has yet upheld Trump's broad claims under IEEPA.Trump tariffs may remain in effect while appeals proceed, US appeals court rules | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently dismissed two more employees who were involved in investigations concerning President Trump, bringing the total number of terminations related to those probes to 17 since Trump's return to power in January. One of the fired individuals had served as a lawyer on Special Counsel Jack Smith's team and previously prosecuted defendants involved in the January 6 Capitol attack. The other was a support staff member also tied to Smith's team. Attorney General Pam Bondi reportedly ordered the dismissals. Although both had been reassigned to other DOJ divisions prior to their termination, their past involvement with the Trump investigations was cited as the likely reason for their firing.Earlier, on January 27, 14 attorneys were dismissed at once due to their work on Trump-related cases. In April, a longtime public affairs official who had represented Smith's team was also let go. The DOJ has not officially commented on the recent terminations. Trump has persistently claimed that the Justice Department unfairly targeted him for political reasons, though Smith's team consistently rejected that narrative in court. These firings raise new concerns about political influence over the DOJ's personnel decisions.US Justice Department fires two tied to Trump probes, people familiar say | ReutersA group of Tesla owners in France has filed a lawsuit against the automaker, claiming that CEO Elon Musk's public behavior and political alignments have caused them reputational harm. Represented by law firm GKA, about ten leaseholders are asking the Paris Commercial Court to cancel their vehicle contracts and recover legal costs. They argue that Tesla cars, once seen as eco-friendly innovations, are now perceived as far-right symbols due to Musk's vocal support for Donald Trump and Germany's far-right AfD party.The plaintiffs allege that Musk's political affiliations and controversial gestures—such as one during Trump's inauguration that was likened online to a Nazi salute because it was absolutely a Nazi salute—have made Tesla ownership socially and professionally damaging. The group also cites Musk's involvement in the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a Trump-backed initiative to reduce public spending, as further evidence of his deep political entanglements. Public backlash against Musk has included protests and vandalism at Tesla showrooms across Europe and the U.S.This lawsuit comes amid declining Tesla sales in Europe, where customers are increasingly turning to competitively priced Chinese EVs. GKA emphasized that its clients purchased Tesla vehicles for their environmental and technological appeal, not as political statements. Tesla has not yet responded to the lawsuit. Musk recently acknowledged regretting some of his remarks on X, the platform he owns, after a public dispute with Trump.Some French Tesla drivers file lawsuit over harm allegedly caused by Musk's behaviour | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

What happens when a nation forgets its spiritual foundations? In this thought-provoking exploration of America's Christian heritage, Jesse Cope connects seemingly disparate current events—from China's role in the fentanyl crisis to universities' embrace of DEI policies—to reveal a common thread: our collective unwillingness to acknowledge ideologies fundamentally opposed to our founding principles.The heart of this episode centers on an illuminating examination of the 1811 New York Supreme Court case "People v. Ruggles." Through Chief Justice Kent's powerful opinion, we discover how early American jurisprudence understood religious freedom in a way dramatically different from today's interpretations. Kent unequivocally declared America "a Christian people" whose morality was "deeply engrafted upon Christianity," distinguishing the true faith from what he called "imposters." This historical perspective challenges our modern assumption that the First Amendment requires treating all religions equally.Cope brilliantly articulates that the First Amendment was never intended to "separate God from the state" but rather to prevent the government from favoring particular denominations—a crucial distinction lost in contemporary discourse. Drawing from James Chapter 4, he confronts listeners with a fundamental choice between friendship with the world and friendship with God, warning that pursuit of the former inevitably leads to conflict with divine principles.For anyone concerned about America's spiritual direction, this episode offers both sobering analysis and hopeful perspective. As Calvin Coolidge once observed, "The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease." Have you made God your checkbox or your compass? The answer to this question might determine not just your personal faith journey but our collective future as a nation.Support the showThe American Soul Podcasthttps://www.buzzsprout.com/1791934/subscribe

What happens when a society abandons its moral foundation? In this thought-provoking exploration of faith, speech, and civil order, we journey through James 3 to understand the devastating power of our words and the necessity of taming our tongues. "The tongue is a fire," Scripture warns—capable of burning down relationships, communities, and even nations when left unchecked.Drawing from the fascinating 1811 New York Supreme Court case People v. Ruggles, we examine how America's founders viewed Christianity not merely as a personal belief system but as the essential moral framework for maintaining civil society. Chief Justice Kent's opinion that "whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government" serves as a prophetic warning for our current cultural moment.Have we conducted a dangerous experiment by removing Christian principles from public life? Look around at the state of our marriages, families, communities, schools, and institutions. The correlation between our rejection of biblical morality and societal breakdown becomes increasingly difficult to ignore. This isn't about imposing a particular denomination—it's about recognizing that certain fundamental principles are necessary for maintaining order and protecting freedoms.Prayer doesn't require theological complexity or fancy language. God simply wants us to talk to Him as a good father wants to hear from his children. Thank Him for something, ask forgiveness for shortcomings, and pray for those around you. These simple actions connect us to the source of wisdom that can heal our divided hearts and troubled nation.Take a moment today to consider how your words affect those around you. Are you bringing healing or division? Building up or tearing down? The health of our relationships, communities, and country might depend on your answer.Support the showThe American Soul Podcasthttps://www.buzzsprout.com/1791934/subscribe

Andrew Robb joins host Dan Ambrose to share his remarkable journey from aspiring opera singer to aviation litigation specialist at his family's firm. After clerking for federal judges and working in Big Law, Andrew returned to Kansas City to join Robb & Robb, a firm renowned for handling catastrophic aircraft cases. He discusses his $100 million settlement in a helicopter crash case and a recent $116 million verdict following a three-month trial in New York. On April 8, Andrew will break down the $100 million settlement case for a TLU webinar. At TLU Huntington Beach (June 4-7), he will present a workshop on aviation cases and a lecture on maximizing damages.Train and Connect with the Titans☑️ Andrew Robb | LinkedIn☑️ Robb & Robb LLC ☑️ TLU Beach☑️ Trial Lawyers University☑️ TLU On Demand Instant access to live lectures, case analysis, and skills training videos☑️ TLU on X | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeEpisode SnapshotAfter studying vocal performance at Carnegie Mellon, Andrew switched to pre-law and later attended the University of Michigan Law School.Andrew clerked for federal judges for two years before joining Big Law in New York City.In March 2020, Andrew and his wife, Brittany, joined his parents' firm, Robb & Robb, where he specializes in aviation cases.The firm represented Kobe Bryant's widow, Vanessa Bryant, in her litigation against Los Angeles County following his death in a helicopter crash.Andrew helped secure a $100 million settlement in a helicopter crash case after refusing earlier offers that would have set records.He recently won a $116 million verdict after a three-and-a-half-month trial in New York Supreme Court.Andrew emphasizes relentless preparation, strategic depositions, and the willingness to go to trial as keys to maximizing results.Produced and Powered by LawPods

Author, professor and retired New York Supreme Court judge, Diane Kiesel, talks about her latest book, When Charlie Met Joan: The Tragedy of the Chaplin Trials and the Failings of American Law. It is […]

On this episode of Bulture podcast: -Real estate developer shares footage of him being profiled in his neighborhood at the home he built -Dave Chappelle really brought back Silky Johnson in this new SNL Pop The Balloon skit with GloRilla -Ashanti is facing criticism following her husband Nelly's decision to perform at incoming President Donald Trump's Crypto Ball -Nelly Defends Performing at Trump's Inauguration: “I Didn't Know I Had to Agree with Your Political Choices” -Soulja Boy Stands by His Decision to Perform at the Crypto Ball with Snoop Dogg and Rick Ross: “Trump Put Money in My Pockets” -The judge and lawyers' debate whether to refer to Rihanna as A$AP Rocky's "wife" or "girlfriend" with his upcoming felony assault trial set to begin in just a few days -The Arizona man who went viral for appearing at a coffee shop drive-thru without pants reportedly took his own life shortly after the incident -Woman shares text message of her son's response after a 9 y/o girl asked him for money to date her -People are questioning why Big Meech is getting a Welcome Back concert with some of the game's biggest artists. “Men who graduate college don't get this much love” -Busta Rhymes Faces Assault Charges After Alleged Altercation w/ Assistant -CapCut announces that it will also shut down alongside TikTok at midnight, as the same parent company, ByteDance, owns both. -TikTok ban has influencers scared they might end up broke -17-year-old high school basketball star Noah Scurry who had the highest SAT score in his graduation class was killed in Philly a day after he dissed his opps in his first ever rap video -Method Man allegedly punched his daughter's ex-boyfriend in the face seven times at a Crunch Fitness gym in Staten Island -Drake has filed a new legal case in federal court against UMG for defamation, The New York Times reports. After dropping his case against UMG and Spotify in New York Supreme Court, Drake filed a new federal lawsuit on Wednesday accusing the music giant of defamation for releasing Kendrick Lamar's "Not Like Us,"

Criminal Procedure: The sentencing of Donald Trump - Argued: Fri, 10 Jan 2025 19:10:1 EDT

The Los Angeles firestorms. We debunk some of the MAGA disinformation. How the climate crisis is to blame. Jody's firsthand observations. Donald fell asleep at Jimmy Carter's funeral. Obama and Donald chitchat. President Biden's remarks about abuse of power. Merrick Garland will release the Jack Smith report. The New York Supreme Court's ruling on Donald's sentencing. The confirmation hearings. Biden trolls MAGA by honoring George Soros. You Were Warned: Elon backpedals on budget cuts. David's PSA about bird flu. With Jody Hamilton, David Ferguson, music by Karma and the Killjoys, Hunger Anthem, and more!See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Suspected assassin Luigi Mangione sat shackled before the New York Supreme Court, his maroon sweater, collared shirt, and orange shoes lending an almost surreal normalcy to the scene. At just 26 years old, Mangione faces accusations that would forever alter the lives of everyone involved. Charged with the December 4 murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, the case against Mangione has unraveled into a spectacle of political intrigue, social commentary, and legal complexities—a reflection of a fractured system and the unpredictable nature of public reaction. The courtroom was tense as Mangione leaned toward the microphone, chains clinking faintly against the table, to utter his plea: not guilty. It was a single moment, yet one weighted with significance. For prosecutors, it marked the formal beginning of a case they've described as “a frightening, well-planned, targeted murder”—a crime intended to terrorize. For Mangione's defense, it was a critical pivot in their strategy, one complicated by the unusual dual tracks of state and federal charges. A Crime That Shocked the Nation On a cold December morning, Brian Thompson was walking toward an investor conference in midtown Manhattan, a routine step in his high-powered career. Then came the sound of gunfire. Witnesses reported seeing a man fleeing the scene, leaving behind a chilling clue: bullet casings inscribed with the words “deny,” “defend,” and “depose.” The messages were unmistakable—a direct nod to the controversial practices of the health insurance industry. Police arrived within minutes, but the shooter had vanished into the city. Thompson's murder sent shockwaves through corporate America. His role as CEO of UnitedHealthcare made him a symbol of the very industry criticized for prioritizing profit over people. The crime scene, with its cryptic clues, hinted at a killer with a calculated message. Within hours, law enforcement agencies were working together to track down the suspect. Five days later, Mangione was arrested in a Pennsylvania McDonald's. Police found a gun matching the ballistics from the scene and a fake ID in his possession. Also seized was a notebook expressing deep hostility toward the health insurance industry, particularly its executives. Legal Maze: Dual Prosecutions Mangione now faces parallel prosecutions. In state court, the Manhattan district attorney charged him with multiple counts of murder, including murder as an act of terrorism. At a press conference announcing the charges, DA Alvin Bragg emphasized the calculated nature of the crime, calling it a “killing intended to evoke terror.” The federal charges, on the other hand, include terrorism-related offenses that could lead to the death penalty if Mangione is convicted. Legal experts have noted the rarity of such simultaneous cases, with some criticizing the potential for conflicting strategies. Karen Friedman Agnifilo, Mangione's defense attorney, has not minced words. During a federal hearing, she described the dual prosecutions as “very confusing” and “highly unusual.” The federal charges, she argued, could undermine Mangione's ability to mount a coherent defense in the state trial, which is expected to proceed first. “We're navigating uncharted waters,” she said. A Divided Public Reaction While prosecutors argue Mangione's actions were nothing short of domestic terrorism, public opinion has proven far more divided. Demonstrators gathered outside the courthouse during Mangione's arraignment, clutching signs that ranged from “Justice for Thompson” to “Free Mangione.” The latter group, a vocal minority, has cast Mangione as a vigilante hero, claiming his alleged actions were a dramatic—if extreme—response to perceived corruption in the healthcare industry. Social media has amplified this polarization. Hashtags like #MangioneTheMartyr and #HealthcareJustice have trended alongside condemnations of the crime. Some supporters have even gone so far as to fundraise for Mangione's legal defense. They point to the bullet casings and notebook as evidence of a broader political statement, rather than an act of senseless violence. Not all of Mangione's supporters are focused on his alleged motives. Some have fixated on his appearance, dubbing him the “handsome assassin.” This bizarre twist has only added to the media frenzy surrounding the case, with tabloid headlines oscillating between serious analysis and absurd fascination. The Evidence Piles Up The prosecution's case appears formidable. Ballistics tests have matched the gun found on Mangione to the weapon used in Thompson's murder. The notebook seized during his arrest contains detailed grievances against the health insurance industry, as well as chilling references to “making an example” of wealthy executives. Prosecutors argue these details demonstrate premeditation. DA Bragg has leaned heavily on the terrorism charges, framing the murder as an attack designed to intimidate a broader audience. “This wasn't just about Brian Thompson,” Bragg said. “This was about sending a message.” Yet Mangione's defense team has pushed back, questioning the integrity of the investigation. They have raised concerns about potential bias in the handling of evidence and have hinted at exploring Mangione's mental state as a factor in their defense. Agnifilo has also criticized the public framing of the case, arguing that the media's portrayal of her client has made a fair trial nearly impossible. A Broader Conversation Thompson's murder has reignited scrutiny of the health insurance industry, bringing books like Jay M. Feinman's “Delay, Deny, Defend” back into the public discourse. Feinman's work, which critiques the industry's alleged tactics of avoiding payouts, has been cited as eerily similar to the inscriptions found on the bullet casings. While there is no direct evidence linking Mangione to Feinman's book, the parallels have not gone unnoticed. The case has also prompted discussions about the role of terrorism charges in domestic crimes. Critics argue that labeling Mangione's actions as terrorism risks conflating political dissent with violent extremism. Others counter that the label is appropriate given the calculated nature of the crime and its intent to intimidate. What Comes Next? The state trial is expected to begin within months, with the federal case likely to follow. As the legal process unfolds, the public will be watching closely, not just for the outcome, but for what the case reveals about broader societal tensions. Mangione's fate may hinge on whether the jury views him as a cold-blooded killer or a misguided figure acting out of desperation. Either way, the trial promises to be a defining moment in the intersection of justice, politics, and public perception. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com 

Suspected assassin Luigi Mangione sat shackled before the New York Supreme Court, his maroon sweater, collared shirt, and orange shoes lending an almost surreal normalcy to the scene. At just 26 years old, Mangione faces accusations that would forever alter the lives of everyone involved. Charged with the December 4 murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, the case against Mangione has unraveled into a spectacle of political intrigue, social commentary, and legal complexities—a reflection of a fractured system and the unpredictable nature of public reaction. The courtroom was tense as Mangione leaned toward the microphone, chains clinking faintly against the table, to utter his plea: not guilty. It was a single moment, yet one weighted with significance. For prosecutors, it marked the formal beginning of a case they've described as “a frightening, well-planned, targeted murder”—a crime intended to terrorize. For Mangione's defense, it was a critical pivot in their strategy, one complicated by the unusual dual tracks of state and federal charges. A Crime That Shocked the Nation On a cold December morning, Brian Thompson was walking toward an investor conference in midtown Manhattan, a routine step in his high-powered career. Then came the sound of gunfire. Witnesses reported seeing a man fleeing the scene, leaving behind a chilling clue: bullet casings inscribed with the words “deny,” “defend,” and “depose.” The messages were unmistakable—a direct nod to the controversial practices of the health insurance industry. Police arrived within minutes, but the shooter had vanished into the city. Thompson's murder sent shockwaves through corporate America. His role as CEO of UnitedHealthcare made him a symbol of the very industry criticized for prioritizing profit over people. The crime scene, with its cryptic clues, hinted at a killer with a calculated message. Within hours, law enforcement agencies were working together to track down the suspect. Five days later, Mangione was arrested in a Pennsylvania McDonald's. Police found a gun matching the ballistics from the scene and a fake ID in his possession. Also seized was a notebook expressing deep hostility toward the health insurance industry, particularly its executives. Legal Maze: Dual Prosecutions Mangione now faces parallel prosecutions. In state court, the Manhattan district attorney charged him with multiple counts of murder, including murder as an act of terrorism. At a press conference announcing the charges, DA Alvin Bragg emphasized the calculated nature of the crime, calling it a “killing intended to evoke terror.” The federal charges, on the other hand, include terrorism-related offenses that could lead to the death penalty if Mangione is convicted. Legal experts have noted the rarity of such simultaneous cases, with some criticizing the potential for conflicting strategies. Karen Friedman Agnifilo, Mangione's defense attorney, has not minced words. During a federal hearing, she described the dual prosecutions as “very confusing” and “highly unusual.” The federal charges, she argued, could undermine Mangione's ability to mount a coherent defense in the state trial, which is expected to proceed first. “We're navigating uncharted waters,” she said. A Divided Public Reaction While prosecutors argue Mangione's actions were nothing short of domestic terrorism, public opinion has proven far more divided. Demonstrators gathered outside the courthouse during Mangione's arraignment, clutching signs that ranged from “Justice for Thompson” to “Free Mangione.” The latter group, a vocal minority, has cast Mangione as a vigilante hero, claiming his alleged actions were a dramatic—if extreme—response to perceived corruption in the healthcare industry. Social media has amplified this polarization. Hashtags like #MangioneTheMartyr and #HealthcareJustice have trended alongside condemnations of the crime. Some supporters have even gone so far as to fundraise for Mangione's legal defense. They point to the bullet casings and notebook as evidence of a broader political statement, rather than an act of senseless violence. Not all of Mangione's supporters are focused on his alleged motives. Some have fixated on his appearance, dubbing him the “handsome assassin.” This bizarre twist has only added to the media frenzy surrounding the case, with tabloid headlines oscillating between serious analysis and absurd fascination. The Evidence Piles Up The prosecution's case appears formidable. Ballistics tests have matched the gun found on Mangione to the weapon used in Thompson's murder. The notebook seized during his arrest contains detailed grievances against the health insurance industry, as well as chilling references to “making an example” of wealthy executives. Prosecutors argue these details demonstrate premeditation. DA Bragg has leaned heavily on the terrorism charges, framing the murder as an attack designed to intimidate a broader audience. “This wasn't just about Brian Thompson,” Bragg said. “This was about sending a message.” Yet Mangione's defense team has pushed back, questioning the integrity of the investigation. They have raised concerns about potential bias in the handling of evidence and have hinted at exploring Mangione's mental state as a factor in their defense. Agnifilo has also criticized the public framing of the case, arguing that the media's portrayal of her client has made a fair trial nearly impossible. A Broader Conversation Thompson's murder has reignited scrutiny of the health insurance industry, bringing books like Jay M. Feinman's “Delay, Deny, Defend” back into the public discourse. Feinman's work, which critiques the industry's alleged tactics of avoiding payouts, has been cited as eerily similar to the inscriptions found on the bullet casings. While there is no direct evidence linking Mangione to Feinman's book, the parallels have not gone unnoticed. The case has also prompted discussions about the role of terrorism charges in domestic crimes. Critics argue that labeling Mangione's actions as terrorism risks conflating political dissent with violent extremism. Others counter that the label is appropriate given the calculated nature of the crime and its intent to intimidate. What Comes Next? The state trial is expected to begin within months, with the federal case likely to follow. As the legal process unfolds, the public will be watching closely, not just for the outcome, but for what the case reveals about broader societal tensions. Mangione's fate may hinge on whether the jury views him as a cold-blooded killer or a misguided figure acting out of desperation. Either way, the trial promises to be a defining moment in the intersection of justice, politics, and public perception. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Sean "Diddy" Combs Secures Legal Access to Laptop Amid Sex Crime Charges Sean "Diddy" Combs has been granted access to a laptop in jail to review discovery materials as he prepares for his trial on federal sex crime charges. The decision comes after Judge Arun Subramanian denied Combs' bail for the third time, citing concerns about potential witness tampering. Defense attorneys advocated for Combs' access to the laptop following the bail denial. On Thursday, Subramanian ruled that the Bad Boy Records founder could use a laptop pre-loaded with discovery materials in his unit at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. The device, however, will be strictly limited in functionality. According to Subramanian's order, the laptop will only allow viewing of materials and cannot be used for note-taking or storage. The order mandates that Combs must be given access to the laptop "seven days per week from 8:00 AM to 3:30 p.m." Any additional access will require coordination with the government, and disputes will be resolved by the court. The charges against Combs, filed in September in Manhattan federal court, include sex trafficking, racketeering, and transportation to engage in prostitution. Prosecutors allege that Combs orchestrated elaborate "freak offs," involving male sex workers and women who were coerced or forced into participating. Combs has pleaded not guilty to all charges. The high-profile case is slated for trial in May 2025. Meanwhile, legal challenges for Combs continue to mount. On Thursday, three anonymous males filed new lawsuits in New York Supreme Court, accusing the music mogul of sexual assault. The allegations and legal proceedings are the latest developments in a case that has drawn significant public attention. The trial will likely examine claims about the operation of Combs' business empire and its alleged involvement in criminal activities. #SeanCombs #LegalAccess #SexTraffickingCase #DiddyTrial #BrooklynDetention #FederalCharges #CelebrityNews Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Sean "Diddy" Combs has been granted access to a laptop in jail to review discovery materials as he prepares for his trial on federal sex crime charges. The decision comes after Judge Arun Subramanian denied Combs' bail for the third time, citing concerns about potential witness tampering. Defense attorneys advocated for Combs' access to the laptop following the bail denial. On Thursday, Subramanian ruled that the Bad Boy Records founder could use a laptop pre-loaded with discovery materials in his unit at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. The device, however, will be strictly limited in functionality. According to Subramanian's order, the laptop will only allow viewing of materials and cannot be used for note-taking or storage. The order mandates that Combs must be given access to the laptop "seven days per week from 8:00 AM to 3:30 p.m." Any additional access will require coordination with the government, and disputes will be resolved by the court. The charges against Combs, filed in September in Manhattan federal court, include sex trafficking, racketeering, and transportation to engage in prostitution. Prosecutors allege that Combs orchestrated elaborate "freak offs," involving male sex workers and women who were coerced or forced into participating. Combs has pleaded not guilty to all charges. The high-profile case is slated for trial in May 2025. Meanwhile, legal challenges for Combs continue to mount. On Thursday, three anonymous males filed new lawsuits in New York Supreme Court, accusing the music mogul of sexual assault. The allegations and legal proceedings are the latest developments in a case that has drawn significant public attention. The trial will likely examine claims about the operation of Combs' business empire and its alleged involvement in criminal activities. #SeanCombs #LegalAccess #SexTraffickingCase #DiddyTrial #BrooklynDetention #FederalCharges #CelebrityNews Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Sean "Diddy" Combs has been granted access to a laptop in jail to review discovery materials as he prepares for his trial on federal sex crime charges. The decision comes after Judge Arun Subramanian denied Combs' bail for the third time, citing concerns about potential witness tampering. Defense attorneys advocated for Combs' access to the laptop following the bail denial. On Thursday, Subramanian ruled that the Bad Boy Records founder could use a laptop pre-loaded with discovery materials in his unit at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. The device, however, will be strictly limited in functionality. According to Subramanian's order, the laptop will only allow viewing of materials and cannot be used for note-taking or storage. The order mandates that Combs must be given access to the laptop "seven days per week from 8:00 AM to 3:30 p.m." Any additional access will require coordination with the government, and disputes will be resolved by the court. The charges against Combs, filed in September in Manhattan federal court, include sex trafficking, racketeering, and transportation to engage in prostitution. Prosecutors allege that Combs orchestrated elaborate "freak offs," involving male sex workers and women who were coerced or forced into participating. Combs has pleaded not guilty to all charges. The high-profile case is slated for trial in May 2025. Meanwhile, legal challenges for Combs continue to mount. On Thursday, three anonymous males filed new lawsuits in New York Supreme Court, accusing the music mogul of sexual assault. The allegations and legal proceedings are the latest developments in a case that has drawn significant public attention. The trial will likely examine claims about the operation of Combs' business empire and its alleged involvement in criminal activities. #SeanCombs #LegalAccess #SexTraffickingCase #DiddyTrial #BrooklynDetention #FederalCharges #CelebrityNews Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com 

Sean "Diddy" Combs Secures Legal Access to Laptop Amid Sex Crime Charges Sean "Diddy" Combs has been granted access to a laptop in jail to review discovery materials as he prepares for his trial on federal sex crime charges. The decision comes after Judge Arun Subramanian denied Combs' bail for the third time, citing concerns about potential witness tampering. Defense attorneys advocated for Combs' access to the laptop following the bail denial. On Thursday, Subramanian ruled that the Bad Boy Records founder could use a laptop pre-loaded with discovery materials in his unit at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. The device, however, will be strictly limited in functionality. According to Subramanian's order, the laptop will only allow viewing of materials and cannot be used for note-taking or storage. The order mandates that Combs must be given access to the laptop "seven days per week from 8:00 AM to 3:30 p.m." Any additional access will require coordination with the government, and disputes will be resolved by the court. The charges against Combs, filed in September in Manhattan federal court, include sex trafficking, racketeering, and transportation to engage in prostitution. Prosecutors allege that Combs orchestrated elaborate "freak offs," involving male sex workers and women who were coerced or forced into participating. Combs has pleaded not guilty to all charges. The high-profile case is slated for trial in May 2025. Meanwhile, legal challenges for Combs continue to mount. On Thursday, three anonymous males filed new lawsuits in New York Supreme Court, accusing the music mogul of sexual assault. The allegations and legal proceedings are the latest developments in a case that has drawn significant public attention. The trial will likely examine claims about the operation of Combs' business empire and its alleged involvement in criminal activities. #SeanCombs #LegalAccess #SexTraffickingCase #DiddyTrial #BrooklynDetention #FederalCharges #CelebrityNews Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Tim Walz gets fact-checked by CNN after he throws out bogus jobs statistics on "The View." Walz claims it's "simply factual" that Trump lost more jobs than any president in history. That's not actually true, but calling Harris and Walz extreme leftists is. We've got their voting records and public statements to prove it. Trump calls out the "enemy from within" that has leaked Israeli intel. The New York Supreme Court hands a huge win to the workers who were laid off after refusing the vaccine mandate. Amazon makes moves to provide prescription drugs as Rite Aid and Walgreens continue to feel the economic squeeze. LeBron James and his son make NBA history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Tim Walz gets fact-checked by CNN after he throws out bogus jobs statistics on "The View." Walz claims it's "simply factual" that Trump lost more jobs than any president in history. That's not actually true, but calling Harris and Walz extreme leftists is. We've got their voting records and public statements to prove it. Trump calls out the "enemy from within" that has leaked Israeli intel. The New York Supreme Court hands a huge win to the workers who were laid off after refusing the vaccine mandate. Amazon makes moves to provide prescription drugs as Rite Aid and Walgreens continue to feel the economic squeeze. LeBron James and his son make NBA history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A house was declared legally haunted by the New York Supreme Court, which now sets a precedent for disclosure by real estate agencies for revealing ghostly phenomenon about a haunted dwelling. On tonight's show, Clyde Lewis talks with paranormal investigator, Paul Eno about ‘SPECTRAL EVIDENCE!'Originally Broadcast On 1/19/16

This Day in Legal History: Province of Canada CreatedOn July 23, 1840, the British Parliament passed the Act of Union, a pivotal piece of legislation that led to the creation of the Province of Canada. This act merged the colonies of Upper Canada (present-day Ontario) and Lower Canada (present-day Quebec) into a single entity. The Act of Union was a response to the political unrest and demands for reform that had been growing in both colonies, particularly after the Rebellions of 1837-1838.The Act of Union aimed to unify the administrative structures of the two colonies, addressing inefficiencies and fostering a more cohesive government. It established a single legislative assembly, with equal representation from both regions, despite significant differences in their populations and cultural backgrounds. This structure was intended to assimilate the French-speaking population of Lower Canada into the English-speaking majority of Upper Canada, though it often led to tension and conflict.Taking effect on February 10, 1841, the Act marked the beginning of a new political era in Canadian history, laying foundational governance structures that would influence future developments leading up to Canadian Confederation in 1867. The Province of Canada would eventually split into the separate provinces of Ontario and Quebec, but the Act of Union remains a significant moment in the evolution of Canada's political landscape.The Ninth Circuit's updated case management system is being used as a model for the federal judiciary's administrative office to modernize its electronic filing program, according to Chief Judge Mary Murguia. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is collaborating with the Administrative Office of the US Courts to replace the CM/ECF system with a new cloud-based system by the end of 2025. This modernization effort aims to enhance the efficiency of filing legal documents and accessing case information.Since October, the Ninth Circuit has processed all new cases through its Appellate Case Management System, with older reopened cases still using the previous system. This development was a joint effort with the Second Circuit. Judge Murguia noted a significant decline in case filings over the past five years, with the Ninth Circuit now having fewer than 7,000 pending cases—a 23% reduction from 2019 and the lowest number in decades.Ninth Circuit's Case Filing System Used as Model for JudiciaryA New York appellate judge has affirmed that individuals who file complaints against attorneys in disciplinary cases have a First Amendment right to attend related hearings, view pertinent documents, and access some final decisions. This ruling emphasizes the importance of public scrutiny in holding judges accountable, particularly those serving fourteen-year terms appointed by elected governors. The decision, issued by Judge Victor Marrero of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, specifically impacts the New York Supreme Court's Second Appellate Department, which disciplines attorneys based on recommendations from the Attorney Grievance Committee.Judge Marrero asserted that transparency is essential for public trust in the judicial process. However, he allowed an exception for dispositions made by the chief attorney, whose role involves preliminary investigations. These do not need to be public to maintain investigation flexibility and protect attorneys from baseless accusations.The case originated from complaints filed in 2021 against attorneys in the Queens County District Attorney's Office. Despite these complaints being publicized online, none resulted in public discipline. The plaintiffs argued that public access was necessary, while New York City's former corporation counsel claimed it was a misuse of the process for political gain.Marrero dismissed Presiding Justice Hector LaSalle's defense of legislative immunity, ruling that withholding information is not considered policymaking. He also refuted the state's claim that providing access to certain records would necessitate a substantial overhaul of court operations, stating that procedural adjustments, even if cumbersome, are not illegal.New York Judge Peels Back Curtain on Attorney Misconduct CasesThe First Circuit appears likely to uphold a noncompete agreement against a former DraftKings executive, Michael Hermalyn, who sought to join rival sports-betting firm Fanatics. During oral arguments, Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson questioned why California's worker-friendly policies should outweigh Massachusetts' business protections. Hermalyn, who relocated to California, argued for the state's ban on noncompete clauses to apply. However, the contract stipulates Massachusetts law, as DraftKings is based there.DraftKings accused Hermalyn of violating the agreement by joining a competitor and stealing company secrets. Hermalyn's legal team contended that California's interest in attracting workers should take precedence. Conversely, DraftKings' counsel argued that state laws are equal and California's stance should not override Massachusetts' policies.A federal district judge previously prohibited Hermalyn from working for competitors, dismissing his reliance on California law. This case arises amid the Federal Trade Commission's broader move to ban most noncompete agreements, although senior executives are currently exempt.Hermalyn's attempts to establish California residency involved leasing an apartment, buying a car, and other actions. Massachusetts law typically enforces contract terms unless they violate public policy. Hermalyn's counsel asserted California has the most substantial interest in this matter, urging respect for its policies. However, Judge William Kayatta expressed concerns about prioritizing one state's laws over others in similar circumstances.DraftKings' attorney warned that ruling in favor of Hermalyn could enable others to evade contractual obligations by relocating to California, stressing the need to protect Massachusetts businesses from such tactics. DraftKings also alleged Hermalyn's residency claim was a ploy and accused him of downloading sensitive files before departing.DraftKings' Noncompete Clause Meets Supportive First CircuitElon Musk's social media platform, X (formerly Twitter), is being sued by the PR firm Multiply for trademark infringement. Filed in a California federal court, the lawsuit claims that X's use of the "X" trademark for social-media marketing services causes consumer confusion and infringes on Multiply's established trademark rights. Multiply's spokesperson accused Musk of stealing their established identity and stated the necessity to protect their mark in court.X rebranded from Twitter to X last year under Musk's ownership. This rebranding has already resulted in confusion among Multiply's clients, who overlap with X Corp's clientele. Multiply, which has worked with brands like Arizona, Corona, and Liquid Death, adopted the "X" branding in 2019 and holds a federal trademark for its "X" logo. Multiply is seeking an injunction to stop X Corp from using the "X" trademark and is asking for monetary damages. This lawsuit is one among several, as other companies, including X Social Media, have also filed infringement claims against Musk's rebranded platform. The case is DB Communications LLC d/b/a Multiply v. X Corp, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 3:24-cv-04402.X Corp hit with lawsuit from PR firm over 'X' trademark | ReutersIn my column this week, I discuss the pressing need for the IRS to bolster its cryptocurrency compliance measures to close the crypto tax gap and combat illicit activities. Cryptocurrencies are often used for illegal activities, and many tax evaders in the crypto space prefer to remain anonymous to distance themselves from their actions.A recent report from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) highlights significant gaps in the IRS's cryptocurrency tax enforcement. By improving compliance, the IRS can enhance transparency in financial transactions, address the crypto tax gap, and reduce illegal activities facilitated by digital currencies.Enforcing cryptocurrency taxes could yield substantial revenue and mitigate black market activities that harm the economy. Despite the potential benefits, the IRS's current efforts are inadequate. The TIGTA report notes that the IRS investigated only 390 cases involving digital currency between 2018 and 2023, with just 224 cases recommended for prosecution. The IRS's broader operation, “Hidden Treasure,” has focused more on training and tool acquisition than on actively pursuing crypto tax evaders.The use of digital currencies has exploded, with over 26,000 different types and a total market value exceeding $1.7 trillion. Estimates suggest that 21% to 40% of US adults have owned some form of virtual currency. Yet, auditing just 390 files is like pulling a few blades of grass from an acre and assuming a complete understanding of the field.Enhanced cryptocurrency compliance can significantly disrupt illicit activities reliant on digital currency anonymity. Cryptocurrencies are linked to crimes such as drug and human trafficking, ransomware, and terrorism. The IRS's $625,000 bounty for cracking the anonymity of Monero underscores the value of identifying cryptocurrency tax cheats.The IRS needs a coordinated approach to data sharing and analysis, leveraging artificial intelligence to handle vast data sets and uncover patterns. Financial or asset tracing, previously unfeasible on a large scale, becomes possible with advanced technology. Form 1040 already asks filers about digital assets; this data should be cross-referenced with information from exchanges and audits, focusing on high-income individuals for maximum audit returns.The TIGTA report emphasizes the urgency for the IRS to develop comprehensive compliance strategies, employing advanced data analytics and collaborating with blockchain analytics firms. The IRS must also work with other agencies to curb illegal cryptocurrency activities. While individual cryptocurrencies may remain untraceable, large transactions leave traces in the traditional banking system, providing crucial data points for analysis.The IRS has ample information on digital currency holders but may lack the context needed to connect taxes owed to individual taxpayers. Contextualizing existing data is key to closing the crypto tax gap and disrupting criminal enterprises reliant on cryptocurrency anonymity.To Improve Crypto Tax Gap, IRS Must Enhance Compliance Efforts This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Title: New York Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Donald Trump's Gag Order AppealThe New York Supreme Court delved the final blow to Donald Trump when it declined to hear his appeal about a gag order. In a pivotal decision on Tuesday, the court underscored the boundaries of the law, leaving the communication restrictions placed on the former president intact. The decision comes as a result of gag restrictions following his felony charges, placing the magnate and politician under strict privacy protocols.Donald Trump, the 45th President of the United States, continues to find himself in the legal spotlight post-presidency. The gag order appeal was notably one of the most anticipated decisions the New York Supreme Court was expected to make. However, their Tuesday ruling, regarded by many as a firm and unprejudiced application of the law, has now left Trump to maneuver within the boundaries of the gag order.Broadly speaking, the gag order prevents Trump from commenting publicly regarding his felony charges, which are undisclosed here due to legal restrictions. However, this hasn't hindered the underlying public interest around this case, as both legal pundits and common citizens view the court's decision as a reinforcement of the proverbial claim that 'no one is above the law'.In the wake of the court's decision, many questions arise concerning the implications of this ruling on Donald Trump's long-term political career. The former POTUS, famed for his active social presence and sharp communication style, now finds himself restricted from commenting on the charges that have been continually shadowing his public image.The New York Supreme Court's decision to not hear Donald Trump's gag order appeal is, without a doubt, a critical chapter in Trump's complex narrative. While it is yet to be seen how Trump responds to these restrictions, the ruling indeed serves as a stern reminder about the magnitude and scope of the law, regardless of an individual's political stature.However, amidst the buzz surrounding Trump's legal battles, there has not been any indication that public interest has swayed negatively. Instead, this development appears to have only further cemented the public's curiosity in the former president's ongoing narrative. The general sentiment remains one of anticipation, as observers wait for the next development in Trump's legal story. Whether you view Donald Trump as a controversial politician, a successful businessman, or a reality television personality, the current legal chain of events involving his gag order appeal continues to entrance the public sphere. As we wait for the ramifications of the New York Supreme Court's landmark ruling, the world watches, eager and wondering what the next steps in Donald Trump's path will be.

The Trump defense rested today in the criminal hush money trial without calling the former president to the witness stand after he said at one point that he'd testify. The trial is adjourned until next Tuesday when closing arguments are expected. CNN legal commentator Robert Ray, counsel to former President Trump in his first impeachment trial, and former New York Supreme Court judge Diane Kiesel break down what happens next. Plus, a video was posted on the former president's Truth Social account Monday that included images of a fake newspaper article that contained the words "unified Reich." The video was removed from his account Tuesday morning, and a Trump campaign spokesperson said in a statement that the video was not created by the campaign and was “reposted by a staffer who clearly did not see the word, while the president was in court.” CNN political commentators Van Jones and Alyssa Farah Griffin talk about how something like this happens and why it took so long to take it down.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

We're currently navigating through the sixth week of the former President Donald Trump's trial concerning allegations of falsifying corporate records, commonly known in the media as 'hush money', and the developments suggest a shift in the winds. Presiding Justice Juan Merchan of New York Supreme Court commenced the week with a significant announcement, setting the stage for the final arguments to take place in the forthcoming week. Anticipations are rife regarding the end of Michael Cohen's testimony on Monday, which has been a focal point of interest throughout the trial. Trump's legal counsel successfully utilized Cohen's previous law infringements and deceitful history, in an attempt to question his trustworthiness last week. The prosecution, however, insists that additional witnesses and financial records endorse Cohen's declarations. Justice Merchan offered some guidance to the defense team, outlining areas for former Federal Election Commission chairman, Bradley A. Smith's testimony. The defense aims to exploit Smith's knowledge to convince the jury that Trump did not intend to manipulate the 2016 election through his alleged misinterpretation of his business records. Parsing federal election laws is the proposed route, although, the experts are forbidden to explain the law or give interpretations, as per Merchan's direction. He expressed concern that Smith's testimony on campaign finance law would inevitably involve discussions or references regarding federal law precedents or the underlying intentions behind such rules.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this journey into the sewers of Jeffrey Epstein's criminal enterprise, we are taking a look at the civil complaint that Virginia Roberts filed against Prince Andrew that led to their eventual settlement.  Filing a civil complaint in New York involves several steps. Here's a general overview:Research and Consultation: Before filing a complaint, it's essential to research the relevant laws and consult with an attorney to understand your legal rights and options. An attorney can advise you on the merits of your case and help you navigate the legal process.Drafting the Complaint: The complaint is a legal document that outlines the facts of your case and the legal claims you are making against the defendant. It typically includes a statement of jurisdiction, a statement of facts, and a "prayer for relief" where you specify the remedies you are seeking.Identifying the Defendant: You need to identify the person or entity you are suing (the defendant) and ensure you have their correct legal name and address. If you're unsure, you may need to conduct some investigation to find this information.Choosing the Court: You need to determine which court has jurisdiction over your case. In New York, civil cases are typically filed in either the New York Supreme Court (for larger claims) or the New York City Civil Court (for smaller claims). The specific court will depend on factors such as the amount of money in dispute and the nature of the case.Filing the Complaint: Once your complaint is drafted, you will file it with the appropriate court. You will need to pay a filing fee, unless you qualify for a fee waiver based on financial hardship.Serving the Defendant: After you file the complaint, you must serve a copy of it on the defendant according to the rules of civil procedure. This usually involves delivering the complaint to the defendant in person or by mail, or using a professional process server.Response from the Defendant: After being served with the complaint, the defendant will have a certain amount of time to respond (typically 20 or 30 days). They may file an answer admitting or denying the allegations, or they may file a motion to dismiss the case.Discovery: Once the defendant has responded, both parties engage in the discovery process, where they exchange relevant information and evidence related to the case. This may include written questions (interrogatories), document requests, and depositions.Pre-trial Proceedings: Before the trial, there may be pre-trial conferences and motions where the court addresses procedural issues and attempts to facilitate settlement negotiations between the parties.Trial: If the case goes to trial, both parties will present their evidence and arguments to a judge or jury, who will then make a decision based on the law and the facts presented.Judgment: After the trial, the court will issue a judgment, either in favor of the plaintiff (you) or the defendant. If the judgment is in your favor, the court may order the defendant to pay damages or take other actions to remedy the situation.Appeal: Either party may have the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court if they believe the trial court made errors of law or procedure.(commercial at 8:06)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Final Giuffre v. Prince Andrew Complaint v.13.pdf (courthousenews.com)

On this journey into the sewers of Jeffrey Epstein's criminal enterprise, we are taking a look at the civil complaint that Virginia Roberts filed against Prince Andrew that led to their eventual settlement.  Filing a civil complaint in New York involves several steps. Here's a general overview:Research and Consultation: Before filing a complaint, it's essential to research the relevant laws and consult with an attorney to understand your legal rights and options. An attorney can advise you on the merits of your case and help you navigate the legal process.Drafting the Complaint: The complaint is a legal document that outlines the facts of your case and the legal claims you are making against the defendant. It typically includes a statement of jurisdiction, a statement of facts, and a "prayer for relief" where you specify the remedies you are seeking.Identifying the Defendant: You need to identify the person or entity you are suing (the defendant) and ensure you have their correct legal name and address. If you're unsure, you may need to conduct some investigation to find this information.Choosing the Court: You need to determine which court has jurisdiction over your case. In New York, civil cases are typically filed in either the New York Supreme Court (for larger claims) or the New York City Civil Court (for smaller claims). The specific court will depend on factors such as the amount of money in dispute and the nature of the case.Filing the Complaint: Once your complaint is drafted, you will file it with the appropriate court. You will need to pay a filing fee, unless you qualify for a fee waiver based on financial hardship.Serving the Defendant: After you file the complaint, you must serve a copy of it on the defendant according to the rules of civil procedure. This usually involves delivering the complaint to the defendant in person or by mail, or using a professional process server.Response from the Defendant: After being served with the complaint, the defendant will have a certain amount of time to respond (typically 20 or 30 days). They may file an answer admitting or denying the allegations, or they may file a motion to dismiss the case.Discovery: Once the defendant has responded, both parties engage in the discovery process, where they exchange relevant information and evidence related to the case. This may include written questions (interrogatories), document requests, and depositions.Pre-trial Proceedings: Before the trial, there may be pre-trial conferences and motions where the court addresses procedural issues and attempts to facilitate settlement negotiations between the parties.Trial: If the case goes to trial, both parties will present their evidence and arguments to a judge or jury, who will then make a decision based on the law and the facts presented.Judgment: After the trial, the court will issue a judgment, either in favor of the plaintiff (you) or the defendant. If the judgment is in your favor, the court may order the defendant to pay damages or take other actions to remedy the situation.Appeal: Either party may have the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court if they believe the trial court made errors of law or procedure.(commercial at 8:06)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Final Giuffre v. Prince Andrew Complaint v.13.pdf (courthousenews.com)

On this journey into the sewers of Jeffrey Epstein's criminal enterprise, we are taking a look at the civil complaint that Virginia Roberts filed against Prince Andrew that led to their eventual settlement.  Filing a civil complaint in New York involves several steps. Here's a general overview:Research and Consultation: Before filing a complaint, it's essential to research the relevant laws and consult with an attorney to understand your legal rights and options. An attorney can advise you on the merits of your case and help you navigate the legal process.Drafting the Complaint: The complaint is a legal document that outlines the facts of your case and the legal claims you are making against the defendant. It typically includes a statement of jurisdiction, a statement of facts, and a "prayer for relief" where you specify the remedies you are seeking.Identifying the Defendant: You need to identify the person or entity you are suing (the defendant) and ensure you have their correct legal name and address. If you're unsure, you may need to conduct some investigation to find this information.Choosing the Court: You need to determine which court has jurisdiction over your case. In New York, civil cases are typically filed in either the New York Supreme Court (for larger claims) or the New York City Civil Court (for smaller claims). The specific court will depend on factors such as the amount of money in dispute and the nature of the case.Filing the Complaint: Once your complaint is drafted, you will file it with the appropriate court. You will need to pay a filing fee, unless you qualify for a fee waiver based on financial hardship.Serving the Defendant: After you file the complaint, you must serve a copy of it on the defendant according to the rules of civil procedure. This usually involves delivering the complaint to the defendant in person or by mail, or using a professional process server.Response from the Defendant: After being served with the complaint, the defendant will have a certain amount of time to respond (typically 20 or 30 days). They may file an answer admitting or denying the allegations, or they may file a motion to dismiss the case.Discovery: Once the defendant has responded, both parties engage in the discovery process, where they exchange relevant information and evidence related to the case. This may include written questions (interrogatories), document requests, and depositions.Pre-trial Proceedings: Before the trial, there may be pre-trial conferences and motions where the court addresses procedural issues and attempts to facilitate settlement negotiations between the parties.Trial: If the case goes to trial, both parties will present their evidence and arguments to a judge or jury, who will then make a decision based on the law and the facts presented.Judgment: After the trial, the court will issue a judgment, either in favor of the plaintiff (you) or the defendant. If the judgment is in your favor, the court may order the defendant to pay damages or take other actions to remedy the situation.Appeal: Either party may have the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court if they believe the trial court made errors of law or procedure.(commercial at 8:06)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Final Giuffre v. Prince Andrew Complaint v.13.pdf (courthousenews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this journey into the sewers of Jeffrey Epstein's criminal enterprise, we are taking a look at the civil complaint that Virginia Roberts filed against Prince Andrew that led to their eventual settlement.  Filing a civil complaint in New York involves several steps. Here's a general overview:Research and Consultation: Before filing a complaint, it's essential to research the relevant laws and consult with an attorney to understand your legal rights and options. An attorney can advise you on the merits of your case and help you navigate the legal process.Drafting the Complaint: The complaint is a legal document that outlines the facts of your case and the legal claims you are making against the defendant. It typically includes a statement of jurisdiction, a statement of facts, and a "prayer for relief" where you specify the remedies you are seeking.Identifying the Defendant: You need to identify the person or entity you are suing (the defendant) and ensure you have their correct legal name and address. If you're unsure, you may need to conduct some investigation to find this information.Choosing the Court: You need to determine which court has jurisdiction over your case. In New York, civil cases are typically filed in either the New York Supreme Court (for larger claims) or the New York City Civil Court (for smaller claims). The specific court will depend on factors such as the amount of money in dispute and the nature of the case.Filing the Complaint: Once your complaint is drafted, you will file it with the appropriate court. You will need to pay a filing fee, unless you qualify for a fee waiver based on financial hardship.Serving the Defendant: After you file the complaint, you must serve a copy of it on the defendant according to the rules of civil procedure. This usually involves delivering the complaint to the defendant in person or by mail, or using a professional process server.Response from the Defendant: After being served with the complaint, the defendant will have a certain amount of time to respond (typically 20 or 30 days). They may file an answer admitting or denying the allegations, or they may file a motion to dismiss the case.Discovery: Once the defendant has responded, both parties engage in the discovery process, where they exchange relevant information and evidence related to the case. This may include written questions (interrogatories), document requests, and depositions.Pre-trial Proceedings: Before the trial, there may be pre-trial conferences and motions where the court addresses procedural issues and attempts to facilitate settlement negotiations between the parties.Trial: If the case goes to trial, both parties will present their evidence and arguments to a judge or jury, who will then make a decision based on the law and the facts presented.Judgment: After the trial, the court will issue a judgment, either in favor of the plaintiff (you) or the defendant. If the judgment is in your favor, the court may order the defendant to pay damages or take other actions to remedy the situation.Appeal: Either party may have the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court if they believe the trial court made errors of law or procedure.(commercial at 8:47)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Final Giuffre v. Prince Andrew Complaint v.13.pdf (courthousenews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

On the evening of March 24, 1990, nearly one hundred patrons gathered to celebrate Carnivale at the Happy Land Social Club, a small informal night club in the Bronx that catered to a mostly Honduran clientele. The evening took a deadly turn when, around 3:30 am, an explosion of fire roared up the stairway leading to the second-floor club, blocking the only exit from the building and trapping the patrons in a room rapidly filling with toxic smoke and fire. It's unknown how many patrons managed to escape the fire, but by the time the fire department had extinguished the blaze, eighty-seven people were dead.Thank you to the amazing Dave White of Bring Me the Axe Podcast for research!ReferencesBarbanel, Josh. 1990. "Bronx social club's sublease: How a firetrap skirted the line." New York Times, March 28: B1.—. 1990. "Tracing the club's owners." New York Times, March 27: B2.Barron, James. 1990. "The living search the faces of the dead." New York Times, March 26.Blumenthal, Ralph. 1990. "Fire in the Bronx; 87 die in blaze at illegal club." New York Times, March 26.Gelman, Mitch, Alexis Jetter, and Beth Holland. 1990. "87 die in arson called act of spurned lover." Newsday, March 26: 3.Gilbert, Allison. 2020. "A faded tragedy's long shadow." New York Times, March 29.Golden, Tim. 1990. "In the saddest way, New York learns about Hondurans." New York Times, April 1.Hernandez, Raymond. 1995. "Survivors call settlement 'unjust'." New York Times, July 7.Hevesi, Dennis. 1992. "Guilty plea by landlord in fire case." New York Times, May 9.Hirsch, James. 1988. "Most social clubs run the gamut of illegality." New York Times, August 22.Kerr, Peter. 1986. "Social Clubs: Modern Mob still uses a few as offices." New York Times, April 15.Lambert, Bruce. 1991. "Confession tape on Bronx blaze is heard by jury." New York Times, August 1.Lorch, Donatella. 1991. "Ex-girlfriend recalls threat before flames." New York Times, July 31.—. 1991. "Witness tells of visit by Happy Land fire suspect." New York Times, July 31.Maykuth, Andrew. 1990. "N.Y. fire suspect described as 'down to his last hope'." Philadelphia Inquirer, 03 27: 1.McFadden, Robert. 1990. "The Knights of the Padlock Sweep Forth." New York Times, March 31.New York Times. 1990. "7 victims: their stories, struggles and dreams of better lives." New York Times, March 29.Nieves, Evelyn. 1991. "Refugee found guilty of killing 87 in Bronx Happy Land fire." New York Times, August 20.People of the State of New York v. Julio Gonzalez. 1995. 163 Misc. 2d 950 (New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, February 10).Purdy, Matthew. 1995. "More than five years after the arson fire at the Happy Land Social Club..." New York Times, July 7.Roberts, Sam. 2016. "Julio Gonzalez, arsonist who killed 87 at a nightclub in the Bronx, dies at 61." New York Times, September 15.Schanberg, Sydney. 1990. "Please, some respect for 87 who died." Newsday, April 13: 62.Stanley, Alessandra. 1991. "At Happy Land mass-murder trial, days of tears, humor and boredom." New York Times, July 28.Stanley, Allessandra. 1990. "25 years to life for the arsonist at Happy Land." New York Times, September 20.Strom, Stephanie. 1990. "Hispanic residents rally against closing of social clubs." New York Times, April 6.Terry, Don. 1990. "Social club crackdown is the latest in a series." New York Times, March 26: A1.Wichers, Christine. 1990. "Male violence the real cause of Bronx fire." New York Times, April 10.THE BUTCHER GAME will be released on September 17th, 2024! To Pre-order go to (https://zandoprojects.com/books/the-butcher-game/) PLUS! If you preorder the book, get an autographed poster while supplies last by visiting (http://thebutchergame.com/)See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

A panel of New York appellate judges has reduced Donald Trump's bond in the New York Attorney General's civil case to $175 million, an amount he can probably afford. Ken and I discuss possible reasons the court took this surprise action — as is typical for this kind of decision in New York, the judges didn't really explain their reasoning — and the likely course of Trump's appeal to come later this year. Meanwhile, in New York Supreme Court (which is the trial court), Trump's criminal trial over falsification of business records starts next month — we have pretrial updates, including on the gag order for the former president modeled on another recent gag order.Plus: why are law clerks quitting Judge Aileen Cannon's chambers? And Rod Blogojevich is told to "just go." Sign up for our newsletter and find a transcript of this episode at serioustrouble.show. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.serioustrouble.show/subscribe

A state appeals court on Wednesday declared as unconstitutional a New York City law permitting noncitizen voting in local elections—a victory for election integrity advocates and those opponents of the legislation who mounted the legal challenge. Former President Donald Trump's attorneys are asking New York Supreme Court judge Arthur Engoron to delay enforcing the $355-million civil fraud ruling against him for one month. In a letter to the judge yesterday, attorneys accused New York Attorney General Letitia James of rushing to enforce the judgement. Ms. James had threatened to seize President Trump's New York real estate properties if he couldn't pay the fine. And in Georgia, the Fulton County Board of Ethics has confirmed it will take up multiple complaints against Trump prosecutor Fani Willis. An unprecedented expose of Beijing's global spying activities: Leaked documents from a Chinese state-linked spying agency allegedly show China's cyber intrusions against foreign governments and infrastructure. Chinese hackers claimed they have the ability to attack Microsoft, Apple, and Google users, according to The Washington Post. ⭕️Watch in-depth videos based on Truth & Tradition at Epoch TV

In this episode, I address the abomination last night on the debate stage for the Democrats. I don't see how they recover from this.  News Picks: John Fetterman melts down in a disastrous debate performance.  Viral video of a Facebook employee explains why the company is struggling. Biden keeps making things up about being arrested. Hillary Clinton already accusing ‘right-wing extremists' of stealing 2024 election. Google CAUGHT Manipulating Search, Buries GOP Campaign Sites in 83% of Top Senate Races. Big Banks Just Greenlit A Plan To Track Your Gun-Store Purchases. Crazed lib host suggests we should welcome foreign interference in our elections.  New York Supreme Court reinstates all employees fired because of the vaccine mandate.  Copyright Bongino Inc All Rights Reserved Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On today's episode of Human Events Daily, the New York Supreme Court has ordered the reinstatement of all employees fired over the Covid-19 vaccine mandates. Next, Poso analyzes the federal government's desire for a national police force after far-left activists broke out in a riot at Penn State in response to the appearance of conservative comedians. Meanwhile, Xi Jinping set the stage to be a lifelong ‘modern emperor' after he ejected the competing faction from leadership roles. Finally, Jack reviews which four cities remain in the U.S. where renters can afford a starter home. Here's your Daily dose of Human Events with @JackPosobiec Save up to 65% on MyPillow products by going to MyPillow.com/POSO and use code POSO Go to patriotmobile.com/poso/ or call 972-PATRIOT to get free activation with offer code POSOHead over to ammoseek.com to get ammo shipped straight to your door. 

The Supreme Court's win for religious freedom reveals that the libs don't understand what conservatives actually believe; the New York Supreme Court stops illegals from voting; and Ghislaine Maxwell gets placed on suicide watch. Become a Daily Wire member to watch summer blockbuster “Terror on the Prairie”, the most talked about documentary in America “What Is A Woman”, and so much more. Use code KNOWLES for 25% off your new membership: https://utm.io/ueHMa    Stream Backstage Live at the Ryman tomorrow at 7pm CST! DailyWire.com/Ryman — Today's Sponsors: With thousands of satisfied customers and an A+ rating with the Better Business Bureau, Birch Gold can help you protect your savings. Text "KNOWLES" to 989898 for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Supreme Court's win for religious freedom reveals that the libs don't understand what conservatives actually believe; the New York Supreme Court stops illegals from voting; and Ghislaine Maxwell gets placed on suicide watch.Become a Daily Wire member to watch summer blockbuster “Terror on the Prairie”, the most talked about documentary in America “What Is A Woman”, and so much more. Use code KNOWLES for 25% off your new membership: https://utm.io/ueHMa  Stream Backstage Live at the Ryman tomorrow at 7pm CST! DailyWire.com/Ryman—Today's Sponsors:With thousands of satisfied customers and an A+ rating with the Better Business Bureau, Birch Gold can help you protect your savings. Text "KNOWLES" to 989898 for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices