Podcasts about ninth circuit court

Environmental justice work speaks to the visceral nature of systemic oppression, lived through the bodies of Indigenous and local communities at the frontlines of climate crises and ecological degeneration. To defend the land, water and other natural resources is not a question of choice but survival for many communities protecting their territories from extractive industries. How do we then, as allies and advocates, choose to take the risk of offering our voices and organising with environmental defenders, in the movement to collective freedom and justice? This month, we bring onto the show Abby Reyes, an author and recognized leader in driving community climate solutions. Her first book, Truth Demands: A Memoir of Murder, Oil Wars, and the Rise of Climate Justice releases today, May 6, 2025, from North Atlantic Books. Truth Demands is a salve for anyone navigating the open waters of grief and essential reading for the emerging climate activist and those becoming more ecologically aware. The book chronicles Abby's own healing journey and pursuit of justice after the loss of her partner and two other land rights advocates when they were murdered near Indigenous U'wa territory in Colombia in 1999.  Born and raised in Virginia, Abby began her climate work conducting rural environmental legal assistance in the Philippines, her father's homeland, and later walked alongside the Colombian U'wa Indigenous pueblo in their fight against big oil – an experience at the center of Truth Demands. Today, she is the Director of Community Resilience Projects at University of California, Irvine, where she supports leaders from climate-vulnerable communities and their academic partners to accelerate community-owned just transition solutions. A graduate of Stanford University and UC Berkeley Law, she clerked on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, co-chaired the board of EarthRights International, and is an advisor to the National Association of Climate Resilience Planners.  Abby has been recognized as a “Model of Resistance” by Barnard's Scholar and the Feminist Conference, has a TEDx talk on How to Come Home and has discussed her work with the Law & Political Economy Project. She lives with her family in the San Francisco Bay Area. This conversation centres the themes of Truth Demands addressing embodiment as resistance, chronic fatigue and exhaustion in environmental justice work, and body reorganisation through rest. Visit mindfullofeverything.com to access full episode shownotes, resources and archives. Connect with us on Instagram (@mindfullofeverything_pod) and Facebook (@mindfullofeverything).

On this episode of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered,” the trade war continues. President Donald Trump has instituted a 90-day pause on reciprocal tariffs for countries willing to negotiate with America. China, however, will have its tariffs increased. Next, the DOGE claims to have uncovered massive immigration fraud while investigating the Social Security Administration. Supposedly, millions of illegal aliens have been given Social Security numbers and, in some cases, a voter ID. Then, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals just protected parental rights by reinstating a lawsuit against a school for transitioning a child without parental consent. Texas is also paving the way for parental rights with a new “Trey's Law” bill that restricts the use of NDAs in sexual abuse cases. Under the Donald Trump administration, parental rights are receiving massive support. Finally, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton will be running for Senate against Republican Texas Senator John Cornyn. Lt. Col. Allen West has a hot take about how the election will play out.   Today's Guests: Sara is joined by Dallas County GOP Chairman Lt. Col. Allen West and BlazeTV contributor Matthew Marsden.   Today's Sponsors:   My Patriot Supply: Stock up today before this deal disappears. Because when an emergency hits, food will be the first thing to go. Go to http://www.preparewithsara.com to claim your kit, plus an extra 12 days of food FREE!   First Liberty Institute: Go to https://firstliberty.org/sara, where you can also learn what First Liberty is doing right now to protect the rights of parents for generations to come.   'The King of Kings': I encourage you to see "The King of Kings," in theaters on Friday, April 11. Get your tickets today at http://www.Angel.com/SARA. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A decade ago, 21 youth plaintiffs in Oregon filed a lawsuit asserting that the government had violated their due process rights of life, liberty, and property by encouraging and permitting the combustion of hydrocarbon fuels such as oil and gas.The plaintiffs were represented by Our Children's Trust, a litigation firm based in Eugene.The case, known as Juliana v. United States, was dismissed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2020 for lack of standing and upheld in February 2021. An amended suit was dismissed by the Ninth Circuit in May 2024 again over lack of standing, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case in March 2025.The proponents are now attempting to put their hydrocarbon paranoia into the Oregon Constitution. On March 26 the state legislature held a hearing on SJR 28, which would add the following language to the Constitution:"All people, including children and future generations, have the fundamental right to a clean, safe and healthy environment."This is just performative politics. Hydrocarbons power the modern world; but if lawmakers think the public wants to return to the 18th century, they should vote to outlaw fossil fuels right now and run for re-election on that record.

Second Amendment, gun rights, legal battles, privacy concerns, youth engagement, constitutional carry, ATF, FBI, gun control, derangement syndrome, Second Amendment, ATF, FBI, gun rights, Supreme Court, judicial decisions, Wisconsin Supreme Court, gun laws, regulatory changes, firearms enforcement, Armed American Radio, Second Amendment, ATF, Democratic Party, gun rights, political commentary, Mark Walters, AOC, Bernie Sanders, gun control In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various topics surrounding gun rights, legal battles, and the implications of recent court decisions. The conversation includes insights from guests like Alan Gottlieb and AWR Hawkins, focusing on the Second Amendment, privacy concerns for gun owners, and the shifting dynamics within law enforcement agencies. The episode emphasizes the importance of youth engagement in the conversation about gun rights and the ongoing fight against gun control measures. In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various pressing issues surrounding the Second Amendment, including recent developments in the Ninth Circuit, the implications of shifting ATF agents to the FBI, and the ongoing battle for gun rights in state courts. The conversation features insights from experts like Dr. John Lott and Stephen Gutowski, who provide analysis on judicial decisions, regulatory changes, and the political landscape affecting gun ownership rights. In this episode of Armed American Radio, Mark Walters discusses the current state of the Democratic Party, the implications of recent changes within the ATF, and the ongoing challenges surrounding the Second Amendment. The conversation features insights from various guests, highlighting the dynamics of political leadership, the impact of social media on public perception, and the future of gun rights in America. takeaways Mark Walters emphasizes the importance of fighting for gun rights. The legal battles surrounding the Second Amendment are ongoing and complex. Privacy concerns for gun owners are becoming increasingly significant. The concept of 'Second Amendment derangement syndrome' is discussed. Youth engagement in discussions about gun rights is crucial for the future. The Ninth Circuit Court's decisions are pivotal in shaping gun laws. Shifting ATF agents to the FBI raises concerns about enforcement of gun laws. North Carolina is moving towards constitutional carry legislation. Reversing restrictions on gun rights for nonviolent felons is a significant step forward. The left's approach to gun control often leads to unintended consequences for law-abiding citizens. They want to take my guns, they're going to have to bring a station wagon. The Ninth Circuit has been called the most overturned circuit court by SCOTUS. The ATF's zero tolerance policy is likely history now. The FBI has far more resources than the ATF. The appointment of Robert Leiter signals potential regulatory changes. Gun rights restoration is a slow process but moving in the right direction. Everytown is pouring money into state races to influence gun laws. The Wisconsin Supreme Court race is a tipping point for gun rights. Permitting laws can be abusive even if they are technically objective. The political landscape is shifting towards state-level battles for gun rights. The Democratic Party is struggling with leadership and public perception. AOC and Bernie Sanders represent a faction that may not resonate with mainstream voters. The ATF is undergoing significant changes that could affect gun rights enforcement. Public sentiment is shifting against extreme gun control measures. The importance of social media in shaping political narratives cannot be underestimated. There is a growing frustration with the Democratic Party's disconnect from average Americans. The Second Amendment remains a contentious issue in American politics.

Second Amendment, gun rights, legal battles, privacy concerns, youth engagement, constitutional carry, ATF, FBI, gun control, derangement syndrome, Second Amendment, ATF, FBI, gun rights, Supreme Court, judicial decisions, Wisconsin Supreme Court, gun laws, regulatory changes, firearms enforcement, Armed American Radio, Second Amendment, ATF, Democratic Party, gun rights, political commentary, Mark Walters, AOC, Bernie Sanders, gun control In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various topics surrounding gun rights, legal battles, and the implications of recent court decisions. The conversation includes insights from guests like Alan Gottlieb and AWR Hawkins, focusing on the Second Amendment, privacy concerns for gun owners, and the shifting dynamics within law enforcement agencies. The episode emphasizes the importance of youth engagement in the conversation about gun rights and the ongoing fight against gun control measures. In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various pressing issues surrounding the Second Amendment, including recent developments in the Ninth Circuit, the implications of shifting ATF agents to the FBI, and the ongoing battle for gun rights in state courts. The conversation features insights from experts like Dr. John Lott and Stephen Gutowski, who provide analysis on judicial decisions, regulatory changes, and the political landscape affecting gun ownership rights. In this episode of Armed American Radio, Mark Walters discusses the current state of the Democratic Party, the implications of recent changes within the ATF, and the ongoing challenges surrounding the Second Amendment. The conversation features insights from various guests, highlighting the dynamics of political leadership, the impact of social media on public perception, and the future of gun rights in America. takeaways Mark Walters emphasizes the importance of fighting for gun rights. The legal battles surrounding the Second Amendment are ongoing and complex. Privacy concerns for gun owners are becoming increasingly significant. The concept of 'Second Amendment derangement syndrome' is discussed. Youth engagement in discussions about gun rights is crucial for the future. The Ninth Circuit Court's decisions are pivotal in shaping gun laws. Shifting ATF agents to the FBI raises concerns about enforcement of gun laws. North Carolina is moving towards constitutional carry legislation. Reversing restrictions on gun rights for nonviolent felons is a significant step forward. The left's approach to gun control often leads to unintended consequences for law-abiding citizens. They want to take my guns, they're going to have to bring a station wagon. The Ninth Circuit has been called the most overturned circuit court by SCOTUS. The ATF's zero tolerance policy is likely history now. The FBI has far more resources than the ATF. The appointment of Robert Leiter signals potential regulatory changes. Gun rights restoration is a slow process but moving in the right direction. Everytown is pouring money into state races to influence gun laws. The Wisconsin Supreme Court race is a tipping point for gun rights. Permitting laws can be abusive even if they are technically objective. The political landscape is shifting towards state-level battles for gun rights. The Democratic Party is struggling with leadership and public perception. AOC and Bernie Sanders represent a faction that may not resonate with mainstream voters. The ATF is undergoing significant changes that could affect gun rights enforcement. Public sentiment is shifting against extreme gun control measures. The importance of social media in shaping political narratives cannot be underestimated. There is a growing frustration with the Democratic Party's disconnect from average Americans. The Second Amendment remains a contentious issue in American politics.

Second Amendment, gun rights, legal battles, privacy concerns, youth engagement, constitutional carry, ATF, FBI, gun control, derangement syndrome, Second Amendment, ATF, FBI, gun rights, Supreme Court, judicial decisions, Wisconsin Supreme Court, gun laws, regulatory changes, firearms enforcement, Armed American Radio, Second Amendment, ATF, Democratic Party, gun rights, political commentary, Mark Walters, AOC, Bernie Sanders, gun control In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various topics surrounding gun rights, legal battles, and the implications of recent court decisions. The conversation includes insights from guests like Alan Gottlieb and AWR Hawkins, focusing on the Second Amendment, privacy concerns for gun owners, and the shifting dynamics within law enforcement agencies. The episode emphasizes the importance of youth engagement in the conversation about gun rights and the ongoing fight against gun control measures. In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various pressing issues surrounding the Second Amendment, including recent developments in the Ninth Circuit, the implications of shifting ATF agents to the FBI, and the ongoing battle for gun rights in state courts. The conversation features insights from experts like Dr. John Lott and Stephen Gutowski, who provide analysis on judicial decisions, regulatory changes, and the political landscape affecting gun ownership rights. In this episode of Armed American Radio, Mark Walters discusses the current state of the Democratic Party, the implications of recent changes within the ATF, and the ongoing challenges surrounding the Second Amendment. The conversation features insights from various guests, highlighting the dynamics of political leadership, the impact of social media on public perception, and the future of gun rights in America. takeaways Mark Walters emphasizes the importance of fighting for gun rights. The legal battles surrounding the Second Amendment are ongoing and complex. Privacy concerns for gun owners are becoming increasingly significant. The concept of 'Second Amendment derangement syndrome' is discussed. Youth engagement in discussions about gun rights is crucial for the future. The Ninth Circuit Court's decisions are pivotal in shaping gun laws. Shifting ATF agents to the FBI raises concerns about enforcement of gun laws. North Carolina is moving towards constitutional carry legislation. Reversing restrictions on gun rights for nonviolent felons is a significant step forward. The left's approach to gun control often leads to unintended consequences for law-abiding citizens. They want to take my guns, they're going to have to bring a station wagon. The Ninth Circuit has been called the most overturned circuit court by SCOTUS. The ATF's zero tolerance policy is likely history now. The FBI has far more resources than the ATF. The appointment of Robert Leiter signals potential regulatory changes. Gun rights restoration is a slow process but moving in the right direction. Everytown is pouring money into state races to influence gun laws. The Wisconsin Supreme Court race is a tipping point for gun rights. Permitting laws can be abusive even if they are technically objective. The political landscape is shifting towards state-level battles for gun rights. The Democratic Party is struggling with leadership and public perception. AOC and Bernie Sanders represent a faction that may not resonate with mainstream voters. The ATF is undergoing significant changes that could affect gun rights enforcement. Public sentiment is shifting against extreme gun control measures. The importance of social media in shaping political narratives cannot be underestimated. There is a growing frustration with the Democratic Party's disconnect from average Americans. The Second Amendment remains a contentious issue in American politics...

This Day in Legal History: Gideon v. WainwrightOn March 18, 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, fundamentally reshaping the American legal system. The case began when Clarence Earl Gideon, a Florida man accused of burglary, was denied a court-appointed attorney because state law only provided counsel for capital cases. Forced to represent himself, Gideon was convicted and sentenced to prison. From his jail cell, he handwrote a petition to the Supreme Court, arguing that his Sixth Amendment rights had been violated. The Court unanimously agreed, ruling that states must provide legal counsel to defendants who cannot afford an attorney. This decision extended the right to legal representation to all criminal defendants, regardless of financial status, reinforcing the principle of a fair trial. The ruling overturned Betts v. Brady (1942), which had allowed states discretion in providing counsel. As a result, public defender systems were expanded nationwide, ensuring that indigent defendants received proper legal representation. Gideon v. Wainwright remains a cornerstone of American criminal law, highlighting the importance of due process and equal justice. Today, the case serves as a reminder of how a single individual's persistence can shape constitutional rights for millions.Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will take senior status, creating a vacancy for President Donald Trump to fill. Ikuta, appointed by George W. Bush, has served on the court for over a decade and is known for her conservative rulings. Her decision to step back adds to Trump's opportunities to shape the judiciary, as he previously appointed 54 appellate judges in his first term. The Ninth Circuit, historically liberal, has seen a shift in balance, with 16 Democratic-appointed and 13 Republican-appointed judges. Ikuta authored key opinions supporting Trump-era immigration and family planning policies. Before her judicial career, she worked as a journalist and later pursued law, clerking for prominent judges. Her transition to senior status will take effect upon the confirmation of her successor.Ninth Circuit's Ikuta to Step Back, Gives Trump Vacancy on CourtA U.S. judge has ordered the Trump administration to clarify whether it violated a court order by deporting hundreds of Venezuelans, potentially setting up a constitutional conflict. The administration defended its actions, arguing that courts lack authority over the president's use of the Alien Enemies Act, a rarely invoked wartime law. Judge James Boasberg had temporarily blocked the deportations, but flights carrying alleged Venezuelan gang members still proceeded. El Salvador's president shared footage of deportees arriving, seemingly defying the court's directive. White House officials denied wrongdoing, while Trump's border czar suggested they would continue the deportations regardless of judicial rulings. Legal experts countered that the government must follow court orders, regardless of where deportations occur. The ACLU and civil rights groups raised concerns over due process and the administration's broad use of executive power. Trump has increasingly tested legal limits since taking office, often facing judicial intervention. The outcome of this case could further define the balance of power between the presidency and the courts.US Judge Seeks Answers on Deportation of Venezuelans Despite Court OrderU.S. authorities deported Dr. Rasha Alawieh, a Rhode Island doctor, to Lebanon after finding images and videos on her phone that they claimed were sympathetic to Hezbollah. She had also attended the funeral of Hezbollah's former leader, Hassan Nasrallah, and stated her support for him from a religious perspective. The U.S. government classifies Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, and officials said they could not determine her true intentions in the country. A federal judge had issued an order requiring 48 hours' notice before her removal, but she was deported the same day. The Justice Department argued that proper notification procedures were followed, defending Customs and Border Protection against claims of violating the court order. Alawieh's legal team withdrew from the case, citing new diligence concerns. The court later sealed documents related to the government's explanation. The situation raises legal questions about immigration enforcement and judicial authority.Doctor deported to Lebanon had photos 'sympathetic' to Hezbollah on phone, US says | 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

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously blocked the Trump administration's birth order immigration ban, ruling 3-0 against its emergency appeal. The judges stated the administration failed to demonstrate it would likely succeed on appeal, leaving the district court's February 6, 2025, preliminary injunction in place. This decision may push the issue to the Supreme Court.  

The federal government has the authority to deport foreign nationals in the U.S. illegally over the objection of local authorities, a panel of three judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled. The 29-page ruling was written by Judge Daniel Bress, with judges Michael Hawkins and Richard Clinton concurring. At issue is an April 2019 executive order issued by King County Executive Dow Constantine, which directed county officials to prohibit fixed base operators on a county airfield near Seattle from servicing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement charter flights used to deport illegal foreign nationals. Constantine's order prohibited King County International Airport from supporting “the transportation and deportation of immigration detainees in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, either traveling within or arriving or departing the United States or its territories.”

Nancy Churchill examines the Ninth Circuit Court ruling declaring King County's ICE flight ban unconstitutional, discussing its implications for Washington state's immigration and public safety policies. Learn more at https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/opinion/opinion-washington-states-resistance-to-ice-declared-unconstitutional on www.ClarkCountyToday.com. #ClarkCountyWa #localnews #NinthCircuitCourt #immigrationpolicies #fentanylcrisis

Mentors are invaluable. This special joint episode highlights individual mentoring relationships. This episode features Judge Dorothy W. Nelson, Senior Circuit Judge on the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and her former law clerk Lisa Kloppenberg, a University of Santa Clara Law Professor, former law school Dean and Interim Provost of Santa Clara University. Host M.C. Sungaila also counts Judge Nelson among her mentors, having served as one of Judge Nelson's externs.

Welcome to the upEND 2024 Convening! This episode was recorded live in Houston, TX on October 10, 2024.  Our liberation movements are intertwined. What are our strengths and opportunities in working together to achieve our collective goals? Guest host Corey Best moderates a conversation with activists working against prisons, immigrant detention, family policing, and more. Episode Guests:   Corey B. Best is a Black father, community organizer, activist, and leader. Originally from Washington, DC, Corey now resides in Florida. Corey has attached himself to “justice doing” — a movement and never-ending journey of being guided by the principled struggle to advance racial justice within this nation's child welfare and human service delivery systems.  This work puts Corey in front of more than 10,000 professionals annually and has afforded him with the fundamental knowledge about the importance of connecting to something bigger than himself–allowing perspective, pain, truth, joy, and vulnerability to surface in search of meaningful, collective impact.  In all his endeavors, Corey brings a deepened historical and contemporary analysis of the invention of race, racism, systems of oppression and how those systems interconnect to produce white advantage gaps.   Tanisha Long (she/her) is the Allegheny County community organizer for ALC. She holds a BA in English writing and a minor in legal studies from the University of Pittsburgh. Before her work with ALC, Tanisha organized the Black Lives Matter Pittsburgh and Southwest PA organization working to fight systemic racial injustice. Since 2008, Tanisha has organized rallies and direct actions centered around climate change, voting rights, and mass incarceration. She is also the founder of RE Visions, a nonprofit committed to creating a more equitable learning environment for students of color. Tanisha believes there is a power at the intersection of art & activism; she hopes to use her passion for storytelling to both center and better the lives of those impacted by our inequitable justice systems.   Tarek Ismail is Associate Professor at CUNY Law School, where co-directs the Family Law Practice Clinic and Family Defense Practicum, and is counsel to CUNY Law's Creating Law Enforcement Accountability & Responsibility (CLEAR) project.   Jennefer Canales-Pelaez joined the ILRC in 2022. Jennefer has advocated for immigrant rights from the age of 11 when she advocated for her father's immigration status to the President at the time, George W. Bush. Although her father was ultimately deported, Jennefer dedicated her life and career to ensuring that no one else experiences the trauma she felt at the age of 11. She graduated from Occidental College with a B.A. in Sociology in 2012 and earned her Juris Doctor from Southwestern Law School in 2016. Jennefer is a member of the State Bar of Texas and California. She is also admitted in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Jennefer has been involved with ICE out of LA, Southwestern Immigration Law Clinic, National Immigration Law Center (NILC), Esperanza Immigrant Rights Project, Immigrant Defenders Law Center (IMMDEF), Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA) and worked with the Los Angeles Immigration Court. Jennefer is a former board member and co-president of the National Lawyers Guild-LA Chapter, and former Apen Ideas Scholar. After moving back to her hometown, Houston, Texas in 2019, she represented survivors of gender-based violence at Tahirih Justice Center prior to joining the ILRC. Jennefer was nominated as one of Houston's Unsung Heros in 2020.  Episode Notes:  Support the work of upEND: upendmovement.org/donate Watch the full video of this session: https://upendmovement.org/event/live-upend-podcast-recording/  Read the episode transcript: upendmovement.org/podcast/2024-convening

President Mueller joins Mike to talk about Grand Canyon University's win in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In this episode, we explore the transformative experience of law school clinics and their pivotal role in shaping the careers of aspiring lawyers. Today, we have the privilege of hearing from three exceptional graduates of Loyola Law School of Los Angeles' Ninth Circuit Clinic: Tina Kuang, Sydney Wong, and Molly Okamura. Under the guidance of our host, M.C. Sungaila, these talented alumni share their remarkable journeys, where they, along with their law school teammates, took on the challenge of briefing, arguing, and ultimately prevailing in immigration appeals before the esteemed Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Their stories exemplify how participation in law school clinics can sharpen legal skills, nurture professional growth, and accelerate careers in the legal arena.

This Day in Legal History: New York Grants Women Right to VoteOn November 6, 1917, New York became one of the first eastern states to grant women the right to vote, a pivotal victory for the suffrage movement in the United States. The state's voters approved a constitutional amendment that extended suffrage to women, marking a significant shift in public opinion and advancing the national push for equal voting rights. New York was the most populous state to enact such a measure, lending critical momentum to the cause and demonstrating that widespread support for women's suffrage was achievable in even the largest urban areas.This victory was the result of decades of persistent activism and organizing by leaders such as Carrie Chapman Catt, who spearheaded the Empire State Campaign Committee, and countless local suffragists who canvassed tirelessly for public support. Women in New York had actively campaigned, held rallies, and built coalitions, especially focusing on mobilizing working-class women and men. The successful vote was seen as a clear mandate for gender equality and significantly influenced other states and Congress.New York's decision to enfranchise women not only energized the movement but also helped propel the passage of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1920, which granted voting rights to women nationwide. This milestone in New York underscored the growing acknowledgment of women's role in public and political life, laying groundwork for further social and political reforms across the country.The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments in a case concerning whether a heightened standard of proof is necessary for employers claiming that workers are exempt from overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Currently, there is a split among federal circuits on this issue, with the Fourth Circuit requiring a "clear and convincing" evidence standard, while other circuits apply the lower "preponderance of the evidence" standard, which means the employer must show it is more likely than not that an exemption applies. The case has significant implications for both workers' rights and business costs.Representing E.M.D. Sales, attorney Lisa Blatt argued that the default civil standard, preponderance of the evidence, should apply to FLSA cases, as imposing a stricter standard would burden employers and potentially lead to layoffs. Conversely, Lauren Bateman, representing employees and supported by Public Citizen, contended that because FLSA regulations protect critical worker health, safety, and economic welfare, a higher standard is warranted to ensure these protections are meaningful.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson underscored that the FLSA aims not only to provide fair pay but also to ensure a safe workplace and expand employment, suggesting the importance of potentially adopting a stricter standard. Meanwhile, Justice Clarence Thomas raised questions about why the FLSA should receive special treatment over other laws that also protect essential rights, such as those addressing discrimination.The case attracted varied views on the potential broader impacts of raising the standard of proof. Some justices, like Samuel Alito, questioned how the court would measure the relative importance of rights across federal laws. The Justice Department, represented by Aimee Brown, supported the employer's position, noting that Congress enacts many laws with public benefits, yet courts rarely apply a heightened standard of proof in such cases.The Supreme Court's eventual decision could standardize how proof requirements are applied in overtime cases and influence both worker protections and business practices across the country.US Supreme Court Leans Toward Business in Overtime Dispute (1)A new lawsuit accuses Pfizer Inc. of failing to warn patients that its contraceptive injection, Depo-Provera, could increase the risk of brain tumors. Plaintiff Taylor Devorak filed the complaint in California, alleging that Pfizer and other manufacturers had a duty to research and disclose potential links between Depo-Provera, as well as similar progesterone-based drugs, and intracranial meningiomas, a type of brain tumor. The lawsuit seeks damages based on claims of failure to warn, defective design, negligence, and misrepresentation.Devorak's case follows similar lawsuits filed recently in California and Indiana. Her complaint notes that although the drug has been FDA-approved for over 30 years and widely used, Pfizer has not updated the U.S. labeling to reflect these risks, even as health authorities in the EU and UK now include warnings about meningioma for such medications. A 2024 study published in the *British Medical Journal* found a substantial increase in risk for brain tumors with prolonged use of medroxyprogesterone acetate, the active ingredient in Depo-Provera.In response, Pfizer asserts that Depo-Provera has been a safe option for millions and plans to “vigorously defend” against the claims. The case has brought renewed attention to safety and disclosure practices in the pharmaceutical industry, particularly around long-established medications.Pfizer Accused of Hiding Contraceptive's Brain Tumor Link (1)Following Donald Trump's recent election as U.S. president, the criminal cases against him are likely to be halted for the duration of his term. Trump, the first former president to face criminal charges, had four active prosecutions, including charges related to attempts to overturn the 2020 election results, a hush-money payment linked to Stormy Daniels, and unlawful retention of classified documents. Trump, who has pleaded not guilty to all charges and dismissed the cases as politically motivated, has stated he would immediately dismiss Special Counsel Jack Smith, responsible for the federal prosecutions on election interference and document retention.While Trump can halt federal cases, he has less control over state cases, such as the New York hush-money and Georgia election interference cases. However, his presidency could still effectively delay or complicate these proceedings. Legal experts expect delays in his New York sentencing, which had already been postponed, citing potential presidential immunity arguments.In Georgia, Trump's lawyers are working to pause proceedings under the argument that a sitting president should not face criminal prosecution. Additionally, his team has challenged Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis's involvement, aiming to disqualify her based on alleged misconduct. Ultimately, experts believe Trump's presidency will prevent the state-level cases from moving forward until his term concludes.Trump's impending return to White House brings criminal cases to a halt | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on Facebook's effort to dismiss a securities fraud lawsuit brought by shareholders who claim the company misled investors about the misuse of user data. The lawsuit, initiated by Amalgamated Bank in 2018, argues that Facebook violated the Securities Exchange Act by failing to disclose the 2015 Cambridge Analytica data breach, which affected over 30 million users and contributed to Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. Shareholders allege that Facebook presented data privacy risks as hypothetical even though the breach had already occurred.Facebook contends that it was not legally required to disclose the prior breach and that reasonable investors would interpret risk disclosures as forward-looking. A federal judge initially dismissed the case, but the Ninth Circuit Court revived it, noting that Facebook's statements misrepresented an already-realized risk. The Supreme Court's decision, expected by June, could influence the standards for securities fraud cases, making it harder for private parties to pursue claims. This case, along with a similar appeal by Nvidia, could further limit the liability of companies for nondisclosure of past risks. Past Cambridge Analytica fallout has led Facebook to settle related SEC and FTC actions, paying $100 million and $5 billion, respectively.US Supreme Court to hear Facebook bid to escape securities fraud suit | 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

#STSNation, Great Scott! It's time for your true crime “Fil” …with Fil and Scott. A show so good, it happens live every Friday… The murder trial of Sarah Boone, accused of suffocating her boyfriend in a suitcase in February 2020, has been delayed until Oct. 14 due to Hurricane Milton. Jury selection in the trial was scheduled to start Monday, but Judge Michael Kraynick, after consulting with prosecutors and Boone's defense team, decided to send the prospective jurors home. All courthouses in the Ninth Circuit Court will be closed Wednesday and Thursday. It is the latest delay in the case, which is finally coming to trial 4 ½ years after the death of Boone's boyfriend, Jorge Torres Jr., in February 2020. The case had been delayed 16 times as of February. Today, Fil & Scott breakdown Sarah's conflicting statements. #BestGuests: America's most respected Detective Fil Waters spent decades in the law enforcement world becomING an expert at obtaining criminal confessions. He spent 23 years working as a homicide detective in the Houston Police Department investigating more than 400 homicide cases, including one that took the life of his good friend and fellow police officer. Detective Waters is also a Marine and the owner of Kindred Spirits Investigations. He also starred in the show “The Interrogator”. Agent Scott Duffey is Director of Wilmington University's Criminal Justice Institute. Scott is a retired FBI supervisory Special Agent of the Wilmington, Delaware Resident Agency. He worked violent crime matters, gangs, bank robberies and Fugitive task force cases for 20 years before being promoted supervisor of the violent crime task force in Wilmington, Delaware Prior to FBI, served 5 1/2 years as a Pennsylvania police officer  Support the show:Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/SurvivingTheSurvivorYouTube: Surviving The Survivor: #BestGuests in True Crime - YouTubeJoel's Book: Https://www.amazon.com/shop/surviving...Website: https://survivingthesurvivor.comAll Things STS: https://linktr.ee/stspodcast #SarahBoone #SuitcaseMurder #SelfDefense #Orlando #TrueCrime #TrueCrimeCommunity #JorgeTorres #JamesOwens #Boyfriend #criminaljustice #crimestory #murdermystery #murdermystery2 #justice #courtroomdrama #legal #crime #criminal #truecrimepodcast

A federal judge has granted an Anchorage man convicted of cyberstalking this year a new trial over a Ninth Circuit Court's findings that former Alaska federal Judge Joshua Kindred had a sexual relationship with one of the case's prosecutors. Plus, the Anchorage Assembly voted against a $250,000 settlement between former city manager Amy Demboski and the municipality stemming from allegations of wrongful termination and gender discrimination. Those stories and more top news and weather on this Friday.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This Day in Legal History: Watergate Trial BeginsOn October 4, 1974, the trial of key Watergate conspirators began, marking a significant moment in American legal and political history. The defendants included top Nixon administration officials H.R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, John Mitchell, Robert Mardian, and Kenneth Parkinson. These men were accused of participating in the cover-up of the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters, a scandal that would ultimately lead to President Nixon's resignation.The trial was presided over by Judge John Sirica, who had played a pivotal role in uncovering the truth behind Watergate. At the outset, the court reviewed transcripts of the now-infamous Watergate tapes, which had been secretly recorded by President Nixon in the Oval Office. These recordings captured critical conversations revealing the extent of the administration's involvement in the cover-up.The tapes provided key evidence, especially a June 23, 1972, conversation known as the "smoking gun" tape, in which Nixon and Haldeman discussed obstructing the FBI's investigation. The trial was part of the broader legal reckoning following Nixon's resignation two months earlier in August 1974.Haldeman and Ehrlichman, two of Nixon's closest aides, were found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury. John Mitchell, Nixon's former Attorney General, was also convicted on conspiracy charges. This trial helped close one chapter of the Watergate scandal, demonstrating the judicial system's role in holding even the highest-ranking officials accountable for abuses of power.A federal court has blocked President Biden's latest student debt relief plan, ruling it likely unconstitutional. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted a preliminary injunction requested by a coalition of seven Republican-led states. Judge Matthew T. Schelp, who issued the ruling, emphasized the public interest in ensuring the government follows the law. The plan, which would have canceled debt for 27 million borrowers, is now paused.The plaintiffs argue the plan is an executive overreach. While Georgia was dismissed from the lawsuit for lacking standing, Missouri's Higher Education Loan Authority was found to have suffered an injury, giving Missouri standing to continue the case. This ruling temporarily halts the debt relief program as the court considers whether to permanently strike it down. The injunction is a blow to Biden's efforts to reduce student debt, following the U.S. Supreme Court's earlier decision in 2023 that struck down a broader relief plan. Another related plan, known as “SAVE,” which aims to provide zero-dollar payments and expedite forgiveness for some borrowers, is also under review by the Eighth Circuit Court. This decision prevents the debt relief plan from taking effect while the court evaluates the case, reflecting the court's consideration of the public interest and potential harm.Biden's Latest Student Debt Relief Plan Blocked by Federal CourtThe U.S. government has supported Nvidia investors in a Supreme Court case where they allege the company misled the market about its reliance on cryptocurrency mining sales. The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a brief urging the Court to allow the case to proceed, siding with the investors. The Ninth Circuit Court previously revived the class action, ruling that Nvidia's CEO Jensen Huang made materially false or misleading statements about the company's revenue dependence on crypto mining, particularly before a 2018 market downturn.Nvidia disputes the case, claiming the investors' allegations were based on unreliable expert data. However, the DOJ and SEC argued that the claims were backed by multiple sources, including accounts from former employees, a Royal Bank of Canada report, Nvidia's own public statements, and SEC filings. These sources collectively suggest Nvidia earned $1.35 billion more from crypto sales during the boom than it disclosed.The government emphasized that the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), which governs investor lawsuits, was not misapplied by the Ninth Circuit. It rejected Nvidia's argument that the case was based solely on unsubstantiated expert opinions, pointing out that the allegations were supported by sufficient evidence to infer Nvidia's intent to mislead investors.Nvidia Investors Backed by US in Supreme Court Crypto Sales CaseThe European Union's top court has ruled that Meta must limit the use of personal data collected from Facebook users for targeted advertising. This decision supports privacy advocate Max Schrems, who argued that Meta's personalized advertising violated privacy regulations by processing personal data without proper limitations. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) emphasized that under the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the principle of data minimization restricts how much personal data companies can use for targeted ads.Meta responded by stating it has invested heavily in privacy features and does not use sensitive data for personalized ads. Schrems' lawyer welcomed the decision, saying it would significantly reduce the amount of data Meta and other companies can use for advertising, even when users consent. This ruling marks another victory for Schrems, who has repeatedly taken Meta to court over alleged GDPR violations.Meta must limit data use for targeted advertising, top EU court rules | ReutersCupertino, California, has reached a settlement with the state's Department of Tax and Fee Administration, allowing the city to retain millions in sales tax revenue tied to Apple's online sales through August 2024. The settlement resolves a dispute that began in 2021 when the department audited Cupertino's 26-year tax-sharing agreement with Apple. Under this agreement, Apple treated all in-state online sales as originating from Cupertino, directing a portion of the state sales tax to the city, which in turn shared 35% of the revenue with Apple.The tax department has scrutinized similar deals with other retailers like Best Buy and Williams-Sonoma, arguing that businesses need to show active participation in the transactions where the sales are reported. Last year, Cupertino set aside $56.5 million to potentially repay the state as the dispute escalated to $60.3 million by February 2024.The settlement avoids litigation, but the city did not disclose specific financial details or directly reference Apple in the announcement. It clarified that the agreement does not impact its tax-sharing arrangement with any taxpayer.Cupertino Settles With State in Apple Sales Tax-Sharing FightThis week's closing theme is by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky.This week's closing theme is the Adagio lamentoso from Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 6 in B minor, Op. 74, also known as the "Pathétique" Symphony. Tchaikovsky composed this masterpiece in 1893, just a few months before his sudden and mysterious death. The "Pathétique" Symphony is widely regarded as his most personal and emotionally charged work, filled with profound sorrow and introspection.The fourth movement, "Adagio lamentoso," is the symphony's haunting conclusion. Unlike most symphonies, which end on a triumphant or uplifting note, Tchaikovsky chose to close his final symphony with this slow, lamenting movement. It reflects deep melancholy and resignation, expressing a sense of despair that resonates with listeners. The music ebbs and flows between quiet, intimate passages and moments of overwhelming intensity, capturing the fragility and tragedy of life.Tchaikovsky was known for his ability to express raw emotion through music, and the "Adagio lamentoso" exemplifies this talent. The theme's descending lines seem to mirror a downward spiral into sorrow, giving it an almost funereal quality. Some have speculated that the symphony reflects Tchaikovsky's own inner turmoil and struggles, adding a layer of poignancy to the already emotional score.As you listen to the "Finale" this week, take note of its deep, somber beauty and how Tchaikovsky blends anguish with moments of quiet reflection. It's a fitting close to a symphony that grapples with life's most profound emotions.Without further ado, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 6 in B minor, Op. 74, the Pathetique Symphony. Enjoy.  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

The Supreme Court recently decided that they will review a case dealing with the Clean Water Act (CWA), which prohibits the pollution of US waters without a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. In order to comply with the statute, the city of San Francisco was issued a permit by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2019. The permit, however, lays down narrative limitations on the discharge of pollutants, such as anything which may “cause or contribute to a violation of any applicable water quality standard.” The city of San Francisco challenged the EPA’s permit, arguing that these restrictions “expose San Francisco and numerous permit-holders nationwide to enforcement actions while failing to tell them how much they need to limit or treat their discharges to comply with the Act.” In July 2023, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected San Francisco’s argument, finding that the narrative limitations are not too vague but are rather important to ensuring that state water standards are met. This then prompted the city to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.Join this FedSoc Forum as panelists discuss varying views of this case and what the Supreme Court’s review might bring.Featuring:Prof. Robin Craig, Robert A. Schroeder Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Kansas School of LawAndre Monette, Managing Partner, Best Best & Krieger LLPModerator: Prof. Jonathan Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law--To register, click the link above.

On April 2, 1990, Dr. Humberto Alvarez-Machain was abducted by agents of the U.S. Government, from his medical office in Mexico and flown against his will to El Paso, Texas. He eventually appeared in Los Angeles federal court to answer charges he participated in the kidnapping and murder of DEA Special Agent Enrique Camarena. U.S. District Court Judge Edward Rafeedie deemed the kidnapping illegal, dismissed the indictment against Alvarez-Machain and ordered him returned to Mexico. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Affirmed Rafeedie's decision. The case eventually went to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the decision was reversed, and remanded back to the District Court for Alvarez-Machain to stand trial. After the government presented its' case in chief, Judge Rafeedie granted a defense motion for summary judgment and entered a directed verdict of not guilty. Alvarez-Machain went free.On July 25, 2024, drug kingpin Ismael Zambada-Garcia, aka El Mayo, was kidnapped from a residence in Sinaloa, Mexico, by armed gunman working for Joaquin Guzman-Lopez. Guzman-Lopez, also a wanted drug trafficking kingpin, had been negotiating his surrender with the United States for some time. Guzman-Lopez voluntarily arrived in Santa Teresa, New Mexico of his own free will, but brought Zambada-Garcia restrained, with a bag over his head, apparently attempting to sweeten his cooperation deal with the U.S. Government.On this episode of the Truth Nation Podcast, we speak with career prosecutor Sean Carney about both cases and what will likely happen with the Zambada-Garcia case as it winds its' way through the justice system. Carney worked on a portion of the Alvarez-Machain case in the 1990's and is well versed on the extradition treaty issues and supreme court decision that are in play here. Did Joaquin Guzman-Lopez have a cooperation agreement in place? Was he acting as an “agent” of the United States when he conducted the kidnapping and caused multiple murders in Mexico? Did the Government of Mexico file an official protest to this act? Did the U.S. Government make the affirmative decision to circumvent an extradition treaty they had agreed to? Will any of these factors matter in the Zambada-Garcia case? All these questions are answered in this interesting legal analysis.

Tell us whatcha' think! Send a text to us, here!Rebekah Schultheiss, legal counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, discusses a case involving an Oregon mom, Jessica Bates, whose adoption application was denied because she would not affirm her support for her child's gender identity. The case is currently at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Schultheiss explains that the case has implications for parental rights, religious freedom, and freedom of speech. She warns that if the state can deny adoptive parents based on their beliefs, it sets a dangerous precedent for the state interfering with biological parents as well. The conversation also touches on the potential impact of the case on the public school system and the rights of parents to control what is taught to their children.Guest: Rebekah Schultheiss, Attorney Defending Parents RightsEmail: rschultheiss@freedomfoundation.comCurrent / Relevant Case: https://www.koin.com/news/oregon/oregon-mom-claims-adoption-application-was….Support the Show.DONATE TODAY!www.ParentsRightsInEducation.com

On July 15, the Pacific Legal Foundation asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse a lower court ruling in California that said elementary school students have no First Amendment rights. A six year old called B.B. in Capistrano Unified School District in Southern California was introduced to the phrase “Black Lives Matter” in her first-grade class during a lesson about Martin Luther King, Jr. After the lesson, the child drew a picture and wrote “Black Lives Mater (sic),” added “any life,” and gave the picture to her classmate. The school forced B.B. to apologize for her “racist” drawing, banned her from recess for two weeks, and even banned her from drawing pictures for friends. B.B.'s parents were never informed about the incident and found out years later. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On July 15, the Pacific Legal Foundation asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse a lower court ruling in California that said elementary school students have no First Amendment rights. A six year old called B.B. in Capistrano Unified School District in Southern California was introduced to the phrase “Black Lives Matter” in […]

Send us a Text Message.In this episode...--> The FTC has made a filing in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that slams the new Xbox Game Pass standard tier as a "degraded product."--> After two seasons, Paramount+ has canceled its live action Halo series.--> Your protagonist in Dragon Age: The Veilguard can be voiced by Baldur's Gate 3's sex noise specialist.--> Also: Top 3 New Releases, VIP!We love our sponsors! Please help us support those who support us!- Check out the Retro Game Club Podcast at linktr.ee/retrogameclub- Connect with CafeBTW at linktr.ee/cafebtw- Visit A Gamer Looks At 40 at linktr.ee/agamerlooksat40Hosts: wrytersview, retrogamebrews, donniegretroOpening theme: "Gamers Week Theme" by Akseli TakanenPatron theme: "Chiptune Boss" by donniegretroClosing theme: "Gamers Week Full-Length Theme" by Akseli TakanenSupport the Show.

Shownotes and Transcript Dr. Andy Wakefield joins Hearts of Oak to discuss his transition from mainstream physician to medical industry whistle-blower, sharing with us his findings on the MMR vaccine's link to autism.  He talks about facing backlash, making films like "Vaxxed" and the recently released "Protocol 7" to address vaccine safety and pharmaceutical fraud.  Despite challenges like losing his license, Andy stresses the importance of revealing the truth to the public.  He highlights the profit-driven pharmaceutical industry's negligence towards patient safety, legal protections shielding companies from vaccine injury liability, and the need for public involvement in spreading awareness and demanding accountability.  PROTOCOL 7 - An Andy Wakefield Film   WEBSITE          protocol7.movie  X/TWITTER      x.com/P7Movie INSTAGRAM     instagram.com/protocol7movie Andy Wakefield has been likened to the Dreyfus of his generation -- a doctor falsely accused of scientific and medical misconduct, whose discoveries opened up entirely new perceptions of childhood autism, the gut-brain link, and vaccine safety. As an ‘insider,' the price for his discoveries and his refusal to walk away from the issues they raised, was swift and brutal, with loss of job, career, reputation, honours, colleagues, and country. And yet he enjoys a huge and growing support from around the world. Wakefield's stance made him a trusted place for whistle-blowers -- from government and industry to confess and ‘download.' He has extraordinary stories to share. Wakefield is now an award-winning filmmaker. Despite elaborate attempts at censorship, his documentary VAXXED: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe – the revelations of a vaccine scientist at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention- changed the public mindset on the truth about vaccine safety. Wakefield's is a story that starts with professional trust in the instincts of mothers, choice and consequences, a quest for truth, and perseverance against overwhelming odds. Andy has long pursued the scientific link between childhood vaccines, intestinal inflammation, & neurological injury in children.   Dr. Wakefield is the co-founder of the Autism Media Channel & the founder of 7th Chakra Films.   He is the director of his first major narrative feature, the recently released #Protocol7,  co-written with Terry Rossio (Aladdin, Shrek, Pirates of the Caribbean, Fast and Furious, Godzilla vs. King Kong). Connect with Andy... WEBSITE           7thchakrafilms.com  INSTAGRAM      instagram.com/andrewjwakefield X/TWITTER       x.com/DrAndyWakefield Interview recorded  25.6.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... X/TWITTER        x.com/HeartsofOakUK WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/ Transcript (Hearts of Oak) I am delighted to have Dr. Andrew Wakefield with us today. Andrew, thank you so much for joining us today. (Dr Andy Wakefield) Peter, my pleasure. Great to be here. Great to have you. And your name will be well known, certainly to many Brits. And I live through what you faced just as a Brit consuming news. And we'll get into all of that. People can follow you @DrAndyWakefield on Twitter. And we're going to talk about your latest film, Protocol7.Movie. All the links will be in the description. So we will get to that. But I encourage people to not only look at your Twitter feed, but also look at the website for the film, which is literally just out. But you're the award-winning filmmaker of Vaxxed and many other films. And of course, the latest one just came out. Doctor, if I can bring us back a little bit, because you had a certain time where your name was massively out there and that was simply asking questions. I think a lot of us have woken up to maybe big pharma, have woken up to vaccines and their role over the last four years. And you were much earlier than many people in the public. But that Lancet MMR autism, and I think your Wikipedia probably says fraud more than any other Wikipedia I've ever read. But you talked about that link between MMR, mumps, measles and rubella vaccine and autism. Maybe you could just go back and let us know your background, your medical background, and then what led up to you putting that out and maybe give us an insight into the chaos that ensued? Certainly, Peter. I was an entirely mainstream physician. I graduated at St. Mary's Hospital in London, part of the University of London, one of six generations of doctors in my family to have graduated there. And I ran a research team in gastroenterology at the Royal Free Hospital in North London and our principal interests were Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis inflammatory bowel disease, and in 1995 parents started contacting me and saying my child was perfectly fine they had an MMR vaccine in many cases and they regressed rapidly into autism, had seizures, lost speech, and language interaction with their siblings. And ultimately they were diagnosed with autism, well I know I knew nothing about autism. It was so rare when I was at medical school we weren't taught about it and I said you must have got the wrong number,. They said the reason we're contacting you is my child has intractable bowel problems, failure to thrive, they're in pain, I know they're in pain even though they've lost the ability to communicate. And the doctors and nurses that I've spoken to about this have said that's just part of autism, get over it, put them in a home, move on have another child. It's an extraordinary situation and so we investigated these children I put together a very eminent team of physicians. Who investigated these children and confirmed that the parents were right the children had I had an inflammatory bowel disease, and that's now been confirmed in multiple studies worldwide. When we treated that bowel disease, then not only did the gastrointestinal symptoms improve, but the autism improved. We didn't cure it, but the children, for example, started using words they hadn't used for five years. It was quite extraordinary. And so as academics, we said that didn't happen, and we did it 183 times, and it happened pretty much every time. So, we then began to believe that there was something really very, very interesting. So, when the parents said my child regressed after a vaccine, we had a professional and moral obligation to take that very seriously. But that really flew in the face of government policy and pharmaceutical industry profiteering. And that was really the beginning of the end of my career. The dean, Harry Zuckerman, took me aside and said, if you continue this vaccine safety research, it will not be good for your career. In that, at least he was correct. And when you offend government policymaking and the bottom line for the pharmaceutical industry, really, there's no price you will not pay. And people are now familiar with that. In the context of COVID, it's happened to many, many eminent doctors and scientists. But at the time, this was was a novelty, the cancel culture was a novelty, the ability of the system to destroy your career if you stepped out of line was something really quite new. And... So, I moved to America, set up a centre there for here in Austin, Texas for autism. They eventually destroyed my career there. And so I thought, well, how can I continue to help this population? And I'd been fascinated by filmmaking for a long time, screenwriting for a long time. And what had happened, Peter, is that over the years, because of the position I'd taken, And people had come to me from the Department of Health in the UK or from regulatory agencies such as the CDC in the US or the industry, the vaccine manufacturers, and said, we've done a terrible thing. Here is the evidence. We've committed fraud. And so I became a repository, if you like, for whistle-blowers. And this story, the latest story, Protocol 7, I mean, my films have been made about these whistle-blowers, some of them. And the latest story, Protocol 7, is one such whistle-blower, who came to me many years ago and presented to me the compelling story that ultimately we've turned into a major narrative feature film. Well, we'll get into that, but the role of media, I mean, you had BBC Channel 4 with hit pieces against you and I'm sure many others. What was that like? Because you said you were kind of mainstream. I remember that time as well, whenever I was mainstream, probably six years ago. So, it was a little bit later due. And you believe these institutions are positive. They're about actually reporting the news. And then you realize, actually, they're not. What was that like whenever you had all these media outlets suddenly make you a target of their reporting? Well, I think it really, part of it was Rupert Murdoch, his son, James Murdoch, was put onto the board of GlaxoSmithKline, Europe's biggest manufacturer of MMR, with the objective as a non-executive director of protecting that company's interests in the media, certainly the Murdoch media. And his target was me and they came after me in the biggest way and in the wake of that you know channel 4 as you say and others followed suit. It was very tricky. It was very difficult, because you didn't get to put the other side of it everything was heavily edited and it was just a relentless attack they were determined utterly determined that I committed fraud never committed scientific fraud in my life. But you can destroy the career of a physician or scientist in five minutes, literally five minutes. All you need is the headline and that's it. And then you spend the rest of your life trying to. Get back your reputation if ever. And I abandoned that idea because it was, the issue wasn't about me. It was about something far more important. And as soon as I, you know, I stopped worrying about what the media might say about me and simply got on with the job of doing what I could to help these children, then a huge weight was lifted from my shoulders. I just didn't worry about that anymore. Say what they like. I've got a job to do while I still have time on this planet. And that was to advocate on behalf of these children and try and move the needle on the real pandemic, which is of childhood neurodevelopmental disorders. I mean, it's in the media in the UK every day. We're talking about one in just over 20 children in Northern Ireland, in Scotland, in the UK. And this is an extraordinary level of a permanent serious neurological condition. When I was at medical school, it was one in 10,000. So what has happened? Just to bring your listeners up to date, your viewers up to date. The CDC performed a study at my behest. I told them, I said, look, I think that age of exposure is a major factor. The younger you are when you get the MMR, the greater the risk. It's not simply you get the MMR, you get autism. That's not it. There's got to be a co-factor associated with it. And age of exposure is one, I believe. Now, everybody is now familiar that the outcome from a viral infection, for example, COVID, is age-related. The older you are with COVID, the greater the risk. So everybody gets that now. And I said this to them. I said, I think that younger of age, your exposure is a major risk. Why? Because with natural measles, if you get it under one, you're at greater risk of a severe outcome than you are if you're over one. There is an age-related risk. So, they went away, they tested that hypothesis, and they confirmed that it was absolutely true. And they spent the next 14 years covering up, destroying the data, destroying the documents and changing the results to say that MMR vaccine was safe. And it was only when William Thompson, the senior scientist at the CDC who had designed the study, collected the data and analysed the data, had written the paper, came to me, came to a colleague of mine who came to me and said, we have done this terrible thing. I can no longer live with it. Here is the truth. And that was the basis of the film Vaxxed. And it wasn't my opinion. It wasn't my producer's opinion. This was the senior scientist from the CDC responsible for the study confessing to this fraud. What happened? Nothing. No one was held accountable. Absolutely appalling. These people, these five scientists at the CDC and their superiors had. Committed fraud and put millions of children at risk of serious permanent neurological disease and done so wilfully, knowing that there was a risk. And so I was appalled. And beyond that, I thought my filmmaking is going to expose people. It's going to actually hold people accountable for what they've done. Your study was, it was a small study, wasn't it? I think it was what like a dozen or 16. You're simply saying there does seem to be a link and it's surprising it could have been surprised, one time it should have been surprising, that actually a doctor who raises a concern that should surely be looked at and checked over instead of attacking but it wasn't a massive. You were simply saying these this is the pattern that I'm seeing in the small number of patients that I'm looking at in this study. That's absolutely right. The way in which human disease syndromes are described is usually in a handful of patients who present with... It's such a consistent pattern of signs and symptoms of clinical measures that they merit reporting in their own right. And that's exactly what this was. It couldn't test any hypothesis. It couldn't come to any conclusions other than more research was needed. It actually said this study does not confirm an association between the vaccine. It doesn't. It couldn't do. It is merely reporting the parent's story. And it was a very sober paper. But of course, the media blew it up to claim that I had said MMR vaccine causes autism. No, I didn't. However, I would say that now in light of the CDC study, I would most certainly. And it's their behaviour. It's their need to commit the fraud and hide the data that is the most compelling evidence that there is this clear link. They know there's a link, and rather than do something responsible about it they have put the children at continued risk. In fact they've expanded the vaccine program dramatically, so they've put even more children at risk in my opinion. No, completely and where many of us maybe may not have been anti-vaxxers five years ago we sure as hell are now so it's changed completely, but can I just ask you; you were up against the UK General Medical Council. They're the ones that allow you to practice. They're a judge and jury. It was like a few years investigation. Then in 2010, they decided that you were no longer acceptable. They struck you off. Tell us about that, because I've talked to doctors recently during the COVID chaos who have fought for their right to continue to practice as doctors and they've struggled. You were doing this 14 years ago. What was that experience at the General Medical Council? It was difficult. It was really difficult because there needn't have been a hearing. They'd made up their minds before we even walked through the door. The General Medical Council were under threat from the government of having their powers taken away and the government dictating policy such as right to practice and medical sort of ethics. And they therefore were under scrutiny from the government. They had to deliver on a decision, and they did. Now, the reason I can say that is that their decision was contrived and indeed made up their minds before they even come to the hearing is that when it came for the first time before a proper judiciary, before the UK's sort of senior courts, if you like. The judge was appalled by the GMC's behaviour. He said, and this is in the trial of John Walker Smith, my colleague's appeal against the decision to strike him off, he said, this must never happen again. It was really a political tool to destroy dissent. Now, I appealed as well as John Walker Smith, but I was told by my lawyers that it would cost me half a million pounds to pursue that appeal. I didn't have half a million pounds. I didn't have anything. So, the law belongs to those who can afford it. And that's a fact, whether you live in America or whether you live in the UK. Justice belongs to those who can pay for it. And so there was no opportunity for me to have my case heard on its merits it was simply thrown out. What we did do though when Brian Dear a journalist published in the British medical journal now claiming that I had committed fraud which is absolute nonsense. We sought to sue him and the British Medical Journal in the state of Texas. Now, that's where I lived. That's where my reputation was damaged. And that's where there was legal precedent that allowed us to sue them. Because the BMJ is a journal, sells its wares, its journal, to Texas medical schools. It profits from Texas medical schools. And there is a long-arm statute in Texas that allows us to sue them for defamation. Why would you, it costs about $3 million to sue someone for defamation. Why would you even think of doing that in a situation where all of the evidence is going to be laid bare for the public to scrutinize? Why would you do that if you committed fraud? You wouldn't do it. There was no fraud and therefore we had an extremely strong case and they knew it. They absolutely knew it and and they did everything they could to get out of it. Ultimately, the judge, the appeal court judges here ruled that we did not have jurisdiction. That went in the face of all of the legal precedent. We did not have jurisdiction. Indeed, the BMJ lawyers invoked Texas law in an attack on us. I mean, it was extraordinary that we weren't allowed to sue them here in Texas. This was a political decision from the highest level. They did not want this case to go forward. They They knew we were going to prevail, we were going to win, and that would have undermined their entire sort of years and years and years attacking me and others for suggesting that MMR vaccine might not be safe. And so we were denied the opportunity to have the case heard on its merits, and that's where it remains. Tell us about Vaxxed in 2016 from cover-up to catastrophe. And that talks about the CDC and others destroying evidence to show that there could be a link between MMR and autism. That's something which I think many of us over the last four years would probably accept that sounds plausible, definitely that makes sense, because of what we've seen with big pharma and the collusion with media and governments. But this, you put this out prior to that happening probably in a world where maybe people may not accept that as much because there was more were trusting institutions. But tell us about that film and the authorities wanting to destroy any evidence which would show there was a link. Yes, that was a fascinating film because, as I say, it was an insider from the CDC who was intimately involved in the study that looked at age of exposure to MMR and autism. And it clearly showed that the younger you were when when you've got the vaccine, the greater the risk of autism. And that was in... All children, boys in particular, and black boys above all. For some reason, black children seem to be highly susceptible to this adverse vaccine reaction. Now, we don't know the reason for that. Further follow-up studies should have been done. Now, when the CDC found this association, they had some clear options that would have been there available to them in the interests of the the American public. They could have said, right, we can delay. Let's suggest delaying this vaccine until it's safer. And we have done a bigger, better study to confirm it or refute it. That's what they should have done, to give parents the information, to give them the option. But they didn't. They trashed all of the documents. They trashed the data. They altered the results. And they, for 14 years deceived the public, doctors, the government, everybody, and so it was a very powerful story and we made the documentary it got into the Tribeca film festival which for us was one of the sort of preeminent film festivals and then it was withdrawn, it was censored. And I think that occurred because one of the sponsors of the film was involved in money management on Wall Street involving the pharmaceutical companies and also perhaps a sponsor of the Tribeca Film Festival. And so, you know, this is what I hear, whether it's true or not, that remains to be seen. But we were censored. This is the first time this had ever happened at Tribeca Film Festival. And it was a bad few days. And then De Niro went on the television on the what's called Good Morning America and the Today Show, the big national shows and said, we should never have done that. We should have played this film, everybody should have seen it and made up their own minds. And suddenly there was an explosion of interest in this film that people had been banned from seeing. And every attempt by the media to cover it up or De Niro's partner, Jane Rosenthal, to shut him down during interviews failed. He was very angry, very angry. And it had the impact of spreading the news of this film worldwide. And so what we saw at that point, which should have pre-empted COVID, was a major shift in people's perception. They came to the movie theatre, they watched the movie, and they said, wow. There is something, there's a problem here. And then, of course, we had the COVID experience and the extraordinary mishandling and misconduct and lies and deception, about the disease, its origins, and the vaccines, so-called vaccine. And public trust in the public health authorities has never been at such a low. And it will never recover and the point peter is this is that they only have themselves to blame. That is the truth. It's no good then coming after me, or after you, or people who bring them the message or come from the clinic and saying this is what I see in these children. They only have themselves to blame for their arrogance and their stupidity. Now, 2016 it was about that specific link MMR and autism 2019 you widened it in vax 2and to look at actually side effects, vaccine harms, across a range. And certainly the issue does not seem to just be one vaccine, there seems to be a range and we've seen that, and I know any parent will have had this conversation thought, any parent that actually is aware of conversations happening, and they will maybe have questioned the rush to jab children. I will touch on the amount of jabs children now get, which is quite concerning, the rise of jabs. But 2019, yeah, you widen it away from just MMR and concerns of side effects to this seems to be in many vaccinations. Was that received differently or do you still have the the same uphill struggle. Now, that film was not mine. It was made by Brian Burrows and Polly Tommy. And I was interviewed for that film, but it wasn't my movie. But what happened, it was based upon a series of interviews. After Vaxxed, we went off across the country, principally Polly Tommy, interviewing thousands of parents about their experience. And it emerged that other vaccines were involved as well. And I'd come to this via a different route. I came over to America to testify before Congress on the vaccine autism issue. And there I became aware that the mercury in vaccines was a problem. I wasn't aware of it before, that aluminium in vaccines was a problem. And so it became clear that it is very likely that it's the actual toxic load that a child is presented with at a very early stage, rather than just being one vaccine or another. Now, we'll never be able to discern the truth of that. We know which vaccines are involved, which are more important or less important. And this comes to a point you've made, is that they have so many vaccines now that how do you even begin to untangle the complexity, the permutations of how was it this vaccine or this one and this one together or these three or these 15? We just don't know. And I think there's almost been a deliberate attempt to expand the program without doing the appropriate safety research in order to make it virtually impossible possible to target any specific vaccine. So, I think that my sort of current thinking on it, and had we been allowed to conclude our research without it being sabotaged, is that it is related to the toxic load. And there is a study that has literally just come out from Brian Hooker. Scientist with an affected child, that shows that there is an exponential increase in severe adverse reactions like autism with increasing load of vaccines. The more you're given at one time, the greater the risk of an adverse reaction. This dose response effect is very plausible and is very strong evidence of causation. So, the field is highly complex. I'm quite certain that the sheer volume of vaccines that are given to children is way in excess of being safe. I mean, way in excess. And it has never been subjected to any formal clinical trial. You know, is it safe to give multiple vaccines at the same time? Hasn't been done. Well, yeah let me poke, because the issue is supposedly we have had a vaccine that's tested over a 10-year period or whatever and then it's decided safe, but the amount of vaccines that children are given; there is absolutely no way you could do any long-term study on that number of combinations of vaccines. So, it's completely into the unknown. It is. Now and here's the dilemma lemma is that when you take a pharmaceutical agent in the United States, for example. Then it goes through years, literally sort of 10, 15 years of clinical trials, randomized control clinical trials using a placebo, an inert placebo, before it's deemed to be safe. And yet with vaccines, that doesn't apply. They're classified as biologics, and the bar is set very much lower for safety. And so for the childhood vaccines, there has never been a proper long-term placebo-controlled randomized trial of safety. And therefore, it is deceptive, entirely deceptive to say that these vaccines are safe. They're not because they've never been subjected to the appropriate safety studies. And people need to know that. People need to realize that. It just has not been done. And it's now, you know, it's too late to close the gate. The horse has bolted. The vaccine safety studies are very difficult to do now, certainly prospectively. Well, one thing I just, before I get into Protocol 7, one thing I realized traveling the States so much over the last couple of years is that you turn on a TV, so different from Britain, and you see an advert for medication and it tells you how wonderful this medication is. And then half the advert is telling you the possible side effects and usually ends up with death. And you're thinking, that's the last thing I want to have. But that's a world away, and that's just kind of pushed through and accepted that actually the side effect could be much worse than the disease or the issue that it's trying to address. And you think, I sit and watch some of those adverts when I'm over in the States and think, how do we get to this situation where death is seemingly better than a headache? It is bizarre and this direct consumer advertising that happens in America and the other the only other place it happens is New Zealand. We don't, you know it doesn't happen in the UK, but it it's it's there's something more insidious about it, and that is the fact that the nightly news networks here way in excess of 70% of their income comes from the pharmaceutical industry advertising. They could not sustain their operation, a news operation, in the absence of that pharmaceutical industry sponsorship. And so, the industry controls the narrative the industry controls the editorial the headline they're not going to publish something and this happened to me I was interviewing with a girl called Cheryl Ackerson outstanding journalist who was at the the time at CBS. And she said, Andy, when we have finished editing this sequence about vaccines and autism, I will get a call within, you know, in 15 minutes, I'll get a call from the money men on the top story, a top floor saying, you will not play this segment because our sponsors have said they'll pull their money. Well, she was wrong. It was five minutes later. It came five minutes later. And that's the way they operate, I'm afraid. So there is, over and above advertising their drugs, there is something far more sinister about the control, the influence that these drug companies have over American mainstream media. Fortunately, in the UK, that direct-to-consumer advertising does not exist. So I want to jump on, which fits perfectly into Protocol 7, which seems to be about someone, a lawyer, small town, sees issues with Big Pharma, with the industry and wants to challenge. And it is a David and Goliath, something I guess, as you alluded to, we're all up against with Big Pharma. But tell us about this film, which is a story about a whistle-blower, but also going up against Big Pharma. This is based on a true story whistle-blower who came to me many years ago at a meeting in Chicago and revealed this fraud within Merck in respect of its mumps vaccine. And it's really a story more about the behaviour, how the industry behaves when confronted with a threat to its profiteering and its monopolistic sort of control of a vaccine in a country like America. And it's against sort of set against the love and devotion the um intuition of a mother who happens to be a lawyer who fights who battles against the power of the industry. And I'm not going to spoil the end for anyone but I urge people to see this film. It is it's now won 27 film awards it's only just really come out. It's got some wonderful reviews. Very, very high scores on rotten tomatoes and IMDb, so the key to the success of this film is its dissemination is people watching it and we're planning our UK release our European release as well right now So when it comes, please support it. Please get your friends and family to it. Merck realized in the 90s that the Mumps vaccine wasn't working and they took, many, many steps to cover that up and to essentially defraud the American public, the medical profession and others. And that's what the story is about. And it's based upon documents, actual documents obtained from that company that confirm beyond a shadow of a doubt what happened. It's important in the context of safety. And you may say, why is it? The film really is about, or Merck's fraud, was about the efficacy, the protectiveness of the vaccine. It wasn't working as well as they said it was working. And that made it dangerous. Why? Because mumps in children is a trivial condition. That's acknowledged by the CDC. Mumps in post-pubertal adults is not trivial. You risk suffering testicular inflammation and sterility or or ovarian inflammation, brain inflammation. And so a vaccine that doesn't work or only works for a limited amount of time will make you susceptible to mumps again when you're past puberty, when you're in that at-risk period. And so a vaccine that doesn't work makes it a dangerous vaccine. It makes mumps a more dangerous disease. And this is a very important thing to understand within the context of mumps. Merck certainly knew about it and continued to defraud the public despite that. So yeah, it's a very, very important film over and above the issue of mumps. It's about how the industry responds to threats that really sort of compromise its ability to earn revenue, make profits, and maintain a monopoly. Because I think people often forget, and maybe have woken up during the COVID tyranny, that these institutions, they exist to make money for their shareholders. They don't really exist to make a product which makes you better. Their primary aim is the share price for shareholders, just like any company. And if they make a product that actually helps you, then to me, that's a bonus. Is that too cynical a view of the industry? No, it's absolutely true. And they wouldn't deny that. They would say, we're here as a business to make money. We're here as a business to serve our shareholders, our stockholders, first and foremost. That's not ambiguous at all. They would admit to that. The problem comes when everything's fine and they're making good drugs and they're benefiting people. That's fine. It's how the industry responds when something goes wrong. And for example, with Merck and Vioxx, the drug that, you know, was notoriously unsafe. But, you know, they knew at the time of licensing that there were problems. It was causing strokes and heart attacks. It was estimated, I think, that many hundreds or thousands of people suffered as a consequence of that drug. In the litigation in Australia, where Merck were, really, their heads were on the block about this. They uncovered some, in discovery, they uncovered documents which were an exchange between Merck employees about what to do about doctors who criticized their drug. And they said, we may have to seek them out and destroy them where they live. This is not conspiracy theory. This is company policy. There you have these guys saying, we may have to seek them out and destroy them where they live. Okay, so these are the kind of people with whom you're dealing. Tell us, because we hear that these companies are beyond the legal sphere. They have protections and safeguards within countries, and it doesn't matter what side effects that the drug causes, they have this legal protection. I mean, is that the case, or is there a way of actually using the legal system to actually go after these companies? Or is it a slap on the wrist? Sometimes they pay out money to different governments and they say: oops Well there there is and it's interesting the national childhood vaccine injury act in this country in America in 1986 took away liability financial liability from the drug companies for death and injury caused by childhood vaccines on the recommended schedule. Now, that was a gold mine for the industry because they had mandatory markets. Kids had effectively to get vaccinated to go to school and no liability. All they could do was make a profit. But the legal system does work sometimes. And in the context of COVID and the so-called COVID vaccine. There's just been a ruling, I think, by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that has said COVID vaccine is not a vaccine. It doesn't protect against disease and it doesn't stop transmission. Ergo, it is not a vaccine. Now, once it's not a vaccine, by ruling of the court, it's not covered by the indemnity. It's not covered by the government protecting the industry. Suddenly, they're on their own. And that really raises some very interesting legal possibilities that is for litigation in this country. So, we'll see what happens. But there will be every effort by the government to side with the pharmaceutical industry to prevent them being sued, I'm quite sure, because that's what happened. But let's hope that the judges see it differently. I just want to end off on people's response to you because you were maligned, attacked. The media tried to discredit you. You then moved to the US. You lost your medical license. But these films you're putting out, they tell a compelling story. Tell us about how you feel these films have woken people up, maybe in a way that back whenever this happened to you 25 years ago, the opening was not there for the same ability to win people over. The opening does seem to be here now, maybe because of COVID, maybe people are more aware, maybe because of alternative media. But tell us about the message you're putting out in these films and kind of the response you're getting. Thing well really the films are made in a way that they're entirely up to the protocol seven, these were entirely factual documentary films and so vax for example if there'd been any word of a lie, if we'd got something wrong, we would have we've accused these scientists at the CDC of the worst sort of humanitarian crime. Their job was to protect these children they did completely the opposite. The hypocrisy goes way beyond what we've seen before and so if there had been a problem. We would have been sued to the moon and back again and there wasn't and they why because they know that it's true. And that's a very powerful thing and the same comes now with protocol 7 even though it's a narrative feature film. If there was something in that film that was defamatory of Merck, then they would come after us. They may well do because they're big and rich and powerful, certainly far more powerful than we are. But that's not a reason. Not to get the story out. My commitment is, my duty is to the public, not to Merck or to the government or indeed to the whistle-blower, but to the public who are being harmed. And so never make a decision based in fear. This is something I've learned over the years. If the story has merit, if it's honest, if it's true, if it has integrity, then you get it out there and, you know, let the cards fall where they may. Yeah completely. I want to ask you about funding, because it's everything costs money. It is actually, it takes a lot of work not only finance but expertise and research to put anything like this out and you know you're going up against an industry that will attack you in any opening any any chink in your armour. Was it difficult to actually raise funding to put these films together? Initially, it was. You know, this is my fifth film, and initially it was difficult, because people said, well, you're a physician. You know, what are you doing making films? Now they say, they're much more inclined to say, you've proven you can do it. Get on and make the next one. It's not easy, particularly in the current climate, I mean, Hollywood itself is in the doldrums; filmmaking, but the people still want meaningful films they want films that count films like Sound of Freedom and others that they really mean something that are worth going to the movie theatres to watch. And so that's the kind of film that we're making and hopefully we'll be able to continue to do it. I just can ask you about the last last thing about those who want to be part of what's happening, supporting the film as it comes out. I mean, how do they play a part? They can go, obviously, to the website, protocol7.movie, make sure and follow that, and they can follow your Twitter. But if they want to say, actually, I believe this message, it's so true, I have friends, family, actually suffering side effects, not only MMR, but across the board, and I want to make sure this message gets out. How can they play a part in doing that? One thing they can do, I mean, if they're immensely rich, they can fund the next film. If they're not, then they can help. People can help by going to the website and clicking on Pay It Forward. And this is a way of, we saw it with Sound of Freedom. It was very successful, a way of providing tickets for people who might not otherwise be able to afford a ticket to go and watch the movie, or for people who might not be inclined otherwise to go. In other words if there if there is an incentive to get a free ticket they may go and then be persuaded. And so it's a way of helping other people to access the film. When they might not otherwise be able to or be inclined to do that so pay it forward is a very useful device. And of course on the website you can pass on the trailer and make sure people watch that and get ready for it. Please do. Now, the success of the film comes down to the public. And that means, you know, your listeners, your viewers. So, we're very, very grateful for any help in that respect. And Sound of Freedom did that to a degree we hadn't seen before. And I encourage the viewers and listeners to do the same for Protocol 7. Dr. Andrew Wakefield, it is an honour to have you on and someone who I read all the stuff. In the late 90s and probably believed a lot of it that uh how times change and it's great to have you on and thank you for what you're doing on getting the message out on the link between the pharmaceutical industry and side effects. Well thank you so much. My pleasure thank you for having me on.

This week on Cyber Matters, Tanner Wilburn and Katherine Kennelly cover a wide range of cybersecurity, privacy, and regulatory news. The episode begins with a discussion of the Department of Commerce's final determination prohibiting Kaspersky Lab from providing antivirus software and cybersecurity services in the United States.  Tanner then delves into the ongoing challenges with the SEC's cyber disclosure rules that went into effect in December 2023. Many companies have been using cautious language in their Form 8-K filings, often stating that they have not yet determined the materiality of cyber incidents. The SEC has issued further clarifications, including guidance on how companies should assess and disclose ransomware attacks. Katherine discusses the American Privacy Rights Act, which was unexpectedly pulled from a congressional hearing. The pair then covers the Protecting Americans' Data from Foreign Adversaries Act (PADFA), which took effect on June 23. This act establishes new restrictions on data brokers transferring sensitive personal data to foreign adversary countries, enforced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Tanner and Katherine cover several significant court decisions. These include a ruling from the Northern District of Texas in American Hospital Association v. Becerra, which challenged the Department of Health and Human Services' definition of individually identifiable health information. The Supreme Court's decision in Murthy v. Missouri, addressing government involvement in social media content moderation, is also discussed. Additionally, they touch on the landmark Supreme Court decision overturning the Chevron deference doctrine and its potential effect on the administrative state. (More to come on future episodes).  State-level privacy legislation is a major focus of this episode, with Tanner highlighting three new state privacy laws taking effect on July 1: the Oregon Consumer Privacy Act, the Texas Data Privacy and Security Act, and the Florida Digital Bill of Rights Act. He discusses unique aspects of each law and notes Texas's aggressive approach to enforcement. The podcast also covers other state-level developments, including Florida Governor Ron DeSantis's veto of a cybersecurity safe harbor bill, Vermont's failure to pass a privacy bill, and Rhode Island's enactment of comprehensive privacy legislation. Katherine examines New York's newly enacted child and teen online safety bills, the New York Child Data Protection Act and the Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (SAFE) for Kids Act. Tanner then discusses California's third CCPA settlement, involving Tilting Point Media and its mobile gaming app. International cooperation in privacy regulation is touched upon, with Tanner noting the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) signing a partnership agreement with France's data protection authority (CNIL) for joint research and information sharing. The episode concludes with discussions on several other topics, including a lawsuit by the Arkansas Attorney General against Temu, Project Veritas challenging an Oregon privacy law before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Microsoft's blog post on "skeleton key" AI jailbreak techniques, and a brief mention of a Neiman Marcus hack. __________________________ Questions, comments, and feedback can go to cybermatterspodcast@gmail.com, and dont forget to subscribe to the podcast and share with your network.  Thanks for joining us, and we'll see you next week! _______________________ Links Mentioned in the show: https://www.bakerlaw.com/insights/northern-district-of-texas-flashes-the-blue-lights-on-ocrs-pixel-guidance/

According to federal law, if someone is convicted of a crime and punished with more than one year in jail, they loose their rights protected under the Second Amendment. A recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court not only brought that federal law into question, but decided it was wrong. The court didn't find that this federal law violated the Constitution, rather they found it violated Supreme Court's Bruen decision. But is that all this federal law violates?

Jess and Imani are talking about Idaho—again!Now that the state has made its argument that people who visit emergency rooms at Medicare-funded hospitals needing an abortion can go pound sand, it's arguing before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that anyone who “recruits, harbors, or transports” a minor within Idaho for the purposes of “procuring an abortion” out of state can be criminalized as an abortion trafficker.As Jess says, Matsumoto v. Labrador isn't about "abortion trafficking"—whatever that means—it's about criminalizing direct aid to folks who need abortions and forcing parental involvement in minors' reproductive health-care decisions despite contrary Supreme Court precedent.Mentioned in this episode:A Federal Court Finally Connects the Dots Between TRAP Laws and StigmaRewire News Group is a nonprofit media organization, which means that episodes like this one is only made possible with the support of listeners like you! If you can, please join our team by donating here.And sign up for The Fallout, a weekly newsletter written by Jess that's exclusively dedicated to covering every aspect of this unprecedented moment.

Jess and Imani are talking about Idaho—again!Now that the state has made its argument that people who visit emergency rooms at Medicare-funded hospitals needing an abortion can go pound sand, it's arguing before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that anyone who “recruits, harbors, or transports” a minor within Idaho for the purposes of “procuring an abortion” out of state can be criminalized as an abortion trafficker.As Jess says, Matsumoto v. Labrador isn't about "abortion trafficking"—whatever that means—it's about criminalizing direct aid to folks who need abortions and forcing parental involvement in minors' reproductive health-care decisions despite contrary Supreme Court precedent.Mentioned in this episode:A Federal Court Finally Connects the Dots Between TRAP Laws and StigmaRewire News Group is a nonprofit media organization, which means that episodes like this one is only made possible with the support of listeners like you! If you can, please join our team by donating here.And sign up for The Fallout, a weekly newsletter written by Jess that's exclusively dedicated to covering every aspect of this unprecedented moment.

Judges on the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals honored new member Anthony Johnstone at a ceremony in Missoula last Friday.

This Day in Legal History: Harlan Fiske Stone DiesOn April 22, 1946, the United States Supreme Court lost one of its distinguished jurists, Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, who died unexpectedly at the age of 73 while still serving on the bench. Appointed as Chief Justice in 1941 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Stone had originally been nominated to the Court as an Associate Justice in 1925 by President Calvin Coolidge. His tenure as Chief Justice was marked by a strong commitment to the principles of judicial restraint and a profound respect for the Constitution.Stone's legal philosophy was notably pragmatic and centered on a belief in judicial deference to the decisions of Congress and the executive, except in clear cases of constitutional violation. This approach was reflective of his broader views on the role of the judiciary in American democracy, emphasizing that courts should not interfere with policy decisions unless absolutely necessary. Under his leadership, the Court navigated through complex issues including war-time rights, separation of powers, and economic regulation.Chief Justice Stone is particularly remembered for his opinion in the landmark case of United States v. Darby in 1941, which upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act and marked a departure from the Court's earlier resistance to extensive federal regulation of the economy. This decision demonstrated his nuanced understanding of the balance between state and federal powers and his support for broader legislative authority in economic matters.During his time as Chief Justice, Stone also oversaw the filling of all seats on the Court, shaping its composition and, indirectly, its jurisprudence. He was instrumental in fostering a collegial atmosphere among the justices, despite the ideological differences that often characterized the Court's deliberations.Stone's sudden death, from a cerebral hemorrhage suffered during a public session of the Court, marked a dramatic close to a career deeply embedded in the fabric of American legal history. His death underscored his dedication to his role, having served until his very last moments. His legacy is reflected in the decisions and directions the Court took under his stewardship, especially in the affirmation of federal power and the protection of civil liberties.Harlan Fiske Stone's era as Chief Justice was a pivotal period in the Supreme Court's history, reflecting a transition in American jurisprudence from strict constitutional literalism to a more flexible, interpretative approach that considered the realities of a changing society. His leadership helped steer the Court through the turbulence of the Great Depression, World War II, and the beginning of the Cold War, leaving a lasting impact on the judicial landscape of America.The U.S. Supreme Court is revisiting the issue of homelessness for the first time in 40 years, taking up the case of Grants Pass v. Johnson. This case emerges from a small city in Oregon, known for its natural beauty, where local ordinances impose fines on individuals sleeping in public with bedding, a matter now being evaluated under the Eighth Amendment's clause against cruel and unusual punishment. Grants Pass, despite its growth and beauty, lacks permanent public shelters, leading homeless advocates to support the removal of such punitive measures due to the absence of housing alternatives.The city argues that such issues should remain under local and state jurisdiction, allowing for more creative, localized solutions. Meanwhile, opposing voices, including various scholars and homelessness advocates, argue that these laws unfairly penalize the involuntarily homeless and potentially shift focus from penalization to more constructive solutions like increasing housing availability. This case could set a significant legal precedent affecting how municipalities nationwide address homelessness.The Ninth Circuit Court previously struck down the Grants Pass ordinances, siding with those who argued that without sufficient shelter space, individuals have no choice but to sleep outside, thus making the city's fines for public sleeping inherently unjust. The Supreme Court's prior engagement with homelessness was decades ago, focusing more on protest rights than the broader implications of homelessness laws.With homelessness rates at a record high across the U.S., the outcome of this case could redefine the legal landscape surrounding how cities manage their homeless populations. It reflects a critical juncture where the judiciary may redefine the boundaries of local governance in dealing with social crises, especially when it comes to balancing punitive measures with human rights considerations.Supreme Court Tackles Homelessness for First Time in DecadesTop law firms are increasingly bypassing traditional on-campus recruiting events, opting to engage directly with potential recruits earlier in their academic careers. This shift, driven by the desire to secure top talent before competitors, involves firms offering positions to law students before they complete their first year, significantly ahead of the usual on-campus interviews (OCI) controlled by law schools and the National Association for Law Placement (NALP). As a result, firms like Morrison Foerster indicate that direct hires might comprise about half of their new class, as waiting for OCIs might cause them to miss out on desirable candidates.This trend has led to a snowball effect with other major firms like Weil Gotshal & Manges and Jones Day opening their applications for summer programs well before traditional timelines, sometimes as early as mid-April. This causes them to make hiring decisions based on a smaller academic record, compressing the timeline for law students to decide their career paths. Moreover, the pandemic has facilitated a shift towards virtual interviews, further speeding up the recruitment process and allowing more firm partners to participate without the logistical challenges of travel.However, this compressed timeline poses challenges both for students, who have less time to understand their legal careers fully, and for firms, which must ensure they are still hiring candidates who will succeed in the long term. To adapt, some firms, like Morrison Foerster, are considering incorporating new assessments or writing exercises into their interview processes.Law schools are also adjusting to this new landscape by moving their OCI sessions earlier, as seen at Howard University and other top schools like Yale and Stanford. This aligns more closely with the timing of firm applications, putting additional pressure on students to make quick decisions, often with incomplete information from their first year of studies.The changes in recruiting practices reflect a broader move towards a more aggressive, market-driven approach to hiring, emphasizing efficiency and early engagement with potential hires. This evolution in the legal recruitment field underscores the competitive nature of hiring for prestigious law firms and the significant impact these early decisions can have on the careers of young lawyers.Big Law Skips Ahead of On-Campus Recruiting in Race for TalentThe criminal trial of former U.S. President Donald Trump has commenced in New York, marking the first-ever trial of a former president. Trump faces 34 counts of falsifying business records, related to a $130,000 payment made to porn star Stormy Daniels by his former lawyer, Michael Cohen. This payment, intended to ensure Daniels' silence about an alleged sexual encounter with Trump, is accused of misleading voters during the critical final stages of the 2016 presidential campaign. Trump has denied the allegations, pleading not guilty to all charges.Prosecutors are presenting this case as part of a larger "catch and kill" strategy, where Trump, along with Cohen and David Pecker, former CEO of American Media, aimed to suppress damaging stories prior to the 2016 election. This strategy reportedly included payments to Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal, both intended to prevent stories about Trump's extramarital affairs from surfacing. American Media, under Pecker's leadership, admitted to these practices as part of a non-prosecution agreement.The trial will feature testimony from Pecker and at least 20 other witnesses, with proceedings expected to last six to eight weeks. Cohen, a central figure in the case, may face credibility challenges due to his own legal history. Trump's defense argues that the payments were personal matters and not campaign-related expenditures.The legal battle unfolds as Trump remains a significant figure in American politics, actively campaigning for a return to the presidency in a tight race against Joe Biden. Despite the charges, Trump's political support among Republicans has surged. The trial's outcome could influence the broader political landscape, especially as Trump also faces other criminal charges related to different aspects of his political and post-presidential activities.Trump hush-money trial kicks off with opening statements in New York | ReutersTikTok has voiced concerns about a bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives that could lead to a ban of the app if its Chinese owner, ByteDance, does not divest its stake within a specified timeframe. The bill, which saw a significant majority approval in the House, is now headed to the Senate and has the support of President Joe Biden. U.S. officials, including members from both major political parties and the Biden administration, argue that TikTok poses a national security risk due to potential data sharing with the Chinese government.TikTok, however, has refuted claims that it has shared or would share U.S. user data and insists that the bill infringes on the free speech rights of its 170 million American users. The company has likened the move to censorship, echoing its response to a previous state-level ban in Montana. Additionally, the American Civil Liberties Union and other free speech advocates have criticized the bill, suggesting it does not effectively counter the broader issues of data privacy and foreign disinformation efforts.Senator Mark Warner expressed concerns on national television about TikTok being used as a propaganda tool by the Chinese government, while others argue for the necessity of more robust data privacy legislation rather than a ban. Representative Ro Khanna mentioned that a ban might not hold up under legal scrutiny due to constitutional free speech protections. Amidst these debates, the bill aims to accelerate the divestiture process by setting a firmer deadline for ByteDance, underlining the ongoing geopolitical tensions surrounding technology and data security between the U.S. and China.TikTok says US House bill that could ban app would 'trample' free speech | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Kari Lake recently launched another legal gambit in her quest to see electronic vote-counting machines outlawed in Arizona. She lodged a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court this Tuesday. Fellow 2022 Secretary of State contender Mark Finchem, now pursuing a state Senate seat, joins her in this effort. The pair submitted a hefty 210-page document to the country's highest court in the previous week, imploring it to examine their case. They're putting electronic vote-counting machines under scrutiny, suggesting these gadgets are susceptible to malicious hacks and questioning whether they've been adequately tested. They originally voiced these criticisms in the year 2022, although their arguments faced blanket dismissal due to a deficit of substantiating evidence. Dominion Voting Systems, the manufacturer whose machines find service in Maricopa County and several other states, managed to land a significant settlement in a previous defamation lawsuit against Fox News, as reported by the media company. Lake, in a closely contested election, was narrowly defeated by the incumbent Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs, while Finch suffered a more substantial loss in his run. Anticipating the midterm elections, they sought to outlaw electronic voting devices, first filing their grievances in April 2022. The plaintiffs stand firm in their conviction that they, and all voters, possess a constitutional and statutory entitlement to an accurate and transparent count of all ballots. They insist that only lawful votes should determine the outcome of each contested office during the midterm elections, as detailed in their complaint submitted last April. They contend that the inherent insecurity of electronic voting machines makes them unsuitably unreliable and contravenes the constitutional and statutory obligations to safeguard free and fair elections. U.S. District Judge John Tuchi, who was chosen by former President Obama, ruled that their apprehensions were too theoretical to demonstrate an actual injury, following which he proceeded to dismiss the case. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals later concurred with Tuchi's judgment. The subsequent appeal to the country's supreme legal institution posits: Even though petitioners hadn't witnessed the 2022 election outcome at the filing time of the fundamental complaint or when the district court gave its ruling, a court might command a 'do-over' relief (such as counting the paper ballots) in said election, along with comparable reprieve in impending elections. This barrage of appeal documents was delivered merely a day prior to Lake tendering well over 10,000 signatures, thereby qualifying her for the August primaries. Lake's career saw her transitioning from a former television news anchor to a political candidate regularly setting her sights on the media. "Assurances to the citizens of Arizona were made following the prior election by me, pledging to do whatever I could to defend their sacred privilege of voting. This action is just another stepping stone in that journey," Lake responded to media last week, advocating the need for a honest electoral system. Quizzed on whether her continuous doubts being cast upon the electoral integrity might be fostering distrust among the public, Lake retorted with a laugh and a 'no'. She implored the reporter to become more aware of the manner in which elections are presently administered nationwide, as cited by USA Today. Recent developments highlight that Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer's defamation lawsuit against Lake, a fellow Republican, will advance to trial, as per the declaration from the Arizona Supreme Court. Richer responded to Lake's allegations of his involvement in the electoral manipulations that lead to her defeat at the hands of Gov. Katie Hobbs in 2022, by filing a lawsuit. He contended that misleading statements put forward by Lake and her team instigated a stream of violent threats towards his kin, besides creating security concerns. Richer solicited redress from the court, while also asking that the purportedly derogatory comments be rescinded by Lake. Judge Jay Adelman of Maricopa County Superior Court dismissed Lake's motion to quash the lawsuit last year, stating insufficient evidence to prove that Richer's litigation was prompted by wrongful motives. This decision was appealed by Lake but dismissed by a panel of the Arizona Court of Appeals. Currently aiming for a U.S. Senate seat, Lake elevated the issue to the Arizona Supreme Court this January, appealing against the decision. Real News Now Connect with Real News Now on Social Media Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RealNewsNowApp/ X Twitter: https://twitter.com/realnewsapp Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/realnews/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@realnewsnowapp Threads: https://www.threads.net/@realnews/ Tumblr: https://www.tumblr.com/realnewsnow Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@RealNews YouTube:https://www.youtube.com/@realnewsnowapp End Wokeness: https://endthewokeness.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Artificial intelligence is the most important technological tool being developed today, but the use of preexisting copyrighted works to train these AI systems is deeply controversial. At the end of 2023 the New York Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft, alleging that OpenAI's use of articles from the New York Times to train their ChatGPT large language model constitutes copyright infringement. An answer is due at the end of February, and it's expected the case will revolve on the question of whether the use of the copyrighted content of the Times was a fair use. The fair use analysis will likely turn on whether the use of copyrighted content to train a AI system "transforms" the work in a way which makes the use fair. The Supreme Court has spoken on this question twice recently, holding that Google's use of parts of Oracle's Java programming language to build the Android operating system was transformative, but that the licensing of a Andy Warhol work based on a photograph by Lynn Goldsmith was not transformative of Goldsmith's work. Also important and perhaps most on-point is a decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that Google's Image Search system is transformative of the photographs it indexes and displays as thumbnails.To help understand this case Professors Charles Duan from the American University Washington College of Law and Zvi Rosen of the Simmons School of Law at Southern Illinois University was joined by Steven Tepp of Sentinel Worldwide, who is also a Lecturer at the George Washington University School of Law and formerly of the U.S. Copyright Office. John Moran of Holland & Knight moderated the panel and provided additional perspective.

This Day in Legal History: Mary Queen of Scots ExecutedOn this day in legal history, February 8, 1587, Mary, Queen of Scots, met her tragic end at Fotheringhay Castle, Northamptonshire, England. Her execution marked a pivotal moment in the turbulent history of the British monarchy, stemming from her alleged involvement in the Babington Plot, a scheme devised to assassinate Queen Elizabeth I and place Mary on the English throne. Despite Mary's vehement denials of any participation, she was found guilty of treason after a controversial trial that has since been scrutinized for its fairness and adherence to legal norms of the time.Mary's trial and subsequent execution were fraught with legal and ethical quandaries, highlighting the intersection of law, politics, and personal vendettas. She was tried without being allowed to see the evidence against her, denied legal counsel, and was not even present at her own trial, raising serious questions about the justice of the proceedings. Moreover, Mary's status as a sovereign queen posed unique legal challenges, as executing a crowned head of state was unprecedented at the time and brought into question the legal jurisdiction over her person.The decision to execute Mary, Queen of Scots, was not taken lightly by Queen Elizabeth I, who hesitated to sign the death warrant, aware of the potential political ramifications. The execution not only eliminated a Catholic figurehead and potential claimant to the English throne but also set a dangerous precedent for the treatment of monarchs. The debates over Mary's guilt or innocence continue to this day, underscoring the complexities of legal and historical interpretation. Her execution remains a poignant reminder of the lethal interplay between law and political power, a lesson that resonates through the corridors of history.Donald Trump's legal team has escalated his effort to remain eligible for state presidential ballots to the U.S. Supreme Court, challenging a lower court's ruling that disqualified him from Colorado's Republican primary ballot. This legal battle revolves around allegations of Trump's involvement in the 2021 Capitol attack, invoking the 14th Amendment's Section 3, which prohibits individuals who engaged in insurrection against the U.S. from holding public office. The Supreme Court, significantly influenced by Trump with three appointees among its nine justices, is now set to hear arguments in this high-stakes case.Trump, focusing on his campaign, is not expected to attend the Supreme Court proceedings, instead engaging in campaign activities in Nevada. Meanwhile, public demonstrations unfold outside the courthouse, reflecting the contentious nature of the case. This situation places the Supreme Court at the center of a presidential election in a manner not seen since the Bush v. Gore decision in 2000.The outcome of this case holds profound implications for Trump's political future and the broader dynamics of the presidential race, with a decision needed swiftly due to the upcoming Colorado Republican primary. Trump's legal arguments challenge the applicability of the 14th Amendment to a sitting president and question the enforceability of its provisions without explicit congressional action. This case, distinct from criminal proceedings against Trump, tests the constitutional boundaries of presidential accountability and the interpretation of "insurrection" under the 14th Amendment.The legal challenge is supported by a group of Republican and unaffiliated voters, represented by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, asserting that the presidency falls under the "officer of the United States" designation intended by the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court's forthcoming decision could significantly influence the electoral landscape and Trump's ability to contest the presidency against Joe Biden, amidst ongoing legal controversies surrounding his actions related to the 2020 election loss.Trump brings fight to stay on ballot to US Supreme Court | Reuters​​Millions of American families are currently facing uncertainty regarding the filing of their taxes due to the potential expansion of the child tax credit by Congress. The IRS Commissioner, Danny Werfel, has advised taxpayers not to delay their filings in anticipation of legislative changes, assuring that the IRS will provide any owed benefits retrospectively without the need for amended returns. However, this position is contrasted by some tax professionals who suggest waiting could be beneficial if the legislation, which faces opposition in the Senate, is passed.The proposed bipartisan tax bill seeks to increase the refundability of the child tax credit to up to $1,800 per child for the first year, a significant boost for low- and moderate-income families. This adjustment is designed to support those even if they do not owe income taxes, targeting aid specifically towards parents with multiple children. Yet, higher-income families are unlikely to see a direct impact from this year's proposed changes.The dilemma between filing early or waiting stems from various factors. Filing early can protect against tax identity theft, where fraudsters might file in someone else's name, leading to delays in receiving refunds. On the other hand, waiting could potentially result in larger refunds if the legislation passes, but also risks delaying refunds further into the tax season.Tax preparation companies like H&R Block Inc. and Intuit Inc. have aligned with the IRS's recommendation to file as soon as possible, preparing their software to adapt quickly to any legislative changes. The IRS, despite not commenting on pending legislation, has indicated it could process changes within six weeks, drawing on recent experience and additional funding to adjust to mid-season legislative changes efficiently.The advice from tax experts varies, with some emphasizing the security and immediacy of filing early, while others see merit in waiting for potential benefits from the proposed law. Ultimately, taxpayers must navigate this uncertainty, balancing the need for prompt refunds against the possibility of benefiting from legislative changes.Child Tax Credit Limbo Leaves Families With Tough Filing ChoicesFacebook's $90 million settlement for tracking users' activities on non-Facebook websites is facing challenges in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Objectors argue that the settlement, which was approved by the US District Court for the Northern District of California, inadequately values the class's statutory claims, providing just 0.0073% of the potential $1.24 trillion in statutory damages for the 124 million class members. This settlement came after the Ninth Circuit previously found that the plaintiffs had sufficiently claimed violations under several privacy and fraud acts.During oral arguments, the objectors' representative highlighted the discrepancy between the settlement amount and the maximum statutory damages, questioning the adequacy of the settlement under federal rules. In contrast, representatives for the non-objecting class members defended the settlement as historic and beneficial, noting the positive reaction from the class, evidenced by 1.5 million submitted claims.The lawsuit, filed in 2011, accused Facebook (now Meta Platforms Inc.) of tracking users' internet activities through cookies on pages with a Facebook "Like" button, without their consent and even after logging out of the social media service. The case consolidated similar complaints from across 10 states.Ninth Circuit Judge Ryan D. Nelson addressed the objectors' concerns about the size of statutory damages potentially violating Meta's due process rights, noting that bankruptcy for Meta due to excessive damages would be problematic. He mentioned that the settlement amount was 10% of the class's own estimate of maximum damages, a figure that Ninth Circuit case law considers reasonable. Additionally, the settlement's deterrence effect was acknowledged, as Facebook reportedly ceased the tracking behavior in question as part of the settlement agreement.The court's discussion also touched on the discretion of class counsel in deciding the relief sought in the settlement, emphasizing the due process considerations in evaluating the adequacy of the settlement. Judges Danielle J. Forrest and Gabriel P. Sanchez, also part of the panel, are considering these arguments as they deliberate on the challenge to the settlement's approval.Meta's $90 Million Tracking Deal Challenged Before Ninth Circuit Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, long time communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank! Crystal and Robert dive into the open machinations of the big corporate donors to appoint their preferred candidate to a Seattle City Council vacancy and how the messy process has leached its way into Seattle School Board politics. They then discuss the qualification of a right-wing initiative to dismantle the state's plan to take on the climate crisis. Robert gives a rare kudos to The Seattle Times for their presentation of a debate over homeless encampments, they both are dismayed at the depressing and infuriating news that the Tacoma officers in the Manuel Ellis case are getting paid $500k each to voluntarily leave the police department, and the show rounds out with analysis of some media's treatment of AG Ferguson's lawsuit to block a merger between Kroger and Albertsons. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Robert Cruickshank, at @cruickshank.   Resources RE-AIR: The Big Waterfront Bamboozle with Mike McGinn and Robert Cruickshank from Hacks & Wonks   “Harrell Administration Consultant Tim Ceis Urges Businesses to Back Tanya Woo for Open Council Seat” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   “Business, labor lobby for open seat on Seattle City Council” by David Kroman from The Seattle Times   “Seattle City Council candidate has residency conflict in School Board role” by Claire Bryan from The Seattle Times    “Initiative 2117 (repealing Washington's Climate Commitment Act) gets certified” by Andrew Villeneuve from The Cascadia Advocate   “‘Should Seattle remove encampments?' Advocates debate” by Greg Kim from The Seattle Times   “Tacoma cops acquitted in death of Manuel Ellis will get $500K each to resign, city says” by Peter Talbot from The News Tribune    “Kroger-Albertsons merger would hike grocery prices, create near monopolies in some Washington communities, AG says” by Helen Smith from KING 5   “WA suit to block Kroger-Albertsons merger gets cheers, raised eyebrows” by Paul Roberts from The Seattle Times   Find stories that Crystal is reading here   Listen on your favorite podcast app to all our episodes here   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy walks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get full versions of our Tuesday topical show and our Friday week-in-review delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, we're continuing our Friday week-in-review shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show, one of our audience favorites, and today's co-host: Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, longtime communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank. [00:01:12] Robert Cruickshank: Hey - thanks for having me on again, Crystal. [00:01:14] Crystal Fincher: Hey, excited to have you on again - here in 2024. Well, we've got a lot to talk about - things are getting spicy in the City of Seattle, with regards to this upcoming Seattle City Council appointment to replace Teresa Mosqueda's seat. Because Teresa was elected to the King County Council, which created a vacancy - so now it needs to be filled. So what happened this week? [00:01:38] Robert Cruickshank: Well, I think a lot has happened with the machinations around this appointment process - and in fact, things we're learning about how the new regime at City Hall is conducting itself - and they come together. I think this is basically Tim Ceis - who is former deputy mayor to Greg Nickels back in the 2000s, corporate lobbyist, close to established power in Seattle - and Council President Sara Nelson, who, of course, just became council president after the new council with a bunch of her allies got sworn in at the beginning of the month. They seem to be conducting a purge of anyone progressive in the City Hall, in City staff, and are determined to consolidate power around what is actually, I think, a fairly radical agenda for the city that most voters didn't really actually select, especially when it comes to cutting taxes for big businesses and slashing public services. But in order to try to achieve that, they know that they need to try to push out and keep out anyone who might disagree, anyone who might even be remotely progressive on anything. I think it's a pretty significant misreading of the results of recent elections in Seattle - their candidates won often narrowly on questions of public safety, not on cutting taxes for big businesses. In fact, most of their candidates hedged on the questions of taxes when they were asked during the campaigns. But I think you see a real desire to consolidate power around a small group of loyalists, no dissent allowed. And this is a approach to governance that I don't think Seattleites expect or want. I mean, most people in Seattle assume and want a fairly technocratic, go-along-to-get-along government where everyone is sort of driven by data, gets along with each other, and try to do things in the public interest. Now, you and I, a lot of our listeners, know that's not really how the city operates. But what we're seeing now is, I think, a much more aggressive and - in some ways, unprecedented for Seattle - attempt to impose a radical agenda on the city from the right. [00:03:26] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, this isn't what voters thought they were signing up for. This isn't what anyone campaigned on. Voters are looking at what the candidates are saying, they're looking at the mail, the commercials - again, definitely talked about public safety, talked about homelessness. But what we saw in Sara Nelson's first statement was austerity - we're cutting taxes for business. But voters didn't weigh in on this at all. And I don't think people are going to have a great reaction to this. [00:03:55] Robert Cruickshank: When Seattle voters weigh in on questions of taxes, Seattleites pass almost every tax put in front of them. When it comes to state ballot initiatives to tax the rich - they might fail statewide as they did in 2010, but they pass with wide support in Seattle. When it comes to money in politics, Seattleites approved taxing themselves - raising their property taxes slightly - to create the Democracy Voucher program. This is a city that does not want corporate money in politics and yet, that is exactly what's happened here. The reason we're talking about all this right now is not just because there's a council appointment, but because Tim Ceis, this aforementioned corporate lobbyist, sent out an email at the beginning of the week urging all of the people - whether they're wealthy individuals or from big corporations - who donated to the independent expenditure campaigns to help get a lot of these councilmembers elected last year, telling them - Hey, we need you to mobilize right now to stop Vivian Song, who is currently on the Seattle School Board, who's seeking the appointment - Ceis says, We got to stop her. She held a fundraiser for Teresa Mosqueda. She endorsed Ron Davis. She's friendly to unions. And gosh, we can't have that on our council. And the way Ceis put it was to basically act as if these wealthy interests had bought the council. They now own the council - it is theirs, not ours. Not ours in the sense of "we the people." And they can do whatever they want with it. So Ceis' attitude - and I think Sara Nelson shares this - is that it's theirs now, nobody else can tell them what to do with the city council. They have the absolute right to pick whoever they want to and impose this agenda on the city. I think both that attitude and a policy agenda they want are not what the city wants at all, and they are going to run into a big backlash real fast. [00:05:30] Crystal Fincher: Real fast. And the brazenness with which he stated this was wild. This is from the email that Tim Ceis sent - "While it's been a great two weeks watching the outcome of our effort as the new City Council has taken office, the independent expenditure success earned you the right to let the Council know not to offer the left the consolation prize of this Council seat." Okay, they're just admitting that they bought this seat. They're just admitting that - Hey, yeah, it was our effort that got these people onto the council. And we spent a million dollars plus in this independent expenditure effort and that gives us the right - he said the "right" - to tell the council what to do, which I don't recall seeing something this overtly stated before. [00:06:17] Robert Cruickshank: There's an important contrast we can draw - both Bruce Harrell and Eric Adams, mayor of New York, were elected in 2021. And at the time, Eric Adams was hailed as some sort of future of the Democratic Party - center right, tough on crime, pushing back against progressives. Well, here we are at the beginning of 2024 - Eric Adams has a 28% approval rating in New York - highly unlikely to win a re-election at this point. There are a lot of reasons for that, but one of the primary reasons is cuts to public services - libraries, schools, parks, all sorts of things. And the public is just clearly rejecting that. Bruce Harrell is up for re-election next year. And I think Harrell's going to have to decide for himself - does he want to be the one to get all the blame for this? Or maybe he just thinks Sara Nelson takes all the blame. Who knows? Maybe there's a good cop, bad cop approach being planned here - with Sara Nelson being the bad cop pushing austerity and Harrell's try to be the good cop, try to bring everybody together. Who knows? But I think what you see in New York is what you're going to see in Seattle - a significant backlash. I also want to mention - you quoted Ceis' letter talking about giving a prize to the left. Vivian Song is not a leftist. This is the part that just blows my mind about all this. She's as mainstream a Seattle Democrat as it gets. If you read her application letter for the council appointment, she talks about hiring more cops, being careful with city spending. She's honestly probably a little bit to the right of most of the previous city council that just got voted out. But to Ceis and Nelson, she's unacceptable because she's friendly with unions, was friendly with some progressives - what that shows me is that they only want extremists like themselves or who will just do their own bidding. And I think they're setting themselves up for a significant backlash. [00:07:58] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and the final point - in looking at this, there were so many applicants to this - all across the spectrum, right? There weren't just progressive applicants for the seat. There were dozens and dozens of people from across the spectrum - and good choices - people who had experience, who have the right intentions from across the spectrum. This isn't about - Well, we just don't want an extreme leftist from these corporate interests. This is about - You're going to pick our person. Because there are several other choices on there - they're talking about Tanya Woo. Why aren't they talking about Phil Tavel, right? Why aren't they talking about anyone else that seems to align with their interests? They want loyalists - that's the bottom line. It goes beyond what the ideology is. It's - are you going to be loyal to me? Are you going to back me on what I'm doing? And without that assurance - We're not backing you. With that assurance, you're in and we're going to fight. And hey, we spent a million plus to get these other folks in. Now we're using our muscle to get you in too. And we're telling people - Hey, this was our show. We elected these people. It was our effort and that gives us the right to dictate what's going to happen. When you have the primary concern, the primary litmus test being loyalty and not is this going to help the residents of the city? Do they have experience? Can they credibly lead and do this? Wow, we get into a lot of trouble if it's just - Are you going to back me? Are you not going to question anything I'm doing? Are you going to rubber stamp this? So this appointment process is really going to be an opportunity to see where the loyalties lie. Are they serving their constituents or are they serving the business community? Because again, there are lots of picks if they wanted to go with a conservative person, right? I think they probably will. But the point is, it's got to be the one handpicked by business. This is going to tell us a lot about where the heads of these new councilmembers are at. Yeah, it [00:09:49] Robert Cruickshank: will. And I think it's also setting up 2024 - not just in terms of the policy discussions we'll see in City Hall, but the campaigns. This seat that gets filled in this appointment process later this month will be on the November 2024 ballot citywide. And I think Tanya Woo would likely run for that seat if she's appointed to it. If so, then she's going to have to go to voters - not as someone picked for her qualifications, at least in the way the public will see it. The public will see it as - she was picked by business because she's loyal to business. Vivian Song may want to run for that seat too - last night got endorsed by the King County Labor Council to hold that appointment. It sets up a very interesting - not just 10 days between now and when this appointment gets made, but 10 months between now and the November election, where I think you're going to see real contests over the future of the city. [00:10:35] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Another interesting dimension with this about Vivian Song is about her residency and her existing Seattle School Board position. What's going on here? [00:10:45] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, so we'll go back to 2021 - where there was an article that appeared in The Stranger when Vivian was running for the school board, questioning her residency - that she had changed residencies and changed voter registration - and questioning whether she was eligible to run for the District 4 seat for the school board. Now, the school board districts don't line up exactly with the city council districts, so listeners should keep that in mind - but Vivian won, won citywide. Because in school board, you are first elected out of the primary in just the district. Then the top two from that district go on to a citywide election in the school board. So Vivian won citywide in 2021. Last summer, it emerges that some of her critics and opponents on school board were questioning where she lives now - that she might not actually live in the district she technically represents. This is brought to the school board legal department, which looked at it and did not see a need to kick her off the school board, or declare her seat vacant and force an election. People move around for personal reasons, and they don't have to be told to tell those personal reasons in public. But Vivian is not someone who is manipulating the system for political gain - there are legitimate reasons she was moving. And yet this comes out in a Seattle Times article this week and gets mentioned at a board meeting last night - the only board meeting during this entire council appointment process. This has been under discussion behind the scenes at the school district for months. But why does it emerge now? I think it's the obvious reason why it emerges now - because some of Vivian's critics on the school board, whether they're working directly with Tim Ceis and Sara Nelson or not, are certainly helping Tim Ceis and Sara Nelson try to torpedo Vivian Song's candidacy. Now, from a progressive perspective, this doesn't necessarily mean that Vivian's the right pick for the appointment process. We should take a look at everybody. But I think the relentless efforts to destroy her, both in her position on the school board and to keep her out of the city council, suggest to me some real problems with the way both the city council and the school board are now being governed by small little cliques determined to hold on to their own power, to push austerity, unfriendly to labor, and hostile to public input. I think it's a really shocking and disturbing development that we're seeing in our city. Away from small-d democratic governance. I think everyone in the city should be really concerned about these developments. [00:13:05] Crystal Fincher: Completely agree. And statewide news - big news - it's going to impact our November 2024 ballot. The second right-wing initiative qualified for the 2024 ballot. What does this do and what does this mean? [00:13:21] Robert Cruickshank: So background here is that the far right chair of the state Republican Party, State Representative Jim Walsh - hardcore MAGA Trump guy - became State Party Chair last year and is working with a wealthy mega-donor, a guy named Brian Heywood, to try to repeal the main accomplishments of the Democratic majority in the legislature of the last few years. So we've got six initiatives so far that they've submitted to the state to qualify - two of them have made it to the ballot. One of them you just mentioned, which will be Initiative 2117 to try to destroy our state's climate action plan. They want to repeal the carbon pricing piece of it - sometimes known as cap and trade, cap and invest, whatever you want to call it. Their argument is - Oh, it's why gas prices are so high in Washington state. Well, no. One, we on the West Coast have always had higher gas prices than the rest of the country. And in fact, the reason Washington has high gas prices is because of King County. I did an analysis a few weeks ago that shows - if you cross the river from Portland to Vancouver, Washington, the average cost of gas is the same. If you are in Tacoma, you're paying less than you pay in Portland, Oregon. So if carbon pricing was causing gas prices to soar across Washington state, you'd see it everywhere - but you don't. What that suggests to me is you might actually be seeing oil companies gouging King County - that's worth investigation, which the oil companies don't want. But point being - Jim Walsh, who's a Trump guy, Brian Heywood, who's the wealthy funder, want to destroy our ability to tackle the climate crisis. They want to destroy our ability to fund the things that are needed to help people get off of fossil fuel. And so they're putting this on the ballot. They're going to put some other initiatives on the ballot to try to repeal our capital gains tax on the rich, that funds schools and early learning. And this is going to be one of the big battles that we're seeing this year - an effort to impose, again, a far-right agenda on the state of Washington. And I think that progressive organizations, the State Democratic Party are maybe a little slow to respond to this - I think they will engage, but now's the time to start letting people know what's happening here, what this attack is, how dangerous it could be, and the importance of stopping all six of these initiatives. [00:15:30] Crystal Fincher: We've seen Republicans have an increasingly hard time winning statewide and legislatively over the past few years - they've lost power, they tried the courts. The Supreme Court actually just rejected a case trying to come to the Supreme Court about the capital gains tax. So this is their only recourse now. And unfortunately, because of the way our political system is, money gets you really far. And so if you have these multi-hundred millionaires, these billionaires who come in and say - You know what, this is what I want - they're able to basically make us go through this whole charade. And so we have to fight against it. It's here. We have to do this. But it really is important to talk to people about - not to fall for these cheap lines that, Oh, this is another gas tax. It's the hidden gas tax, as they say. But we've had this price gouging conversation before - I think more people are seeing it, which is encouraging. But we're going to have to go through this whole campaign. [00:16:29] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, and I think that it's worth noting there are reasonable discussions to be had about how to do carbon pricing right and what it should fund. And there were very intense conversations and disagreements about that when this was passed in 2021. And I think it makes sense to take a look and say - Okay, how do we make sure we're doing this right? That's not what this initiative does. This initiative uses voter concern about gas prices to totally destroy our ability to tackle the climate crisis. This is coming from people who don't believe the climate crisis is real. Or if they do believe it's real, they don't really want to do anything to stop it because they think driving and keeping oil companies happy is more important. We see wild weather all across the region - we remember that super hot heat wave from the summer of 2021, we remember the long droughts of 2022 - this is not a time to mess around. If we want to look at how to address needs to ensure that carbon pricing works - great. If we want to take a look at what it's funding - great. But to totally destroy the system entirely because a bunch of right-wingers and wealthy donors want it, I think, is a disaster. [00:17:30] Crystal Fincher: Absolute disaster. I was certainly one of those people who had criticisms of the Climate Commitment Act. There are certainly tweaks that should be made. There are some better ways that we can go about some of these processes. But the option isn't - do nothing. That's unacceptable. It isn't just dismantle and repeal everything. Just like with Social Security, just like with Medicare - these big, important pieces of legislation - that do come with benefits. We're going to have to tweak them. We're going to have to get information back, get data back, and respond to that with some technical fixes, some tweaks to make sure that we steer it onto the best path that it can be. But wow, we cannot afford to do nothing. We can't afford to dismantle this at this point in time. This is one of the most hopeful opportunities we have - really in the country - to show how states can lead and come together to get this done. We can't dismantle this at this point in time. Also want to talk about a debate that we saw, on the pages of The Seattle Times, among homeless advocates that reflects a lot of the conversation going on in communities about how to handle encampments. What was talked about here and what's important to understand? [00:18:42] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, I want to do something I don't always do, which is give credit to The Seattle Times for hosting this discussion. I think it was a really good way to do it - between two people - Tim Harris, who used to be the executive editor of Real Change, and Tiffani McCoy, a leader in the Initiative 135 House Our Neighbors Now social housing effort here in Seattle. These are two progressive people who have long records of advocacy for housing and for the needs of the homeless. So they didn't do the usual thing that media will do - is pit a progressive against some crazy right winger. These are two people, who I think come at this with the right intentions and the right values. And they both made some pretty good points about how we handle this issue of sweeps and encampments. Sweeps - I believe they're awful. They're also popular. The public likes them. We saw the 2017 mayoral race, we saw in 2021 mayoral and city council races, city attorney race. We saw it last year in the city council races. Candidates who back sweeps almost always defeat candidates who oppose them - we're getting nowhere, and the people who are living in these encampments aren't getting help. Now, this doesn't mean we should embrace sweeps. And I thought that Tiffani McCoy did a really good job of laying out, again, the damage that sweeps do to not just the possessions of people who are living in tents, but to their own psychological state. And it often makes it harder for them to escape addiction, harder for them to find stability they need to get a home. I thought Tim Harris, though, made some good points about the problems that happen if you leave an encampment in place - how drug dealers eventually find it. And even the best managed encampments - it just takes one or two people with bad intentions to show up and the whole place kind of falls apart into violence. So leaving an encampment out there doesn't help the people who are living there, especially now we're in the extremely cold winter season. But what happens is, too often, this gets framed as a discussion between - do we sweep or do we leave encampments indefinitely? And when that's the terms of the discussion, sweeps will win every single time. And we've seen that for years now. And I think progressives need to realize that that's the case. We are not going to stop sweeps by trying to argue against sweeps alone, and to argue essentially for leaving encampments indefinitely. We have to get out of that binary that we're losing and the people in those encampments are losing. And I think the only way out is to go to the solution, right? We need to build housing for people immediately. Bruce Harrell took office on a promise to build 2,000 units of housing for folks - homes, shelter, tiny homes, whatever - to get people out. Did that happen? Where did that go? You know, there are some tiny home villages that are out there. They do a great job. But why aren't we massively expanding those? Where are the safe RV sites? Where are other forms of shelter? Where's the permanent supportive housing that we need? Where are the new SROs that we need? I think that's where progressive energy needs to focus - is on getting people out of tents now - into real housing with a roof, with a door that locks that they like, where they can bring all their possessions, including their dog and their partner. And I think that's where the emphasis needs to go. I think if we get stuck in this sweeps versus indefinite encampments, we're just going to keep losing. The people who need help aren't going to get it. And so I thought that this debate that The Times hosted did a good job of really laying out why we need to go in that direction. [00:21:59] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. I think this is another area where - just the classic communications issue - you can't just argue against something. You have to argue for the vision that you want - because it doesn't translate - what people do here is exactly what you said. Well, okay - if we aren't going to sweep, then they're going to just stay there and that's unacceptable too. And it's unacceptable to a lot of people for a lot of different reasons, right? Some people are those crazy right wingers who just, you know - Get them out of my sight type of thing. But there are people who are saying - We need to get these people into a better place. We have lethal cold in the winter. We have lethal heat in the summer. We have public safety concerns. People who are unhoused, who are in these encampments, are more likely to be victims of crime than just about anyone else. This is a hazard to their health, to everyone's health. This is a big challenge. We need to get them into housing. We need more shelter options. We can't have this conversation while we know there isn't the infrastructure to get everyone indoors. Until we have that infrastructure, what are we talking about? We have to build. We have to build more transitional housing. We have to build more single residence occupancy, or those SROs. We have to move forward with housing. And I do believe in a Housing First approach. There's also this preemptive kind of argument that we're hearing from right wingers - Oh, we already tried that. Oh, we so have not tried that. We've never come close to trying that - on more than a trial with 20 people basis - that has never been a policy that the city has pursued overall. We have pursued these encampment sweeps and you can see they aren't getting us anywhere. The problem has actually gotten worse while we're doing this. So we have to make sure that we're speaking with unity and articulating what we want to see, what we're pursuing, what needs to get done. [00:23:50] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, and I think there is another reason for urgency here. Sweeps, under rulings of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals - federal - in the case against the City of Boise, Idaho, and a similar case against the City of Grants Pass, Oregon. The appeals court ruled that you cannot sweep an encampment without offering shelter to the people living there. A lot of cities, including San Francisco and others, have wanted to get out of that. They appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in the last few days. The Supreme Court has said - Yes, we will take up those cases. It is highly likely then, perhaps by this summer, the U.S. Supreme Court will say - You can sweep whenever you want to. You can eliminate an encampment without having to offer shelter at all. And I think a lot of advocates will point out that those offers of shelter, you know, are maybe a fig leaf at best. That fig leaf is going to go away very soon. So I think that just creates even more urgency to push really hard to get the city and the state to step up and provide housing, whether it's, you know, buying more hotels to get people out of tents or put up more tiny home villages. Whatever it takes, we have to do it, and we have to do it now because there is now an actual ticking clock at the U.S. Supreme Court on this. [00:24:57] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And you know what? I do want to recognize what Dow Constantine has been doing with leaning on this issue - with the buying the hotels, working in concert with different cities in the county, offering - even in the Burien debacle, it was really the county who provided the light at the end of the tunnel and real tangible assistance to actually deal with the issue and get people into housing. So, you know, more of that - more of what we've seen from Dow Constantine, more of focusing on getting people housed. Absolutely want to see it. And just absolutely dejecting news - where I wasn't shocked, but certainly dismayed. The Tacoma cops from the Manuel Ellis case are getting $500,000 to voluntarily leave the department. What are your thoughts on this? [00:25:47] Robert Cruickshank: I mean, it's unsurprising and appalling that they're getting half a million dollars after killing Manuel Ellis and getting away with it. I mean, getting away with it was bad enough - the way that the jury ruled in that case a few weeks back. Now they're literally getting money in their pocket after this - being waved goodbye. And I'm sure that this does not come with any stipulations that would make it difficult for them to get a new job anywhere else. I remember when McGinn was mayor in the early 2010s, the Ian Birk case. Ian Birk, the Seattle officer who shot and killed Native American woodcarver John T. Williams. Birk was not really prosecuted. There was an inquest. But Birk left the department, got a job somewhere else. Well, one of the things McGinn did was pursue legal remedies to make it impossible for Birk to get another job as an officer. I do not see any such thing happening here in the Tacoma case. These officers are getting a payday and getting away with it. But I think what this shows, yet again, is the importance of having real teeth in police accountability. And I think it also shows that the criminal justice system is not a substitute for that. We can't assume that the criminal justice system alone is going to hold cops accountable, as we saw in this case - yet again, it didn't. We need reforms at the state level to remove officer accountability from bargaining. We need to make it easier for cities to hold cops accountable who break the law, who commit murder, things like that. And that's where this needs to go, because what has happened here is injustice upon injustice upon injustice. And if this doesn't spur us to act, then what's going to? [00:27:32] Crystal Fincher: There's currently a federal review going on by the U.S. attorney for Western Washington. The family of Manny Ellis is calling for a consent decree for the City of Tacoma's police department with this. So those levers are turning. This issue to me is really - my goodness, this is not a pro-cop or an anti-cop thing, right? How do we hold people accountable who violate the standards that we set for them, who violate the standards that are already in place? This reminds me of what happened in the City of Kent with the assistant chief who had Nazi memorabilia, Hitler mustache, Nazi signs at work - and then got paid a ton, got rich to leave voluntarily. What are we doing when there's no mechanism to fire a Nazi in the workplace? For people who are absolutely in favor of more police, why are you tolerating this? That's my question. Why are we allowing this to fall into the - Well, either you love cops or you hate cops and you're evil if you want to do anything attached to accountability. What are we even doing? I could go on about this for a long time, but this just falls into - What are we even doing? What is the point of anything if we have to pay people who violate our standard to leave? [00:28:53] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah. I mean, we've been told since the summer of 2020 - Oh, we can't defund the police. Okay, then what are we going to do? Because we can't allow this sort of behavior, whether it is Nazi memorabilia in the actual work office in Kent or killing Manuel Ellis on the streets of Tacoma to continue - which is what I fear is actually what critics of police accountability want. They just want cops to be able to do as they please without consequences because in their minds - and these are mostly white folks like me who are saying these things - they don't think they're ever going to have to face those consequences. They want to maintain their hierarchy, their place at the top as much as they can. They see police as part of that. It's really toxic. And I think that it just shows, once again, the urgency of fixing this - including at the state level, to get the legislature out of this idea that some legislators have that - Oh, somehow it undermines labor unions and labor rights if we take accountability out of police bargaining. Well, military soldiers can't bargain, they can't form a union. They have a strict uniform code of military justice. They're held, in many cases, to much higher standards than police officers. I think we could point out ways in which even the military needs to be held to higher standards, but at least there are some. They exist and they operate. Police - they are convinced that they have the right to do as they please and to get away with it - and to be paid well for it, even when they do horrific things. And that is what we have to reject. And I think at this point - cities, we need to hold them accountable and push them. But the state needs to step in and we need to see changes to state law to make it easier to have real accountability at the local level. [00:30:25] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. Final thing I want to talk about today is a lawsuit announced by Attorney General Bob Ferguson to stop the Kroger-Albertsons merger that they have announced their intention to do, saying that this is going to be bad for competition, creating grocery monopolies. Grocery prices are already sky high - this would make it worse. What do you think about this? [00:30:49] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, I think it's absolutely the right thing to do and well within Attorney General Ferguson's right to protect local business and to protect consumers. And people notice that Fred Meyer and QFC are owned by the Kroger company already, and there's not enough competition there - prices there are higher than they should be. You add in Albertsons to the mix, and that's even less competition. I think people understand that more competition helps bring prices down, it's good for consumers. More local ownership - good for consumers. And this is popular, right? I think the public likes it. What's interesting to me is the way this gets covered. There's an article in The Seattle Times today about Ferguson's lawsuit. And to read the body of the article, it makes it very clear that the public loves it, that there's a legitimate reason for Ferguson to sue to protect the particular needs of Washington businesses and Washington consumers - because our grocery market industry is not always the same as other states. And we need to have our attorney general in there fighting for our interests. People get that. The Federal Trade Commission under Lina Khan is doing a great job really finally reinvigorating antitrust law and taking on mergers like this. And she's fantastic. But the article opens with this weird frame, questioning whether this is all a political stunt and saying - Oh, well, Ferguson jumped out and filed a lawsuit before the FTC did. Maybe he's trying to undermine the FTC or going rogue. Maybe it's just a political stunt. Yet the rest of the article makes it super clear that that's not the case at all. The article shows that the FTC says - No, we can work with Washington. They don't seem to be worried about this. In fact, the FTC regularly works with attorneys general around the country in multi-state lawsuits, in partnership with the federal government. So it struck me as a case where the second two-thirds of that article was really useful, but the top of it seemed to be The Times going out of their way to try to spin this against Ferguson. And I think it's a real lesson to the State Democratic Party and to Ferguson's campaign that they cannot trust the media to give him a fair shake here in 2024. The media is going to be hostile. The media is going to try to take things that look potentially helpful for Ferguson and spin them against him. So they're going to have to be ahead of that game and prepare for that, as well as make sure they're doing their own comms, using social media really well to get the story out there. Because the public gets it - the public doesn't want to see Albertsons, Fred Meyer, QFC all owned by the same company. They know it's either going to raise higher prices, fewer staff in stores, or fewer stores outright. We've already seen some stores close across the region. You're going to get more of those bad outcomes. So thank you, Bob Ferguson, for stepping up. And Bob, watch your back, because the media is coming for you. [00:33:28] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. This is a positive thing. This is consumer protection. This is what we ask him to do as our attorney general. We have seen the direction that things go when there's consolidation. There's a lot of people who order delivery now. I don't know if many people have been in stores lately, but it is a miserable experience because they've reduced staff to untenable amounts where you have to wait for someone to unlock half the thing or stand in a special section and a special line. It's just - this is the wrong direction that we're going in. We've already seen this as a result of consolidation. We don't want to see any more. [00:34:03] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, and you can look at another act of consolidation that I wish someone had sued to stop, which is when Rite Aid bought Bartell Drugs in 2020. Everyone knows that's been a disaster. Bartell, locally owned store - you had great locally owned products for sale. You could go and get your prescription filled really quickly and easily. Once that merger happened, all of a sudden people's prescriptions got lost, lines got really long, took you hours to get your prescription filled. And then all of a sudden, stores started closing all over the place. Now Walgreens is closing stores because there's not a lot of competition. There's no incentive for them to keep these stores open. And now we're going to see the same things happen with grocery stores - those trends that are already kind of lurking, accelerating if this merger goes through. So kudos to Bob Ferguson, but he's got to watch out for the people who are coming for him, especially in the media. [00:34:52] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Well, thank you so much for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, January 19th, 2024. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today is the Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, longtime communications and political strategist Robert Cruickshank. You can find Robert on Twitter, or X, @cruickshank. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter. You can find me on all platforms - BlueSky, Threads, anything - @finchfrii. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that Oregon's ban on surreptitious recordings of conversations violates the First Amendment. Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org. 

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and Founder and Editor of The Needling, Lex Vaughn! Crystal and Lex dive into the new year's headlines with a debate over Space Needle NYE drone shows vs fireworks, a rundown of new Washington state laws taking effect, and a discussion of why it's important to look past a poll's summary headline. They then chat about the new Seattle City Council taking office, a lawsuit against the City of Burien over its homeless camping law, and a new entrant into the Attorney General's race. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Lex Vaughn at @AlexaVaughn.   Resources RE-AIR: Ending Youth Incarceration with Dr. Ben Danielson of AHSHAY Center from Hacks & Wonks   “The new Washington state laws taking effect in January 2024” by Laurel Demkovich from Washington State Standard   “Poll: Washington voters want to spend more — while cutting taxes” by Donna Gordon Blankinship from Crosscut   Crosscut - Elway Poll | 2024 Legislative Preview    “Tammy Morales, Rob Saka To Chair Key Council Committees During Pivotal Year” by Ryan Packer and Doug Trumm from The Urbanist   “Seattle politics shift as City Council gets new members, president” by Daniel Beekman from The Seattle Times   “New City Council Elects Former Conservative Outcast as President” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger   Council Vacancy | Office of the City Clerk   “Unhoused people sue Burien over new homeless camping law” by Anna Patrick from The Seattle Times   “Update: Eastern WA attorney who fought gun laws, COVID mandates plans run for state AG” by Eric Rosane from Tri-City Herald   Find stories that Crystal is reading here   Listen on your favorite podcast app to all our episodes here   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical show and Friday week-in-review delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday topical show, we re-aired an important conversation I had with Dr. Ben Danielson, director of AHSHAY Center about ending youth incarceration. Today, we're continuing our Friday week-in-review shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and founder and editor of The Needling, Lex Vaughn. [00:01:20] Lex Vaughn: Hey, nice to be back. [00:01:21] Crystal Fincher: Hey, great to have you back - excited to have you back. I don't know that I'm excited to talk about everything on our list today, but we've got to get through it. But I do- [00:01:33] Lex Vaughn: There's a lot. [00:01:34] Crystal Fincher: There's a lot. And so - first show of the new year - we just had New Year's Eve, New Year's Day happen and we welcome that in in the greater Seattle area with a big Space Needle fireworks show. This year, it was a drone show pre-show and then a fireworks main show. And this year, there was a bit of a challenge with it - it was a smoky, hazy, kind of unintelligible soupy mess. What did you think about it? [00:02:09] Lex Vaughn: I was like, what is this? It's 2024 - did someone read like the last part of the year backwards, like 420, and go - This is a 420-themed New Year's Eve celebration? I don't know - it was funny. I mean, I was celebrating out-of-state with family, but I immediately was getting messages from people like - Did you see this? Did you see this? I mean, honestly, I think that - I know that a lot of people are flipping out and going like, Something needs to be done - but this is Seattle. Come on - you know that the Space Needle thing doesn't always work as planned and that's part of the fun. And the look of it was definitely fun this last year. [00:03:01] Crystal Fincher: You know, it was interesting - weather is always, always a factor in anything that happens in this region, whether it's 4th of July celebrations or New Year's Eve. I think for me, I have just been, I mean, I'm someone who has traditionally loved fireworks for most of my life and has enjoyed them. Yes, 100%. But I also, especially over the past couple of years, contending with the smoke generated by fireworks - not on New Year's Eve, but you know, July 4th, mostly, but I guess the neighborhoods on New Year's Eve - the fire hazard associated with it, which is definitely worse in the summer than it is in the winter. It just seems like now we have the option for drone shows and those seem like they're a bit more resilient - they don't create smoke. And part of the challenge of this current show was the way that the fireworks and the smoke interacted with the atmosphere, kind of making each other worse, making visibility worse. And it just seems like, okay - I am ready to move on from fireworks and to move on to drone shows. They seem like they can do everything the fireworks shows do and more. And it just seems like given where we are at with our climate, given where we are at with the volatility of just Seattle weather period, that it seems like it makes more sense to me to do that. But you know, I don't know if that's an option moving forward. You know, I don't know what's gonna happen with that. I'm not in any way affiliated with that. So it'll be interesting to see, but I wish we could move beyond fireworks personally. [00:04:38] Lex Vaughn: I'll never be over fireworks. I want that - well, I don't know - it's like, I know there's a lot of debate over it. But I also think any attempt to lessen fireworks only increases fireworks. So honestly, the best plan for reducing fireworks all over a region is always like a big, you know, show that people can watch. And when I, you know, go back to my hometown in California for New Year's or July 4th - that city stopped doing a central fireworks show. And what happened is just a proliferation of fireworks all over the city. There's just like a fireworks show going on everywhere all night. So I always think it's worth it to have one big show or you're gonna get that. [00:05:31] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I do think that a big show that the community can come to is important. In the absence of that, people are definitely going to celebrate on their own. I'm just thinking the big show can be a drone show. We saw a pretty successful pre-show - I thought - [00:05:45] Lex Vaughn: The drone show is a good backup. I mean, especially in Seattle, 'cause it's like, you know, you might be excited about a show and then, something about the weather happens and it's - Oh, you're not gonna see anything. So it's like the drone show is the only thing that can be guaranteed if it can move to a little space where it's free from smoke or clouds or whatever. [00:06:09] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Well, also wanna talk about a few more things this new year is ushering in, and that's a number of new state laws taking effect as of January 1st. One of them includes marijuana testing and changing in how that can be used by employers. Under the new law, employers are blocked from conducting drug tests for cannabis when making hiring decisions. They can still test for other drugs before hiring and they can still test employees for cannabis in certain situations, like after accidents or if they suspect someone's impaired. There are also some exemptions for companies that need to test for federal requirements and other workers potentially - including police, airline crews, corrections officers - may still have to test. But it's a pretty significant change in just kind of pre-employment testing overall - that's done with a lot of lower wage jobs, certainly not so much predominant and higher wage jobs. But it does, there has been a tension for quite some time in going - Okay, well, if it's legal, then why are you testing for it? And so this seems to bring things more in line. Do you think that makes sense? [00:07:21] Lex Vaughn: Yeah, and I hope the message of a law like this is it's not worth it because you could be breaking the law and you can get sued. Like it's a liability for you now to try to judge people this way - If you haven't like sped up with the times here and realize that it's generally not that big of a deal to use cannabis. [00:07:46] Crystal Fincher: Another law that took place is a - that is taking effect - is a 10-day gun waiting period. So as of now, those wishing to buy a firearm in Washington need to complete a background check and then wait 10 business days before they can complete that purchase. We've seen this referred to as kind of a cooling off period before wanting to purchase a gun and actually owning one. We have certainly seen a number of examples from mass shootings to domestic violence situations where people use guns to murder people immediately after purchasing them. And so while no gun reform is going to solve everything - usually no anything solves anything for everything - and it really is gonna take a patchwork of policies and laws to move forward. And this seems like a positive one to me that has some evidence behind it. [00:08:39] Lex Vaughn: Yeah, honestly, this is like, I think the most positive new law of this next year that I'm really looking forward to seeing put in place and I hope becomes more commonplace because like you said - yeah, there's a lot of reform that needs to happen to make this country safer from gun violence. But this cooling off period is a major one. When I was a reporter at The Seattle Times, I definitely covered some very tragic situations where it was very clear that a young man or something was distraught over somebody breaking up with them and made a horrible decision really quickly. And it's like in a lot of these cases, it's - what could have happened if this person had just been held to a few more days of thought before pulling that off. [00:09:31] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Another law taking effect impacts hospital staffing. Hospitals in Washington need to establish staffing committees made up of nursing staff and administrators. This is in response to years of advocacy really by healthcare workers saying that - Hey, these staffing ratios have gotten way out of whack. We're not able to provide adequate care to patients, patient care quality is suffering and we need to get back to staffing ratios - happening during a time where we're losing healthcare workers. There's been a lot of attrition. The pandemic only has made that worse. And so this is trying to still allow hospitals to have their say, but to do it with the input of nurses and hospital staff to say - Let's put patient safety first. Let's really work on these ratios and make sure that we're moving in the right direction and really putting patients at the center of this year. And I think this is a step forward in this direction that will bring a little bit more transparency and accountability to the process. [00:10:43] Lex Vaughn: And it's awesome that hospital staff is getting this extra leverage to make that happen. Because I mean, obviously they've been pressing for stuff like that as unions and all. But it's crazy the way they have to fight to give us quality care. Increasingly, unfortunately, in our health systems here in the US, it's like a lot of hospital administrators are more focused on turning hospitals into these profit machines without as much thought about what's happening to staff and their patients. And those staff - those are the ones rooting for us and protecting quality of care. [00:11:30] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. So there's a new voting rights law. It's intended to address situations where there are signs of polarized voting among different groups in a community, and where there are risks to some groups having their votes diluted so they don't have a fair opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. It makes it easier to try and address this with a couple different mechanisms - it allows organizations to sue on behalf of their members, it allows local governments to voluntarily reform their election systems to be more representative of their populations, and for lawsuits to be filed if the locality refused to take such steps. So it hopefully can bring the cost down. I mean, sometimes there are clear violations, but it has been very costly - prohibitively costly - for someone to pursue it if they feel they have been wrong and want to bring that in court. So this seeks to try and address that and provide a pathway for people to be able to sue without that cost prohibitive element involved and to recover costs they incur when researching those possible legal challenges. What are your thoughts on this one? [00:12:42] Lex Vaughn: I have to admit, I was like, when I, you know, just kind of heard about this one and got a general sense of it, I was like - wait, what? This sounds a little bit confusing to me. The motivation of it is just that like, if someone is feeling outnumbered in a community, that they have strength and power to - I have to admit like this one, I didn't totally get, 'cause I don't know if I've seen a law like that before. [00:13:11] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it is in line with previous voting rights act laws. And we have passed legislation in the same vein - I think five years ago, we passed a voting rights act in the same vein. But it's really an issue of like - we see a challenge when it comes to districting that's happening right now in Yakima, or issues where it looks like - Okay, a community's overwhelmingly voting in the same way if you look at it geographically, but things are sliced up and that's not turning out the way it is in government. I mean, there's a case to be made in a city I'm pretty familiar with - the city of Kent, the largest city in the state that doesn't have any council districts, no form of districted government, which makes the government certainly less representative than it is in other areas. But to try and bring a case or bring a suit and rectify this has been prohibitively expensive. You can see something being wrong, but whether you can pursue any remedy or whether there's any recourse is a whole different subject. And so it's like - okay, we see that there are problems happening, but we don't have the tools and power to make it realistic to expect something to be done about it. And if someone doesn't expect something to be done about a violation, if they see that there's no consequence for bad actions, it makes it more likely that that's going to happen. So this makes it more likely that - hey, if you are violating the law, if there are violations happening here, you can expect more of a consequence for that than you did before. So hopefully one that prevents further violations from happening, but for those that currently are, it makes them easier to remedy and rectify. So I think that's a positive step. Will it solve anything? Will it immediately change anything? I don't think this is like an immediately transformative piece of policy - we're going to see something that flips from night to day in this. But I do think that it's part of, again, patchwork of legislation like most things that makes it easier to hold people and entities that are violating voting rights laws accountable and to give people more tools to fix it. [00:15:25] Lex Vaughn: And maybe like slow the role of people who were planning on exploiting people in new ways or something like that. [00:15:31] Crystal Fincher: Yes. Because there's a lot of that happening right now. Okay. Absolutely. Another law that a lot of cities have been dealing with is one that addresses street racing. So this law imposes tougher penalties for street racing. If you're caught, you can have your car impounded for three days on the first offense and forfeited on the second one. It also increases penalties for those who are found to be aiding and abetting street racers. I don't know if this is going to get there. I mean, that seems like a really tough penalty. I am not personally familiar with how these laws have resulted in any changes, or whether they've resulted in any changes. But it seems like they're trying to do more. That people are seeing that this is a problem - and it is a problem - it's a problem for a variety of reasons. And they're trying to do something to address it - and hopefully it does help. We will see. [00:16:28] Lex Vaughn: Honestly, I think it's - of course this is dangerous. I mean, whenever I hear something like this happened - I can't believe sometimes I hear this happened in Seattle sometimes. I'm like - What street are you on? Oh my God. This is horrible. This is not the place. But I think the thing is - there is a culture for this that will always be there. And no matter what law you put in place, I mean, you're just going to make it sexier. So, I mean, honestly, I wish that there was some way to - I don't know - give people a space to do this more safely or something. That's the real solution, 'cause it is going to keep happening. [00:17:11] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think you're onto something there. I mean, clearly you're right - there's a culture around that - and I mean, it's so interesting. And it's kind of an offshoot of car culture. There are car enthusiasts and this is a subset of that. And it's kind of tangential, but we, as a community, as a society have been reducing the number of just alternative, recreational opportunities in spaces, particularly for younger people. And then criminalizing a lot of activity there. Some of that, you know, may be warranted. Not all activity is positive. Like we said, there's a lot of danger associated with street racing, but what are we doing to give people options to do safer activities? Whether it's racing activities or others, if we aren't providing positive, affirmative options, particularly for younger people - places for people to congregate and share that don't require an entry fee, that don't require purchase necessarily, that are places where people can congregate and recreate and do things that are meaningful to them together - that we're moving in the wrong direction overall. I think that's a valid concern and one we need to do better with as a community and society. [00:18:28] Lex Vaughn: But it's not going away. So it's - we just need a more proactive approach. [00:18:35] Crystal Fincher: Yep, and so we will keep our eye on how these laws pan out, on new laws as they pass. We have a new legislative session starting on Monday, and we'll be following along with what happens there. But we're seeing these results now and we'll keep paying attention. Also wanna talk this week about a new Crosscut poll that was just released - part of the poll at least. And the headline of this poll is - Washington voters want to spend more - while cutting taxes. Also another headline saying that 57% of people are in favor of repealing the state's new capital gains tax. Now this is interesting. We've talked about this before in the podcast, but polls are very interesting things. And it's very important to pay attention to the questions asked, who they're being asked of, and what the particulars are in this. And this one - I think there are some interesting findings in this poll, I think that you have to dig a lot deeper than these headlines. And I think that this doesn't actually tell us much about what voters' likelihood of voting for or against some of these questions asked in here. And one of the reasons why this is being asked is because there is likely to be an initiative, a statewide initiative, to repeal this tax. But it's very important to actually read the poll, to go beyond the synopsis in the article and to take a look at the actual poll. And when we do that, we see that these questions were asked in a way that they aren't asked when people are invested in, where like people working, right - if you're actually working on this thing, you would not trust this. You're not asking questions in this way. Usually when you're trying to figure out what happens - one, kind of the most important thing, you wanna ask the question in the same way that it's gonna be asked to voters on their ballot. Now we're kind of before that point, right? So a lot of times you'll hear - Well, is it the ballot title? Is it the ballot language? We don't have that yet, but you wanna get close to that. You wanna describe it in a way that you feel that they're gonna encounter it in the real world with voters. You also with this, it's very important understanding, particularly with something like this - there's gonna be a lot of money, there's gonna be a lot of communication in these campaigns. So people are gonna hear messages in favor of it. People are gonna hear messages opposed to it. They're gonna be getting mail in their mailboxes, they're gonna see digital ads, they're gonna be seeing political commercials about this - and they're gonna be getting a lot of messages. You want to expose the people you're asking those questions of of likely messages that they're gonna hear so that - okay, afterwards, is it more likely or less likely that they're going to support it? - or that you're coming closer to the conditions under which they're gonna make their decision. That's really informative and really predictive and a pretty accurate way of figuring out where support really lies. And really in those things, when you have a poll, you're asking those questions - there's a lot learned by asking the initial question before they hear any pro and con arguments. And then asking that final question - the question again - having heard all that, are you still in favor of, more likely to support, less likely to support this initiative or this law? And seeing who that moves and who different arguments influence is all part of how people put together these campaigns. None of that was in here. This was asked in kind of a kludgy way, actually, kind of a muddled way in how they did this. They kind of asked - Hey, they're expected to have a surplus from a capital gains tax and a carbon pricing trade system. What should we do with this money? And so it's just - Okay, we should put it into schools. And actually the majority of people did not say they want to keep spending at the current level or reduce taxes somehow. They were saying - majority 55% said put more money into schools, reducing homelessness, mental health programs, and combating effects of climate change. Then they asked - Okay, the following are some proposals that the legislature is expected to discuss in the coming weeks. As I read each of these, please indicate whether you favor, strongly favor, oppose, or strongly oppose each one. And so all it says is - Repeal the state's new capital gains tax. And that's it. And the other ones are - Eliminate some restrictions on when police can pursue criminal suspects in cars. Put more money into mental - like they're just asking the sentence. Now, if there's one thing, especially people involved in politics, involved in reporting know - it's that people do not have the context for this at all when you just ask that. [00:23:23] Lex Vaughn: In just a general sense, the average person is like - less taxes. Like no context, like what is it? [00:23:32] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, sure, it's a tax - repeal it. What is that? [00:23:32] Lex Vaughn: Are you taking more money from me? And it's like, if this does end up on the ballot, you know, again, like this year, the main message that I know we've kept saying to defend that capital gains tax is - it affects such a small number of people. It's probably definitely not you. [00:23:51] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, exactly. [laughing] It is such a small percentage of people. And when people are like - Oh, okay, you're not talking about something that applies to me and I'm already struggling and trying to figure this out. [00:24:02] Lex Vaughn: Honestly, that thing needs like a rebrand or something - capital gains tax. [00:24:05] Crystal Fincher: Well, and I don't even - you know, I don't know. [00:24:08] Lex Vaughn: The 1% tax - I mean, I think it's even smaller than 1%. It's like - tippity-top. [00:24:13] Crystal Fincher: I would question whether it even needs a rebrand because the other thing about this is that we have seen a lot of high quality polling that turned out to look like it was pretty accurate when it came to this. And basically the numbers look flipped. When people actually are asked a reasonably composed question, when they - after they hear pro and con messages, they're more likely to support the capital gains tax. It has actually been a popular policy in polling that we've seen till now. And, you know, the questions were asked more comprehensively and differently than they were here. It'll be interesting to see as this continues - I mean, certainly this is going to produce a great headline, which in today's media environment is a goal for many people. Most people don't read beyond headlines. So if you can get a great headline, that is a win because then that gives people an impression of something, even though it may not be completely accurate or there's not other contexts surrounding it. But it'll be interesting to see where this comes out. I would just be leery about these results based on the way that these questions are asked, based on the fact that it does contradict other publicly available polling that we've seen. And it'll be interesting to see, but I am taking this with a grain of salt - for these results. I do think that there are - just looking, polls are always interesting things. And even if it's not the number one thing that the poll may have been designed to elicit, it'll be interesting. There's this larger discourse, kind of want to say Stancil-ized discourse - discourse about the economy, and whether people are happy, and what this means for Joe Biden, and like where people are at. And that there are a lot of economic indicators that seem positive, but people are kind of sour on the economy overall - more sour than traditional economic indicators would indicate is logical. But these questions, there's a question asked here - Hey, what's your outlook for the country? - basically - do you expect things will - in general terms, get better over the next year or get worse? Much better, somewhat better, somewhat worse, or much worse. And in these, what we saw is that people said - Okay - and it was asked four ways in four categories. Do you think this for the United States, for Washington State, in your community, and in your household? And across the board, people gave, you know, majority of people said - Hey, things are actually gonna get better for my household. Majorities across the board there. And then slightly less for their community, and then less for Washington State, and then less for the United States. So there's this difference where if you look and you ask people individually - Hey, do you think the next year for you in general terms is gonna be better or worse? Most people say better. But if you ask people - Okay, generally for the United States, do you think the next year is gonna be better or worse? Most people say worse. And the further out it gets from them, the less likely they are to think that it gets positive. There are lots of theories for why this is, there are lots of people's views - but it's an interesting dynamic that is there. And it's not a new dynamic - we've seen this before, but it certainly is more pronounced. It's very pronounced and there's a very wide gulf, wider than we've seen in quite some time. The other interesting thing about that is when you look at the crosstabs broken up there - younger people are actually more optimistic than older people, which is interesting. [00:27:52] Lex Vaughn: Now I don't trust anything in this poll. [00:27:54] Crystal Fincher: [laughs] What I don't have at my fingertips right now is enough data on this asked in different polls in a variety of different ways to immediately be suspicious and wanna look into more. Like with that question about the capital gains tax, it's just at odds with other polls that we have seen - certainly publicly available, certainly at odds with a lot of private polling. [00:28:21] Lex Vaughn: But young people being optimistic - about anything political - hmm. [00:28:24] Crystal Fincher: In some ways, right? And about like, does it, are you more optimistic about your own prospects? Like looking at the personal, 'cause the further away you get, the more politically influenced it is. But looking at the personal, it's really interesting. And I just find that very, very interesting in what that means and the difference there. And to me, when I see those things, the interest is in wanting to dive down and - okay, what explains that difference? Who is experiencing kind of in that zone between you thinking things getting better for yourself and worse overall? You know, who is in that category? Who are the people who move? What's influencing that movement is interesting to look at. So we'll link this poll. And like generally, I would just say for people, when you're consuming polls, there's usually a whole article breakdown, and then there should be in each article - there is in this article - a link to the actual poll. Always read the actual poll. Always read the questions. Because a lot of times, some of these challenges or things that seem non-standard or problematic are often visible to a layperson if they read it. Like, okay, that's a weird way to ask the question. Or, you know, if you ask me that, I might be confused. Or like, what does that even mean? So there's a lot there, but that was an interesting finding. But we're certainly hearing about this today - we're recording this on Thursday - and we'll be hearing a lot more about it. What did you think just generally about it? [00:29:53] Lex Vaughn: First of all, I have to admit - I think a lot of times I don't click on that kind of external PDF like there is here with a breakdown of who was interviewed, breakdown of landlines, cell phone, text. I'll say at least this poll does a very good breakdown of exactly who they interviewed. But in general, I don't take a lot of reporting on polls very seriously. I usually think it reveals the bias of a media organization or a polling organization. And I'm - that's informative. That's what I'm taking from this. [00:30:36] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it's, you know, polling is an interesting thing. Polling is - not all polling is predictive. Not everybody is polling likely voters or trying to mimic an election result. Some polls are just trying to take the pulse of where people are at. This, you know, is asking some things that they're gonna be dealing with in the legislature. And it's not like there's gonna be an immediate vote up and down on proposed legislation, but it could indicate people's general satisfaction of the legislation or not. I think with these things, it is important to read the actual poll. I will say - just for here - it's important to read the poll 'cause I have seen more than one misleading breakdown of a poll, or things that omit some significant or even contradictory findings. And so I think it's important to look for yourself to - okay, not a synopsis, but if we're really talking about how important this is about policy or what people think, let me look at everything people ask and let me look at this whole poll and see what happens - because we can't always trust the breakdowns. But also just understanding what polls do and don't do. A poll that - things can change massively in either direction, right, between now and the election. These are a snapshot in time. Something, especially at this point in time, is not predictive. They're very early. There's usually - if you're asking about a specific candidate or policy, a lot of people who aren't familiar with it yet, or who don't have all of the context - there's still a lot of pro and con arguments and a lot of communication that's gonna happen. So they're not determinative, certainly. They're not absolutely predictive. But they can be useful information points. And usually they're most useful - not in the horse race sense - but in the who does something appeal to and why, if it's done well. And just understanding that - certainly from a campaign perspective is really important - Even if you set aside the - ultimate who's likely to vote for this or not type of questions. So just another interesting one. I'm sure we're gonna see other ones. I think this is part one of two that they've released, so we're going to see some more from this soon. And that was a Crosscut poll. Also this week, Seattle City Council - councils all across the state, really were sworn in - the new Seattle City Council was sworn in. And so we have a new council. We have committees that were assigned. We have Sara Nelson, who is now the council president. Sara Nelson, who is a moderate conservative, who is now seeming to be very aligned with the mayor and leading a council that is much more aligned with the mayor's office - that is much more moderate to conservative. And so we're going to see a new council and seemingly a new direction here in the state. We saw one of Sara Nelson's first actions as council president was to disband the Renters' Rights Committee, which former Seattle City Councilmember, Kshama Sawant, had chaired since 2019 - disbanded that committee, and which is not that surprising. More than half of the residents of Seattle are renters, so it seems like that is applicable to the majority of people - it would be useful and helpful. But Sara has indicated distrust and hostility of several of those efforts before, has hosted landlord support groups before. And so it is not surprising, even though it may be really unfortunate. [00:34:18] Lex Vaughn: Yeah. [00:34:20] Crystal Fincher: But we're gonna see. What do you think about this whole thing? [00:34:24] Lex Vaughn: It's really unfortunate that a whole slate of people was elected that are probably gonna just kinda be in lockstep with the mayor. And I see all of them as like, faux-gressive - they know how to kinda have the facade of progressive to fit into Seattle, but their policies that they're rooting for are just so obviously conservative and Republican to me. Like making your first order of business disbanding a Renters' Rights Committee. [laughs] It's like, it's just amazing. And it just kind of adds to the cognitive dissonance of the whole identity of the city - who these council people are and what they're probably gonna do legally this year, the policies they're gonna enact - just makes me laugh that anyone thinks the city is liberal. 'Cause it's - unfortunately, these people that were just elected are probably going to move forward with basically a lot of conservative policies on a local level. [00:35:33] Crystal Fincher: It's gonna be really interesting to see. And for me, there's a lot that they're going to be dealing with. And just so people know - that for committee chairs, the people who are going to decide the general direction of these areas, what kind of legislation they pursue within their committees. Rob Saka will be chairing the Transportation Committee. Tammy Morales will chair the Land Use Committee. Joy Hollingsworth will chair the Parks, Public Utilities and Technology Committee. Maritza Rivera will chair Libraries, Education and Neighborhoods. Cathy Moore will chair Housing and Human Services. Dan Strauss will chair Finance, which will handle the budget, Native Communities and Tribal Governments. Bob Kettle will chair Public Safety. And the vacant Position 8 position - the person who will be appointed to the council - will chair Sustainability, City Light, Arts and Culture. Sara Nelson will chair Governance, Accountability and Economic Development. Within those, there's a lot that's gonna happen. And I think one thing that some people discount or don't expect is just how much practically they're going to have to deal with. Now it's kind of like - Okay, strip the progressive or conservative, whatever labels. There are serious issues that people have to deal with and a range of options, like a range that could be under the progressive label, a range that could be under the moderate label, right? But they're going to have to chart - well, they don't have to - their job is to chart a path forward for lots of this. Rob Saka, Chair of Transportation, which, you know, there's certainly a lot at stake - when it comes to transportation, there's gonna be a new Move Seattle Levy. He's overseeing the $700 million annual budget. We see a lot of asks and needs from the community. He's talked about getting back to the basics and being "the pothole king." And there, and it'll just be interesting to see. There's a lot of practical daily things that have to be dealt with. How is he going to do that? What approach are they going to take to a lot of things? We've seen Bob Kettle, Chair of Public Safety, talk about a lot of law and order oriented things, building a better relationship, promoting respect. We heard Sara Nelson talk about - one of her other first acts was proposing another pay increase for SPD, which is, you know, without anything changes, would deepen the budget deficit that the city is facing, barring any new revenue on the heels of other additions to that budget and elements of pay. It'll just be really interesting to see, because these things are having practical effects. They're all going to impact the budget that they're all going to have to deal with, with a major budget deficit coming up. They were all, most of these people who are new on the council were very hesitant to discuss what their actual practical plans were for dealing with this budget deficit, most hesitant to put support behind any new taxation, progressive taxation, proposals from the work group that the mayor convened on this that came up with options. But they have talked about cutting in areas. They have talked about the need to trim overall, but were hesitant or unwilling to talk about what specifically that would be. They're going to have to get into specifics now. They're going to have to deal with the things that they were hesitant to talk about during the campaign. It's going to be really interesting to see how this, how this carries out. Also, this is a very new council overall. They're going to have to get their feet underneath them. Sara Nelson announced that they are not going to be having regular committee meetings for most of this month to allow people to get up to speed - there's a lot of that that needs to happen - and that their first council meeting of the month will be on the 23rd to appoint the new councilmember that is going to take over for Teresa Mosqueda, who is, was just elected to the county. So it's going to be really interesting and just FYI - applications for that vacancy, if anyone is interested, are being accepted until January 9th. And that is Tuesday and the appointment will take place on the 23rd. Certainly a lot of talk about who might potentially take those places. We have heard a couple names bandied about, one of them being Tanya Woo, who lost - [00:40:10] Lex Vaughn: Yeah, how about not Tanya Woo? [laughing] [00:40:13] Crystal Fincher: You know, I just have a hard time - you're representing all of Seattle. It is a city that has made a strong stance and has made strong statements - fortunately - when it comes to protecting all members of the LGBTQ community, including trans people. And there's an interview with Hacks & Wonks, it's been covered elsewhere where Tanya Woo did not fully support the ability of trans people to participate in regular everyday life like everyone else, expressed reservations about trans people participating on sports teams - said if they wanted to exclude them, she would be willing to support that in a position on the city council - which just to me, there are policy differences, but then there are issues of just basic humanity and support of people and residents of the city. And that, to me, is one of those that's automatically disqualifying in my personal evaluation of that. And so it looks like that is not necessarily disqualifying for some people who might be considering this on the council, but I certainly think it should be considered with this. Now I do understand that she, I think, made an Instagram post apologizing for that and trying to clarify their position. I would just suggest that, you know, and lots of people evolve over that. So I'm not saying that that is what she thinks or believes for the rest of her life. Maybe she has changed and maybe she has learned more, and I hope that she has and that other people are on that journey. I just think that when it comes to appointing someone responsible for the city, we can appoint someone who is further along in that journey and not learning about the humanity of people at the same time that they're having to learn about all of these policies and operations that they're now having to. So it's gonna be really interesting to see. There are certainly other people who have held various elected office, school board candidates that have had exposure and that may be able to be really positive additions to the council, particularly with a number of councilmembers that have not served in elective office before - having someone who had in whatever capacity could be a very positive, helpful thing for this council. It'll be interesting to see. I think that there are - certainly there have been some names that have been talked about publicly. I think there are more names that are circulating privately. It'll be really interesting to see how this shakes out. But either way, I also don't think that's gonna tip the balance of this council. I do think that it could help with policy formation and general operational items. But I think just, you know, it's not gonna tip the balance of power of the council. [00:42:55] Lex Vaughn: Yeah, I think the direction the council is gonna go is pretty well set. [00:43:00] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. [00:43:01] Lex Vaughn: Yeah. [00:43:02] Crystal Fincher: Yep, so we will see. Also this week, news of a lawsuit against the City of Burien over their new homeless camping law that - we have heard about the saga of Burien for quite some time. There was also an independent report this week that came out really chastising the city manager for not handling some of the major issues that they're doing with due care and seriousness. But this is a lawsuit being brought on behalf of unhoused people by a regional advocacy organization suing the city, claiming that it banishes homeless people, inflicts cruel punishment, and it violates Washington's constitution. The Northwest Justice Project filed the lawsuit on Wednesday in King County Superior Court on behalf of the Seattle King County Coalition on Homelessness and three individual plaintiffs. What were your thoughts on this? [00:43:56] Lex Vaughn: I mean, it seems like this is the next step in inevitable plan to get this in the Supreme Court. I think there's probably a variety of cities, not just Burien, who have been wanting to challenge this. So this is another showdown that'll go to a higher court. But in general, I think it's just sad that it's happening because it's - we're talking about people's right to exist. It's not just a right to be homeless or something. It's a right to exist. There are people who cannot afford shelter. We as a society are not providing them enough aid in a dark period of their life. And you can't just ask people to go poof. Like, there's no magic wand that makes them just dissipate in air overnight. They have to exist somewhere. And to criminalize that is incredibly inhumane. [00:45:00] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I mean, they have nowhere to go. Homelessness is a housing problem - it's the lack of housing. There has certainly been a lot of talk and skewed coverage presenting the homeless population as basically criminals and violent drug abusers. And one - homeless people are more likely to be victimized by crime than any other group. And if we were looking at facts and data, we would start from that point - they are not more violent than the general population. [00:45:35] Lex Vaughn: A lot of people are escaping violence. I mean, especially homeless youth, you know? [00:45:41] Crystal Fincher: 100%. [00:45:42] Lex Vaughn: Yeah. [00:45:42] Crystal Fincher: But, you know, criminalizing - it doesn't help that. Sending someone to jail because they don't have shelter doesn't help them to get shelter - it moves them further away from it. It destabilizes people. And it's just incredibly expensive. [00:45:58] Lex Vaughn: Yeah. [00:45:59] Crystal Fincher: There is just- [00:46:00] Lex Vaughn: So ineffective. [00:46:01] Crystal Fincher: Yes - so really expensive and ineffective. Seems like - okay, that should be the thing not to do. But that's the thing that they are rushing to do. Interesting about this lawsuit is it doesn't cite Martin v. Boise, which is a previous 2018 decision that came out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, saying that homeless people can't be punished for sleeping outside on public property if there are no adequate alternatives to offer them. Doesn't cite that, and it is also citing that it's a violation of Washington State's Constitution. So this, you know, which to me is notable because we'll see if Martin v. Boise stands. I don't think there's absolute confidence that that's going to continue to stand, although I certainly believe it should. But this could be something else that could prevent the large-scale just criminalization of homelessness without there being any place for anyone to go. No surprise to listeners of the program - I do believe we have an obligation to provide shelter and housing for people and that we have done a poor job of that, we have not kept up with the demand. And we continue to spend tons of money on these criminalized solutions that could go so much further if we invested them in ways that have shown they're more likely to reduce homelessness. There's been lots of coverage about Housing First models, which have been under attack, and there's actually an article recently about a very coordinated, conservative attack on these models. Just anecdotally, I've seen lots of people - Housing First policies have failed - when the truth is they haven't been tried yet. We've done a lot of criminalization. We have not done that - and man, we would love to, but suggestions that they don't work and that they failed are just false and not rooted. In reality, we haven't tried them. We have tried criminalization, and that's what's gotten us here. [00:47:53] Lex Vaughn: Criminalization, another word for addiction to punishment. Doesn't matter that there's just mounds of research showing that these old techniques of criminalization don't reduce homelessness, they don't make us safer. It's just frustrating to continue to see this happen when it's like there's so much evidence and research showing that criminalization is an expensive and ineffective strategy for solving A) homelessness, and B) making us a safer community in general. [00:48:33] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. The last item on our list today is there is a new entrant into the race for attorney general - a Republican from central Washington, an attorney named Pete Serrano, is the first major Republican to toss his name into the ring for Washington Attorney General. So he joins former US attorney Nick Brown, senior King County Deputy Prosecutor and State Senator Manka Dhingra in the race - who are both Democrats. So if he was elected, he would be the first Republican to hold the office since Rob McKenna vacated the seat in 2012. He's running on pretty standard conservative policies right now, which are kind of out there. He announced his candidacy with the host of the Washington Gun Law blog, if that gives you any hint - he is not in favor of any kind of gun control or gun laws. He, I believe, fought against vaccine mandates, filed legal challenges against the state's COVID-19 emergency order, fought against gun control legislation, and wants to bring more of that to the AG's race. What do you think of this? [00:49:48] Lex Vaughn: I think it's interesting that the first person he was coming out swinging against is Bob Ferguson. And I think as he campaigns, he'll probably keep his aim there because even though Bob Ferguson isn't running for AG again, he's running for governor. I guess this guy is gonna sell himself as like the check on Bob Ferguson if he wins the governor's race. I think - hopefully this guy won't stand a chance - but he will make these campaigns a little bit more colorful. [00:50:21] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, certainly a new dimension in this race. There were - the main people in the race, two well-known Democratic candidates or fairly well-known Democratic candidates. This being the first Republican candidate is a new dimension in the race. We will continue to follow it. We're gonna have a lot of very interesting statewide races, which is not an unusual thing - except in Washington State for the past decade, basically, where we haven't had much change there. So will be interesting to follow, and we'll keep our eyes peeled on what happens there. And with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, January 5th, 2024. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host is Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and founder and editor of The Needling, Lex Vaughn. You can find Lex on Twitter @AlexaVaughn - you can also find her on several other platforms, as well as me. I'm everywhere @finchfrii. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

Yesterday, a Harney County Circuit Court judge ruled that Measure 114 violates Oregon's state constitution. The law, which voters passed last year to regulate firearms, has yet to go into effect due to multiple court challenges. Measure 114 bans future purchases of magazines that can carry more than 10 rounds of ammunition. It also requires those wishing to buy a firearm to get a permit first. Permits will require applicants to complete a safety class and a federal background check. Earlier this year, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut ruled the law is legal under the U.S. Constitution. That decision has been appealed to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. OPB reporter Jonathan Levinson joins us with details about the latest ruling and what it means for the future of Measure 114.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta is asking the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to keep the state's ban on "assault weapons" in place after a federal judge declared the statute unconstitutional, and despite Gov. Gavin Newsom's attempt to ridicule the judge for comparing Bowie knives to AR-15s it's actually Bonta who's raising that argument before the appeals court.

On this Election 2023 re-air, Crystal chats with Cydney Moore about her campaign for re-election to Burien City Council Position 2, accomplishments from her first term, and her consistent progressive track record. They then dig into the details of Burien government's recent non-handling of their unhoused population as sweep after sweep has disrupted and endangered lives, caused community division, and failed to solve anything. Highlighting the importance of upcoming elections, a 4-3 majority on the Burien City Council has been unwilling to accept an offer of help from King County and has instead focused on retaliation against those working on solutions. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Follow us on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find Cydney Moore at @vote_cydney.   Cydney Moore Cydney Moore is a mother, activist, and elected representative with a long history of service to her community. Her background includes over a decade of experience in nonprofit leadership, and years of experience as a small business owner, a journalist covering politics, and as an advocate for social justice issues including housing for all, fair wages, women's rights, LGBTQIA2S+ rights, immigrant rights, ending the war on drugs, and more. She has worked on policy issues at the city, county, and state level, and currently holds office as a Burien City Councilmember. Cydney also serves on the board of 3 nonprofits (the Burien Arts Association, Tukwila Pantry food bank, and the Multi Service Center), and is on several regional boards and committees, including the Domestic Violence Initiative Regional Task Force. Her other experience includes acting as a Lead Organizer for ACLU Burien People Power, and volunteering for organizations like the Burien Severe Weather Shelter and Burien C.A.R.E.S. Animal Shelter.   Resources Campaign Website - Cydney Moore   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review show and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. I am very excited today to be welcoming Burien City Councilmember Cydney Moore to the program. Welcome, Cydney. [00:01:00] Cydney Moore: Hi, thank you so much for having me - I'm really excited to be here. [00:01:04] Crystal Fincher: Well, we certainly have no shortage of things to talk about, especially with recent news and events in Burien. But I do want to start because you are a councilmember, you are running for reelection right now - is to talk about what led you to run for office, to want to serve, and what have you been spending your time doing in your first term? [00:01:24] Cydney Moore: Well, I feel like I've always been drawn towards public office. Even as a kid, I used to dream about becoming the first female president. Even as far as third grade - I found some old notes in school folders my mom had stashed away where I had written policy proposals for what I would do - and it's pretty consistent, actually. One of the things that I talked about was everyone will have a home. I guess I've always wanted to serve my community, I've been an activist my whole life, I have been working in nonprofit leadership for over a decade now. So this is my passion, this is what drives me - creating a better community for all of us, creating a better future for our people - that's what gives me joy. In my first term - it's been a rough go - I took office in January of 2020, right before the pandemic hit, so I had a lot of goals and aspirations for what I wanted to do, and we ended up scrambling to mitigate the harms that were ongoing in the crisis we were all facing. But throughout that, we were able to accomplish some great good. One of the things that we were able to do in Burien that I'm really, really proud of was approve hazard pay for essential workers throughout the pandemic, and we also implemented an eviction moratorium that kept people from losing their homes throughout the entire state of emergency in Washington. I also have been involved with passing a groundbreaking list of renters' protections in Burien. We're leading the charge in some of these areas and other cities are certainly looking to us as an example - I'm incredibly proud of that. We have launched a new co-responder model that integrates behavioral and mental health professionals and crisis responders alongside police on calls. I am hoping that we can work towards having an individual standalone crisis response team that can call in police if needed, but can operate independently. I proposed an increase in our human services budget, so I'm really, really proud of that - that was just in our last budget cycle and it actually funds a lot of incredible services across our city, including things like rental assistance, utility assistance, education opportunities, mental health support, therapy for children, youth and adults, food banks - just all the good things - doubled the city arts budget. Right now, we are working on passing legislation to raise the minimum wage here in Burien - very, very excited about that, that's something that I started working on initially right after I got into office and that sort of got put on halt due to the pandemic, so I'm really excited to be taking that back up again. I created a lobby effort to King County Council through my work with the Domestic Violence Initiative Regional Task Force, serving as a representative from our council, to allocate additional funding for domestic violence protection order advocates, and proud to announce that we actually got $375,000 allocated to the protection order advocacy program. So, yeah - I think we've done some good, I'm really proud of what we have been able to accomplish. I'm really proud of my track record so far in office, and I'm hoping to continue the work. [00:04:54] Crystal Fincher: It is an impressive track record, particularly with new councilmembers coming in, dealing with things during the pandemic. But, hey - it sounds like you guys have a totally progressive council - there's no friction or issues in Burien, is there? [00:05:10] Cydney Moore: You know - it's funny because it's not funny. But if you don't laugh, you cry. So one would think that - forward-facing - our council is progressive. We have people - the majority of our council has claimed to be progressive - they ran on progressive values. And as of late, we're not seeing quite so much of that as we would like. There has been a lot of divisiveness. And I'll tell you - getting positive things passed is like pulling teeth with our council - to put it plainly. It's brutal. It's painful work. And I really wish that we were a little more cohesive and aligned in our goals and our values so that we could do more work because it is slow-going and it's unfortunate. [00:05:59] Crystal Fincher: It is unfortunate, and we've seen it blow up in the news. So, is it that there's a 4-3 kind of moderate conservative majority on the council now? [00:06:07] Cydney Moore: Yes, that's very accurate. You can see a pretty consistent 4-3 split on just about everything major, and especially when it comes to passing progressive policies. Absolutely. [00:06:21] Crystal Fincher: So, Burien has been in the news because of sweeps, a lease, what to do with the unhoused population, and whether to help, how to help, the county has stepped in. This has been an ongoing saga that we have been talking about during the week-in-reviews. But can you walk us through what has been happening and where things stand? [00:06:42] Cydney Moore: Okay. So, we had a number of unhoused people who were camping on property that is jointly owned and operated by our City and the King County Library system. Our building - the first two stories is our Burien Library, and then the third story is City Hall, and we share a space on the ground floor for city council meetings and multipurpose uses for the library. So, there's a condo association of those two entities that operates this building. We had a lot of campers out there for quite a long time. Some of them had been there for - I'd say, a year, maybe more - and it was fairly mellow. A lot of these people are individuals that those of us who've worked directly with our homeless population have known for, sometimes years. But the condo association decided they wanted to sweep people off the property - and our city council and our city manager essentially took a hands-off approach, deferred to the condo association, and we did not take action to allocate new space for people to go. We directed our contractors that provide outreach services, LEAD and REACH, to go out and offer people what support they can, but it's been abundantly clear there is not shelter space available in Burien - we don't have any significant shelter here. And the shelters in the surrounding area are absolutely full, so we were told outright there aren't shelter beds available for most of these people. We moved forward with the sweep, and I worked very diligently for the weeks leading up to the sweep to try and find any alternative options for people in terms of places they could relocate to, looking for different property, reaching out to different organizations, and fell short. So the night before the sweep, myself and my dear friend and colleague, Charles Schaefer, who was then the chair of our planning commission, we went out and we told the unhoused people camping there - We don't have anywhere for you to go. Do you have any plans for where you might go? And most of them said - No, they had no idea where to go, otherwise they would have gone there already. Most of them were scared and didn't know what was going to happen to them, and so Charles and I let them know legally they have a right to camp on public property - besides parks, because Burien has a ban on camping in parks. And we have very little public property in the city that is not parks. It's very minimal - and I can say that with a very strong degree of certainty because I've looked, I've looked at length - but we did locate a small piece of public land one block away in our downtown core, and we told people - If you camp here - legally, that is allowed and per Martin v. Boise, the Ninth Circuit Court ruling that says we can't criminalize homelessness, our city will not sweep you until policy changes or they figure out some loophole. We told them straight up - the City doesn't condone this, we're not acting on behalf of the City, the City is not sanctioning this, and quite frankly, people are gonna be upset, and the City is probably going to work to remove you as quickly as possible. But for the time being, until there's some other alternative, you can go here if you choose to - and they did. And so the following morning, we had a big media circus - lots of people coming out to watch the sweep, see what happens. A lot of people in the area were devastated at the prospect, but there were, alternatively, people who were very excited to see people removed and were under the impression that by removing them from this piece of property, they were somehow going to disappear. Again, many of these unhoused people have been living here in Burien for years - this is their home - even if they don't have a house, they have strong roots here, connections, family even. So there was quite an uproar when people came out the next morning and realized that the problem had not gone away, they didn't solve anything, and people they thought they were going to disperse out of our downtown core moved one block away, and at that point could not be swept. Our city council and our city manager collaborated to take action to lease out that property quickly, and they decided to lease the property to Burien C.A.R.E.S., which is our contracted animal shelter here. They leased the property for $185 a month, which has been speculated as far below fair market value - it's a sizable piece of land in a prime location, so that is of some concern. And as soon as the lease was signed, they conducted a sweep on that property and did not allocate any space for those people to relocate to. I begged them for months, I tried at every city council meeting between the two sweeps to ask our council to consider any option. I made a few proposals - none of them are ideal, but emergency temporary places that people could stay for the time being while we sorted through it - and they denied all asks for taking action. So they swept the unhoused population again, which had grown in size because people here have, again, close ties, and there are people who I know of personally who typically tend to avoid camps, that realized that that was a safe place, that there was safety in numbers there, that it was someplace they would be able to stay in contact with people like service providers and family members because they were not hiding off on the side of the road or in a bush somewhere - they were centrally located and stable for the time being. So they got swept again, and Charles and I went up there again and informed people - Hey, we've been looking, we still haven't found anything, but we have located some other public property that is big enough for you to camp on if you decide to go there. Charles and I consulted the King County parcel viewer and a number of city maps, and we found a little slice of - patch of grass - that ran adjacent to a park just a few blocks away. And according to the King County parcel viewer and all the city maps we consulted, that piece of land was somehow overlooked or whatever - it just wasn't part of the park, so legally, it would be acceptable for people to camp there. So many of the people relocated there, and they stayed there for a couple of days until one of our city councilmembers apparently called the police. The police said they wouldn't sweep them because as far as the police could see, that's not part of the park and it's legal for them to be there. She contacted our city manager, who took it upon himself to do some digging, and found one map in our city files that contradicted all the other maps we have and said that it was a park. And so he told the police - This is a park, I'm deciding that this is a part of a park, you have to go remove them. A testament to the ambiguity of the legal status of whether this piece of land is park or not park is the fact that our police will immediately sweep people who are in a park - that's just a policy that's standard ops for them. They did not immediately sweep people. They posted a 72-hour notice, giving people time to get their things together and try and relocate. City council still did not take any action. So Charles and I went out and spoke to people again, and the options continue to get increasingly worse - the land is increasingly smaller every time that we are finding. We let them know there is a very small piece of dirt that runs along our main downtown strip, right next door to the Library-City Hall building - literally on the next block, and two blocks down from the original lot that they went to after the first sweep - so they're right back where they started, pretty much. But a number of our unhoused people camping out have relocated to this very small patch of dirt. Some people decided to go try their odds camping on some vacant private property that had sat empty for a while - they managed to go unnoticed for a few weeks. But I got a text last Tuesday from one of their mothers - and she's a very kind woman, she does what she can, but she lives in Puyallup and is on the verge of homelessness herself, so she's not able to fully support her son - but she let me know that there were 14 people who were camping on this private lot in the north end of town, and police had just arrived with a trespass order, and they were giving them two hours to get out. So I went out again and tried to get whoever I could to come out and help get people assistance in relocating and getting their stuff, and trying to make sure they could get where they were going to go without losing too many of their important belongings. And some of them decided to come down to the patch of dirt on 152nd and our downtown core and join the others, and some of them decided to drag their tents to a median in the middle of a very busy road just down the block, and it's a really dangerous area in that particular corridor, but they asked the police - Is this public land, are you gonna sweep us? And the police said no, and so they decided that they were gonna take their chances. And so to my understanding, there are still a couple of people who are camping out in a very small island median in the middle of a very busy road. And to this day, our council has refused to take action. We have had an offer come in from King County of $1 million and 35 Pallet homes, which house two people apiece, to allocate property and help us operate a safe space for people. Our council voted that down. [00:16:43] Crystal Fincher: And I wanna talk about this for a minute - because you talked about what was happening on the ground, but during this process, the City of Burien received a letter from the Office of the King County Executive, Dow Constantine, from his legal counsel, saying - Hey, it is illegal to sweep people off of public property when there is no shelter available. You basically made it explicit, City of Burien, that there's no shelter available. And your police force are actually county sheriff's deputies who are contracted by the City of Burien, so because they fall under the authority of the county as deputies, we are saying they can't participate in that - which caused quite an uproar. What was the response to that? [00:17:25] Cydney Moore: People were confused and upset. Some of us were very pleased. I was very surprised when I found out our city got that letter, and I was very grateful to our county for their response and taking a stance that they're not going to violate people's constitutional rights to exist in a public space with nowhere else to go. [00:17:47] Crystal Fincher: And that's really the crux of it right there - is that time after time, as we've seen in so many other cities, just sweeping someone and saying - Well, you can't camp here - does not do anything to address the issue of homelessness. It doesn't do anything to provide shelter, to provide housing, to address that underlying problem. And so many times, people who come at this problem from the issue of - Well, the people being there, their existence, me having to look at them and deal with them is the problem - when the root of the problem is they don't have a home, and so many other issues become exacerbated, and so many things get destabilized from not having a home. So as you said, they move from one location to another to another, because it's not like there's any attempt to work on housing from the council majority. And also, illustrative of how councils work, you can have people on very different sides, but the majority is going to carry the day. So although there were three people who have been working diligently on the council to try and provide a real solution that doesn't just create the next spot for someone to camp, or once you've made all of the spots in one city illegal, just push them into another city and say it's their problem - it's about really finding a way to provide people with shelter. Because it is not ideal for people to be sleeping outside. As you said, it's dangerous, it's completely suboptimal. So this offer from the county that came in - about three weeks ago now, I think - has the majority of the council done anything to take advantage of the million dollars, the 35 Pallet shelter help? [00:19:24] Cydney Moore: No, we had that brought before us for a vote, and our council majority declined and they voted it down. And at this point, our next regularly scheduled council meeting isn't until July 17th, and so we are working to take advantage of this gap to rally public support and coordinate with a variety of different organizations in our community to hopefully put pressure on council enough that they will take action. Burien is actually in the middle of a budgetary shortfall - we're facing an impending fiscal cliff if we don't raise taxes and fees and find new revenue sources. And so turning down a million dollars for anything at this point seems pretty irresponsible, but certainly turning down a million dollars to serve our unhoused and vulnerable population is - it's unconscionable in my mind. I can't tell you how many times I've sat there thinking how amazing it would be if somebody dropped a million dollars in front of me to go help the homeless - that's literally the stuff that dreams are made of. And to turn it down is - I just can't fathom why anybody would say no to that. And like you pointed out, sweeps are dangerous. People living outside - it's dangerous. Unhoused people are disproportionately targeted as victims of harassment and violence. And we have data that shows that sweeps cause a number of disruptions to people's lives - they result in people losing things like documentation, identification, medication - disrupting any kind of progress they are making towards stability. It interrupts their contact with service providers, case managers, family members that serve as a support system. And they increase the mortality rate of unhoused people. It just - they're dangerous. Burien already has a disproportionately high mortality rate for our unhoused population compared to King County as a whole. So we are facing a very real crisis here - our region is facing a homelessness crisis in general, but Burien is finally having to stare that issue in the face and we're failing in our response, our leaders are failing in our response. And our people are suffering as a consequence of that. And it is quite devastating to witness, especially being on the ground in direct contact with these people that some of us have worked with for years. We know their names, we know their faces, we know some of their backstories, some of them I know family members of. It's an ugly thing to witness seeing people who are already in crisis being shuffled around and disregarded and hung out to dry - by leaders who are tasked with protecting the safety and wellbeing of all of our constituents. So it's disappointing, to say the least. [00:22:05] Crystal Fincher: Very disappointing. And very disappointing that your attempt to help people while following the law, and the law that the Office of King County Executive Dow Constantine very helpfully and forcefully advised the City of Burien that they were running afoul of in their current way, their reaction wasn't to say - Okay, let's pause and reevaluate. Obviously we're getting legal advice that this is illegal. It does jive with the court decision saying that we can't sweep without offers of shelter. We've pretty much just flatly admitted that there aren't offers of shelter. So maybe we pause and talk with some of our partners and figure out ways to get these people housed. No one wants people out on the street - if we can try and work to find a way to get them into shelter, that would be excellent. They decided not to do that. They decided to double down on the way things were going, to basically - I think a fair characterization to the letter from the King County Executive's legal counsel was indignation from the city manager, who then went forward and basically just kept doing the things that he was doing, even appearing to not check with the council before some of the things - although he does have the support of the council majority. So now we're in a situation where they haven't taken up any of this offer to house people, and people are being harmed by this. People are out exposed to the elements and to a very hostile, activated, conservative, radical element that has been drawn to Burien over this issue. And some of the contentious scenes that we've seen across the region with people just talking in very dehumanizing ways about the homeless population - really not seeing them as people, really just seeing the problem is that they're inconvenienced by having to look at people and not really caring about what that person is going through - that's a challenge. So they haven't had time to address the offer of a million bucks and Pallet shelters. They did have time, however, to hold a special meeting to consider censuring you and to consider removing Charles, who you talked about - the Chair of the Planning Commission - because of your helping and trying to find a solution to this problem. What in the world? What was your reaction to that? [00:24:16] Cydney Moore: Yeah, I spoke to this during the special meeting when the council was considering removing Charles from the Planning Commission - who I might add, has served our community dutifully for many years and has been serving the homeless directly, I think, for 14 years in our city - so he knows them very well. And what are you going to expect from somebody who's been in that field for so long other than trying to help? But my response is that - throughout history, there is a pattern of punishments being doled out to people who try to help persecuted minority groups, whether that's people based on their race or their religion or who they love - it's a consistent pattern. And history does not look kindly on those who are enacting those punishments against people who try and help. I told our council, I said - Charles is going to have to live with what we do tonight for the rest of his life, or at least until our council makeup changes. But every person on this council is also going to have to live with their decision and this decision may follow you. Are you prepared to answer for it, for what you do tonight? 'Cause I'm very comfortable in my position, but I don't know if later on when people ask you - Why would you do this? - if you'll have justification or excuses enough to explain why you would take such action. It was very, very clear that what Charles and I have done is try to inform our constituents of what our laws are and how best to comply. And I think that's something that really needs to be noted in these conversations - these unhoused people have been asking how they can follow the law. They're asking - Where is it legal for me to go? Where can I be? Where am I allowed to exist? And our city has offered no real option, but has publicly stated - Oh yeah, you can be on public property - until we find a loophole to take it away from you. And you can be on sidewalks, which obviously is true to the extent of people can stay on sidewalks large enough where they're not obstructing them - you have to maintain a three feet clearance path on a sidewalk and there's not that many sidewalks that are wide enough for people to camp on in Burien without obstructing. So these individuals are literally just asking their leaders - Where can I go? Where am I allowed to be? And we did our best to inform our constituents of what the City's policies are, where they are legally allowed to go, how they can comply with the laws. And that's the duty and obligation of any public servant, especially a councilmember that makes those laws and policies and a planning commissioner, the Chair of the Planning Commission, whose job it is to advise on zoning and land use issues. So arguably we were doing our job to the best of our ability and to the expectation that I think we should all be held. And our council - the term that has been used by many in our community - used Charles as a scapegoat. They can't remove me - I am an elected official. But Charles was appointed, and they found a target and took advantage of that. And I think it just reflects really, really poorly on our council and on our city as a whole that our leadership would penalize someone for informing people of their constitutional rights and informing people of knowledge that is public, by the way - all of the information that we shared is all public knowledge, it's all easily accessible on government websites. Yeah, I don't know how they felt comfortable doing that. I really don't understand any valid justification for that - and that's what I said. [00:28:08] Crystal Fincher: Well, I'm gonna hop in here and editorialize. We know there wasn't a valid reason for that - but as we've seen in Tennessee, as we've seen in so many other places - if they feel they have the power to do it, they will. They had the power to remove Charles. I think they initially thought they may have the power to remove you. You were actually, as you said, doing your job. They still have not taken up the offer to house people. Their job is to serve and take care of their constituents. They have constituents who have been out on the street. There's an offer of shelter and money to make that happen available that they just won't do - they would rather just sweep people, just kick them out - knowing how destabilizing that is and knowing how much it has failed directly in the City of Burien. This clearly isn't working. It's really expensive to do - requires a lot of public enforcement resources, law enforcement resources, parks resources - requires a whole lot and it's not making a difference. So one would think that they would stop doing the same thing over and over again - getting failing results - and start to do something that would work. The county didn't just say - This is illegal, you can't do it. They offered an olive branch and said - And we will help you. And they basically slapped that hand away and said - No, we're good. In fact, we're not even gonna deal with that. We're just gonna try and kick out people who disagree with us and enact these really retaliatory actions. And it is really a shame. But what happened was lots of people saw this and people of all cross-ideological spectrums - I don't think many of the commissioners who wound up taking action would call themselves progressive, but they do call themselves public servants - and were appalled at this negligence and scapegoating and retaliation by the majority on the city council, mayor, deputy mayor, city manager, others, and said - This is unacceptable - and resigned in protest. And the entire Planning Commission resigned in protest and several other commissioners throughout the city - I think 12 in total resigned from their position. So now, Burien is in a crisis - doesn't have a planning commission, has several other commissions short-staffed. Many cities - this is comprehensive planning time where the Planning Commission is doing some heavy lifting - and now there is nothing there, because they decided to act petty and retaliate and not use money offered to them for free to house people. So where do things go from here? [00:30:35] Cydney Moore: That's a good question. As you said, we don't have a planning commission now, and they were absolutely in the middle of a major project. We haven't heard from our city any official statement in regard to what the plan is going to be to fill these vacancies. So our entire Planning Commission is gone. Our Parks Board has lost their chair, the vice-chair, and another member. We've lost at least one Airport Committee member and arts commissioner. Like we - arguably our city is in a spiral right now, and I don't know what's going to happen next. I don't know what we're going to do, I haven't heard anything from our leadership, I haven't heard anything from our city manager - certainly haven't heard anything regarding plans to move forward. As I said, my goal right now is to work with my fellow progressives on council to lobby as much support as we can and pressure as we can to get the council majority to approve use of this million dollars and designate a safe space for people to go. Our unhoused population is still waiting for a response and things aren't getting better. And as you said, there is significant anger in the community and there's been a large conservative presence - and the hostility there is not dissipating. I'm aware of people who have - like I said, unhoused people are always disproportionately targeted as victims of harassment and violence, but people have been very aggressive towards our unhoused people here throughout this - throwing fireworks at their tents, stealing their tents, and bragging about it openly. There are people who are openly in public talking about wanting to shoot them and shoot me. So this violent rhetoric has maintained and our unhoused people are out there exposed with nowhere to go, no safety, no walls to hide behind. And so we're going to continue pushing for our council to take action - because we don't have an option not to, honestly - doing nothing is just not an option in my mind and in the mind of many others in our community. As far as our city operations go - like I said, I really just don't know. We are legally required to have a planning commission and to have a comp plan, a comprehensive plan, and we just don't have the people now. And it usually takes quite a while for us to go through the process of putting out a call for new applicants and going through the screening process, interview process, all of this. And quite frankly, the strain on our staff has been significant - like you said, it takes a lot of resources to engage in things like sweeps. Our staff is already pretty bare bones. Burien operates with some incredible people, but they are stretched thin. And having to call multiple special meetings certainly doesn't help with their workload. Having to engage in sweeps doesn't help with their workload. And now having to add on to their plate - trying to figure out what to do with a whole bunch of empty spaces and an entire empty planning commission - yeah, I don't know what that process is going to look like, or how quickly any of that will move forward. You would expect our city manager to be offering some insight or - the City was really quick to respond to that letter from King County, but obviously not so quick to respond to the fact that we have had a mass resignation from our public servants that we need, we legally have to have. So I'm waiting with bated breath, just like everyone else, to see what happens there. [00:34:20] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. I should note, while they haven't taken up any substantive action at all to try and house people - even though there's an offer of a million dollars, 35 Pallet shelters, they've had meetings to censure and retaliate against their opponents - they also had time to welcome Prime Minister Modi from India, who has taken a lot of heat from the human rights community for human rights violations, free speech violations. They rank very, very low - I think they've dropped from something like 140th to just under 160th out of 180 in the World Press Freedom Index. Certainly seeing a lot of protests - I think there's no one who says - Ah, everything is great. And yes, this is someone we should celebrate and welcome. Although those three Burien city councilmembers did somehow and they found time for that, but not time to take up the ability to house their residents who are without homes right now. Now, before we close - usually we talk about a lot of other stuff with candidates - this time, I felt it was appropriate to talk about everything that has been happening with the situation in Burien because it has been in the news and is so pressing - and is still just languishing with the council not doing anything at the time that we're recording. But this is happening also while you're running for reelection. And you've drawn several opponents - I think most, if not all, come from the people who are virulently anti-homeless - is the way to say it. They don't seem to have any solutions or care at all about the actual housing - Just get them out of here - seems to be the thing. And they're running to take a hard line on getting those people out of here and getting someone who actually is doing the work to house people out. What can people do if they're looking for more information about your campaign? [00:36:09] Cydney Moore: I would encourage everyone to check out my website - it's votecydney.com - C-Y-D-N-E-Y. Sign up for updates, sign up to volunteer. Please donate if you can - I run a grassroots campaign, always have - I'm not a particularly wealthy person that's self-funding my operations here, so anything that you can do to help will help us get through this election. I am working very diligently with our partners in the community to build a coalition of support for my campaign. But this is of the people, by the people, for the people - so if you can, please contribute however you are able to. Also, you can always follow me on social media - @vote_cydney on Twitter, Facebook - Cydney Moore for Burien City Council. I welcome any feedback people might have, any input you might have, any ideas for creative campaigning you might have. This is rough - it's a rough time to be dealing with all of these things and running a campaign - and I have drawn out a lot of scrutiny. I guess you could say that I'm a pretty polarizing person at this moment and people are drawing some hard lines. And people aren't always falling on the side of those lines that you would expect. I have had people who don't actually necessarily agree with my position, but do respect the fact that I'm willing to stand up for my position, who have expressed their support. And I have people who you would think are progressive, who you would think would be aligned with me, who are pissed - they're really mad at me for what I've been doing. And so, yeah, I can use all the support I can get at this time. And what I'll say about my opponents are the most vocal one is avidly anti-homeless and has been actively asking our council to sweep people and seems to be of the mindset that we should let them hit rock bottom, which I guess in my mind means let them die - because if you're outside and have nothing and have nowhere to go and have - barely even have clothes on your back, no food, no safety, I don't know how much more rock bottom it gets than that than just letting them die. And that's what happens. Our unhoused people are dying. So that's certainly concerning and not somebody that I would want representing me in elected office in my city. And my other two opponents - I just have not seen or heard much at all from - I literally just met one of them for the first time the other day. I've never missed a city council meeting in all of my years of serving, and I've never seen those individuals attend a single meeting. I've never seen them out in the public engaging with people, and I'm actively involved in a lot of things - I serve on the board of three different nonprofits in this community, I volunteer for a number of different organizations and causes. And so it concerns me that we have people running that I don't know and nobody that I know who are also involved in the community have ever seen, so I can't speak to their values. But I'm here and I am present and I'm active and I will remain so. And you can look at my track record - my voting record is available on the City of Burien website and I encourage everyone to look to it - I don't think you're ever gonna find a single vote I've ever taken that is not solidly progressive. So I'm - like I said, I'm pretty consistent in that - and I am adamant about maintaining the fight for positive change in our city. And I would ask and invite everyone who is willing to join me in that. What happens here in Burien has a ripple effect across our region - like I said, we are leading as an example in a lot of different ways for a lot of different policy issues. And so community doesn't end at city limits - what happens here can absolutely impact our neighboring cities and cities across this area and sometimes across the country - there are other cities who have looked at us and our policies from around the country. So please help me because there are a lot of people who are against what's going on here and we need all the help we can get. We need people who will continue to fight for what's right in office and keep things real in local politics. [00:40:14] Crystal Fincher: Well, thank you so much for joining us today, Cydney Moore. And we'll continue to follow the events happening in Burien. Thank you. [00:40:22] Cydney Moore: Awesome, thank you so much for having me. And I look forward to following your future coverage. [00:40:27] Crystal Fincher: Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks, which is produced by Shannon Cheng. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on every podcast service and app - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.  

This week, we're looking back at the Golden State. It's once again in the news because a federal judge has found one of its strict gun-control laws unconstitutional. This time, it was the ban on magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. So, we decided to bring on the head of the group that beat the ban. California Rifle and Pistol Association President Chuck Michel gave us his insight into the case. He said the outcome was expected because this was effectively a retread. Duncan v. Bonta was initially decided in favor of the gun-rights plaintiffs only for it to be reversed by an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals only for the Supreme Court to grant, vacate, and remand that ruling. The case is the first of those remanded by the High Court in the wake of the Bruen decision to reach a ruling. That ruling accelerates the magazine ban issue back up the chain in what will likely end with another Supreme Court showdown. Of course, as California's magazine ban was being tossed, Governor Gavin Newsom (D.) signed new restrictions on gun carry and a sin tax on firearms and ammunition. Michel explains the new laws and how his group has already filed challenges to them. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the Trump Campaign backtracking on claims he bought a gun while under felony indictment after finding out it would be illegal.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 2: While speaking with CNN, Mayor of El Paso Texas Oscar Leeser, a Democrat, said his city was “at a breaking point” as immigrants continue to cross the U.S. Southern border unlawfully. In a separate segment, CNN host Jim Acosta outlandishly claimed that the crisis at border was merely a Republican “talking point” and that there was no proof that the “border is open.” Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy slammed those comments noting that more than 10,000 migrants are crossing the Southern border and entering the United States every day. According to reports, Target will close nine stores nationally in response to unmitigated thefts in major cities which have cost the retail store an estimated $700 million. On November 30th, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) will debate California Governor Gavin Newsom in a 90-minute broadcast on Fox News. The debate will be moderated by Sean Hannity. Ryan Mills of National Review writes: “San Francisco leaders are preparing to ramp up efforts to clean up and clear out homeless camps in the city after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals clarified that people who decline shelter should not be classified as ‘involuntarily homeless.'” He continues: “San Francisco mayor London Breed announced Monday that the clarification provides the city with a ‘path forward' to enforce laws against ‘voluntarily homeless individuals.'” You can read Mills' full article here: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/san-francisco-prepares-to-clear-homeless-camps-after-court-clarifies-definition-of-involuntarily-homeless/ Jerry Connor of the MC-LEF Philadelphia Committee and Tony Boyle, retired Philadelphia Police Department Chief Inspector and MC-LEF National Committee member, join The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss the 2023 Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation (MC-LEF) Gala on October 28th. Marine Corps Col. Harvey “Barney” Barnum joins the conversation as well—a Medal of Honor recipient who served in Vietnam. There is even a U.S. Navy destroyer that bears his name! You can learn more about the MC-LEF Gala here: https://www.mclefphila.org/events-overview

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (09/26/2023): 3:05pm- According to reporting from Alex Thompson of Axios, “Democrats, including some in the administration, are terrified that Biden will have a bad fall—with a nightmare scenario of it happening in the weeks before the November 2024 election.” Consequently, Biden has been doing exercises to improve his balance and his team has a “mission” to prevent him from tripping. You can read the full report here: https://www.axios.com/2023/09/26/biden-trip-2024-campaign-sneakers 3:30pm- Philadelphia Municipal Judge Wendy Pew has dismissed all charges against former Philadelphia police officer Mark Dial who was accused of shooting and killing Eddie Irizarry during a traffic stop last month. Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner announced he will appeal the decision. You can read more about the story here: https://www.inquirer.com/crime/mark-dial-charges-dismissed-eddie-irizarry-shooting-philadelphia-police-officer-20230926.html 3:45pm- On Tuesday, President Joe Biden visited United Auto Workers (UAW) picket lines in Van Buren Township, Michigan to show support for their strike against automotive manufacturers Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis. 4:05pm- While speaking with CNN, Mayor of El Paso Texas Oscar Leeser, a Democrat, said his city was “at a breaking point” as immigrants continue to cross the U.S. Southern border unlawfully. In a separate segment, CNN host Jim Acosta outlandishly claimed that the crisis at border was merely a Republican “talking point” and that there was no proof that the “border is open.” Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy slammed those comments noting that more than 10,000 migrants are crossing the Southern border and entering the United States every day. 4:10pm- According to reports, Target will close nine stores nationally in response to unmitigated thefts in major cities which have cost the retail store an estimated $700 million. 4:15pm- On November 30th, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) will debate California Governor Gavin Newsom in a 90-minute broadcast on Fox News. The debate will be moderated by Sean Hannity. 4:20pm- Ryan Mills of National Review writes: “San Francisco leaders are preparing to ramp up efforts to clean up and clear out homeless camps in the city after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals clarified that people who decline shelter should not be classified as ‘involuntarily homeless.'” He continues: “San Francisco mayor London Breed announced Monday that the clarification provides the city with a ‘path forward' to enforce laws against ‘voluntarily homeless individuals.'” You can read Mills' full article here: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/san-francisco-prepares-to-clear-homeless-camps-after-court-clarifies-definition-of-involuntarily-homeless/ 4:40pm- Jerry Connor of the MC-LEF Philadelphia Committee and Tony Boyle, retired Philadelphia Police Department Chief Inspector and MC-LEF National Committee member, join The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss the 2023 Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation (MC-LEF) Gala on October 28th. Marine Corps Col. Harvey “Barney” Barnum joins the conversation as well—a Medal of Honor recipient who served in Vietnam. There is even a U.S. Navy destroyer that bears his name! You can learn more about the MC-LEF Gala here: https://www.mclefphila.org/events-overview 5:00pm- Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) have arrived at an agreement on a stopgap spending plan that would avert a government shutdown and fund the government through mid-November. The agreement would include a reported $6 billion in additional aid for Ukraine. In response to the agreement, Sen. J.D. Vance tweeted: “This will certainly lead to a government shutdown. Democrats won't fix our border but will shut down the government unless we fund Ukraine. Disgraceful.” According to reports, Sen. Rand Paul may use Senate procedural tools to challenge the Ukrainian aid package—delaying the bill's arrival in the House of Representatives. Does the bill have any chance to pass in the House? It's likely Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy would need to rely on Democrat votes if he chose to bring the bill to the floor for a vote—which could ultimately result in a Republican-led challenge to his speakership. 5:20pm- In response to a potential government shutdown, President Joe Biden said: "Funding the government is one of the most basic fundamental responsibilities of Congress and if the Republicans in the House don't start doing their job, we should stop electing them." 5:30pm- Rich gains entrance to an elite fishing club—but he doesn't know how to fish. Will this impact his membership? 5:35pm- A listener calls-in to ask Rich to help them book a hotel room at the Grand Hotel in Cape May. 5:40pm- Philadelphia Municipal Judge Wendy Pew has dismissed all charges against former Philadelphia police officer Mark Dial who was accused of shooting and killing Eddie Irizarry during a traffic stop last month. Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner announced he will appeal the decision. You can read more about the story here: https://www.inquirer.com/crime/mark-dial-charges-dismissed-eddie-irizarry-shooting-philadelphia-police-officer-20230926.html 6:05pm- Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) have arrived at an agreement on a stopgap spending plan that would avert a government shutdown and fund the government through mid-November. The agreement would include a reported $6 billion in additional aid for Ukraine. 6:10pm- On X, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) revealed that he has “obtained two bank wires revealing Hunter Biden received payments originating from Beijing in 2019 when Joe Biden was running for President. Joe Biden's Delaware home is listed as the beneficiary address for both money wires from China.” You can read Comer's full statement here: https://twitter.com/RepJamesComer/status/1706777879290290624 6:15pm- On Tuesday, President Joe Biden visited United Auto Workers (UAW) picket lines in Van Buren Township, Michigan to show support for their strike against automotive manufacturers Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis. Interestingly, some striking workers are blaming the administration's emphasis on electric vehicle production for reduced company earnings and a loss of jobs. 6:20pm- During a campaign rally in South Carolina, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump spoke out about offshore wind development and its link to the sudden surge in whale deaths. Many environmental experts hypothesize that offshore wind development's use of sonar to map the ocean's floor prevents whales from communicating with one another and inhibits accurate navigation. In response to Trump's warning, MSNBC's Morning Joe mocked the former U.S. President and completely dismissed his claims. 6:40pm- Will there be a reboot of “The Office”? Rich wonders what the worst spin-off series of all time is and concludes it must be “Joey” or “Joanie Loves Chachi.”

Under what circumstances should San Francisco be able to clear homeless encampments? Last week, protesters and counter-protesters went head-to-head outside the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals over an injunction that limits the city's ability to do that. KQED's Sydney Johnson unpacks this legal battle, and explains why it has sparked such strong feelings. This episode was produced by Maria Esquinca and Alan Montecillo, and hosted by Ericka Cruz Guevarra. Episode transcript

Since last December, San Francisco has been fighting a court injunction that blocks it from sweeping homeless encampments. That legal battle erupted this week as supporters and opponents of encampment sweeps squared off outside the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Reporter Aldo Toledo joins host Cecilia Lei to discuss why this long-simmering controversy is heating up now and what's at stake for San Francisco residents — housed and unhoused alike. | Unlimited Chronicle access: sfchronicle.com/pod Got a tip, comment, question? Email us: fifth@sfchronicle.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

:  Earlier this month, a panel of judges for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the Chinook salmon season in Alaska to open for the summer while it considers arguments in a lawsuit filed by the Wild Fish Conservancy. The Seattle-based organization sued the State of Alaska, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Alaska Trollers Association to stop the harvesting of Chinook, also known as king salmon, which is the primary food source for an endangered population of orcas in the Puget Sound. Julia O’Malley is a third-generation Alaskan and freelance journalist based in Anchorage, Alaska. She recently wrote an article for the New York Times that explores how declining numbers of Chinook impact the culture and livelihoods of coastal communities in Alaska, and the demand for wild salmon on dinner tables and gourmet restaurants. She joins us to talk about her reporting. 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals appeared highly skeptical of a California law that restricts speech supposedly aimed at enticing minors into purchasing and possessing firearms at a Wednesday hearing, and attorney Anna Barvir of Michel & Associates joins Cam with an inside look at why the court appears ready to strike down the statute.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (04/18/2023): 3:05pm- During a long-form interview with Fox News' Tucker Carlson, billionaire Elon Musk warned that there are dangers associated with rapid advancements in artificial intelligence—specifically A.I.'s potential ability to manipulate public opinion without anyone realizing it. Musk also hypothesized that A.I. could be used to lie or withhold pertinent information from users. Could A.I. be used by political parties to acquire power? 3:30pm- While testifying before a House Committee hearing, Education Secretary Miguel Cardona was unable to define what a “woman” is when pressed by Congressman Andrew Clyde (R-GA). 3:45pm- In response to Bud Light, and its parent company Anheuser-Busch, partnering with LGBTQ+ activist Dylan Mulvaney, friends of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis released a “Real Men of Genius” parody commercial—but the commercial sounds incredibly similar to Mike Opelka's parodies, which aired last week. Did the DeSantis campaign team derive inspiration from Opelka? It certainly seems like it. 4:05pm- On Monday, Governor Phil Murphy spoke with Eric Landskroner of News 12 and took questions from New Jersey residents. During the 40-minute segment, Gov. Murphy denied that the unusual number of whale deaths along the Atlantic Coast could be linked to offshore wind development's usage of sonar to map the ocean's floor, despite concerns expressed by environmental experts. At one point, Gov. Murphy baselessly alleged that studies suggesting marine life may be jeopardized by windfarm development are being funded by the fossil fuel industry. Moments later, he conceded that he had no evidence to support those claims. 4:40pm- Who Won Social Media, Rich forgets to mention he was on Fox News, and Matt is rocking a mustache today… 4:50pm- While speaking with Dan Bongino on Fox News, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Physics Professor Max Tegmark said “we have no clue” how advanced artificial intelligence will actually work. 5:05pm- The Drive at 5: During a long-form interview with Fox News' Tucker Carlson, billionaire Elon Musk warned that there are dangers associated with rapid advancements in artificial intelligence—specifically A.I.'s potential ability to manipulate public opinion without anyone realizing it. Musk also hypothesized that A.I. could be used to lie or withhold pertinent information from users. Could A.I. be used by political parties to acquire power? 5:15pm- During his conversation with Tucker Carlson, Elon Musk noted that Meta—parent company of Facebook—CEO Mark Zuckerberg spent $400 million in 2020 which ostensibly benefited Democrats. He then rhetorically asked, “does that sound unbiased to you?” 5:20pm- While appearing on Fox News, billionaire Elon Musk recalled an alarming conversation he once had with Google co-founder Larry Page who vowed to build a “digital god” using artificial intelligence. 5:40pm- Surprisingly, Elon Musk revealed that he voted for President Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election—though, he emphasized he's “not a huge fan” of many of his policies. 5:50pm- On Monday, Governor Phil Murphy spoke with Eric Landskroner of News 12 and took questions from New Jersey residents. During the 40-minute segment, Gov. Murphy was asked why he spent $500,000 on Statehouse office furnishings. 6:05pm- On Tuesday, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas testified before the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. During questioning, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) quoted a recent New York Times article documenting the Biden Administration ignoring multiple warnings that migrant children were being exploited for labor. Sen. Hawley stated that Sec. Mayorkas should resign for putting the lives of innocent children in danger. You can read Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Hannah Dreier's report here:https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/17/us/politics/migrant-child-labor-biden.html 6:30pm- According to a report from Virginia Kruta of The Daily Wire, Disneyland “will host its first-ever Pride Nites as part of the park's ‘After Dark' series in June.” You can read more here: https://www.dailywire.com/news/disneyland-will-host-first-ever-pride-nite-during-after-dark-series 6:40pm- According to the Wall Street Journal's Editorial Board, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has prevented city officials in Berkeley, California from banning gas stoves. You can read the full article here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/berkeley-gas-stoves-ninth-circuit-court-of-appeals-patrick-bumatay-645478c8?mod=opinion_lead_pos3

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 4: On Tuesday, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas testified before the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. During questioning, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) quoted a recent New York Times article documenting the Biden Administration ignoring multiple warnings that migrant children were being exploited for labor. Sen. Hawley stated that Sec. Mayorkas should resign for putting the lives of innocent children in danger. You can read Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Hannah Dreier's report here:https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/17/us/politics/migrant-child-labor-biden.html According to a report from Virginia Kruta of The Daily Wire, Disneyland “will host its first-ever Pride Nites as part of the park's ‘After Dark' series in June.” You can read more here: https://www.dailywire.com/news/disneyland-will-host-first-ever-pride-nite-during-after-dark-series According to the Wall Street Journal's Editorial Board, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has prevented city officials in Berkeley, California from banning gas stoves. You can read the full article here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/berkeley-gas-stoves-ninth-circuit-court-of-appeals-patrick-bumatay-645478c8?mod=opinion_lead_pos3

Today's show has a 17 min news recap and then I talk to Professor Schwartz starting at 17 mins and Tom Merritt and I begin at 49 mins    Thanks so much for listening. Please give the show 5 stars and a review on Apple and Spotify Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 740 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls.   SHIELDED :HOW THE POLICE BECAME UNTOUCHABLE “A must-read for anyone who wants to understand why we lack an effective system of legal accountability for police violence and misconduct in our country. Once you understand how we got here, Schwartz's smart, pragmatic proposals for change ring clear and true.” –Sherrilyn Ifill, Former President and Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense Fund Joanna Schwartz is Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law. She teaches Civil Procedure and a variety of courses on police accountability and public interest lawyering. She received UCLA's Distinguished Teaching Award in 2015, and served as Vice Dean for Faculty Development from 2017-2019. Professor Schwartz is one of the country's leading experts on police misconduct litigation. Professor Schwartz additionally studies the dynamics of modern civil litigation. She is co-author, with Stephen Yeazell, of a leading casebook, Civil Procedure (10th Edition), and her recent scholarship includes articles empirically examining the justifications for qualified immunity doctrine; the financial impact of settlements and judgments on federal, state, and local law enforcement officers and agency budgets; and regional variation in civil rights protections across the country. Professor Schwartz is a graduate of Brown University and Yale Law School. After law school, Professor Schwartz clerked for Judge Denise Cote of the Southern District of New York and Judge Harry Pregerson of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. She was then associated with Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP, in New York City, where she specialized in police misconduct, prisoners' rights, and First Amendment litigation. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Merritt is an award-winning independent tech podcaster and host of regular tech news and information shows. Tom hosts Sword and Laser, a science fiction and fantasy podcast, and book club with Veronica Belmont. He also co-hosts Daily Tech News Show, covering the most important tech issues of the day with the smartest minds in technology. Tom also hosts Cordkillers with Brian Brushwood, bringing people the news they need to watch the TV shows and movies they want when they want and how they want them. That's not all! There's also It's a Thing with Molly Wood, A Word with Tom Merritt with some of the smartest most interesting people on the planet, and Know A little More. All his shows are listed on the subscription page. From 2010 until 2013, Tom hosted the award-winning Tech News Today and weekly cord-cutting show Frame Rate on the TWiT network. He created, developed and produced both shows. From 2004 until 2010 Tom was executive editor for CNET TV at CNET.com. He hosted the daily Buzz Out Loud podcast and a weekly how-to show called The Real Deal. In addition, Tom hosted regular segments on CNET TV like Top 5, How-to, Hacks, and more. Tom served as executive producer for TechTV's website until 2004. He started at ZDTV as Producer of The Screen Savers website in 1999. Tom has run SuBBrilliant.com since 1996. It is a collection of Web experiments including SuBBrilliant News, a parody news blog, and the East Meets West podcast which features Roger Chang. You'll also find Tom as a guest or interviewed as an expert on many TV, radio and Internet shows like ABC's Good Morning America, CBS Radio, NPR, This Week in Tech, The Phileas Club and more. Tom is @acedtect@mstdn.social on Mastodon Check out all things Jon Carroll Follow and Support Pete Coe Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page