Podcasts about ninth circuit court

John Fawcett breaks down today's biggest stories, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling on President Trump's deployment of the National Guard in California, the ongoing debate surrounding the 2020 election fraud claims, and Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna's call to subpoena George Soros for his alleged role in destabilizing American democracy. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

California Governor Gavin Newsom just lost a major court battle in federal court against President Trump, effectively delaying the removal of the National Guard in Los Angeles. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that for now the Trump Administration could keep the troops in LA because of the anti-ICE riots and protests against mass deportations of illegal immigrants. The Sekulow team discusses a "BIG WIN" (according to Trump's Truth Social) for the Trump White House, Newsom's lawsuit against the Trump Administration, the ACLJ's legal work – and much more.

In part one of Red Eye Radio with Gary McNamara and Eric Harley, President Trump announces a two week timeline allowing for an Iranian diplomatic solution to the war. Also a WSJ story on how the U.S. intel on Iranian nuclear capabilities went back the the Biden administration, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously leaves California Governor Gavin Newsome and all of the "No Kings" protesters disappointed with a big win for the President and his authority to deploy the National Guard anywhere he sees fit, audio from Karoline Leavitt on the SCOTUS decison, audio from Barak Obama rambling about the importance of social media, a new poll on what democrats want, audio from Jasmine Crockett badmouthing Republicans and praising Kamala Harris, democrats love secretly taxing the poor and middle class, audio from Chicago mayor Brandon Johnson on President Trump trying to eradicate black people, and much more. For more talk on the issues that matter to you, listen on radio stations across America Monday-Friday 12am-5am CT (1am-6am ET and 10pm-3am PT), download the RED EYE RADIO SHOW app, asking your smart speaker, or listening at RedEyeRadioShow.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On today's podcast, Tara and Stephanie talk about the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily ruling in Trump's favor for him to maintain control of the National Guard troops he deployed to Cali, the announcement of an NIH study to investigate the long-term health effects of the East Palestine train derailment and Whoopi Goldberg saying that black Americans are treated the same as women in Iran. Your hosts also discuss the results of this week's G7 summit, the extension of the TikTok deadline and recent admissions about Area 51 being a large-scale psy-op. Become a beta tester for our new Unapologetically Outspoken GPT! Use the link here or head over to our website: https://www.thelawofattractiontribe.com/a/2148108179/MpCJCAPZ Want to join the conversation? Connect with Tara and Stephanie on TikTok, X, Rumble, YouTube, Truth Social, Facebook, and IG.https://msha.ke/unapologeticallyoutspoken/ 

This week has been another pivotal moment in the ongoing legal battles surrounding former President Donald Trump. Just days ago, in a Manhattan federal appeals court, Trump's legal team pressed forward with their latest attempt to overturn his criminal conviction in the New York State Supreme Court. That conviction, delivered last year, found Trump guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records as part of the infamous hush money case involving adult film star Stormy Daniels. Even after receiving an unconditional discharge—which means Trump faces no fines, no prison time, and no other penalties, but the conviction remains on his record—he has remained adamant about his innocence, again insisting by video during sentencing back in January that he was “treated very, very unfairly” and vowing to appeal at every turn.The appeal now hinges on arguments that the case should have been moved to federal court, citing an older, rarely used law. Yet legal experts observing the proceedings have expressed skepticism, noting that the law Trump's attorneys are invoking is unlikely to sway the appellate judges. Indeed, the president was not present in the courtroom for Wednesday's hearing, letting his legal team take center stage. Meanwhile, journalists and court watchers filled the room, eager to catch any sign from the bench that might signal which way the judges are leaning.But New York is just one arena in Trump's legal battlefield. On the West Coast, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco issued a key decision regarding Trump's control of the California National Guard. The court rejected Trump's sweeping claim that he, as president, could federalize the National Guard for any purpose and remain immune from judicial review. California Governor Gavin Newsom, who brought the challenge, publicly praised the court for affirming that the president is not above the law, though he expressed disappointment that Trump retains operational control of the Guard—for now.Meanwhile, the appeals process is just beginning for Trump's legal team in several other matters. In Florida, the classified documents case remains in limbo while the Eleventh Circuit prepares to hear the government's appeal after the trial judge dismissed the indictment on technical grounds. In New York, Trump's attorneys continue to fight the civil fraud judgment, with appeals consolidated and new briefs filed.The sense is palpable: every week, every decision, is now unfolding under intense public scrutiny. Trump's legal strategists are working overtime, filing appeals, challenging court orders, and pressing for dismissals—while prosecutors and state officials, from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg to California Attorney General Rob Bonta, remain determined to hold the former president accountable. As of today, June 20, 2025, Trump's fight across multiple courts is far from over, with each day bringing new arguments, new rulings, and the possibility of even more dramatic developments on the horizon.

In part one of Red Eye Radio with Gary McNamara and Eric Harley, referencing the movie PCU the "causehead" protesters for the Israel/Iran war show up a bit late for the cause. Also democatic hearings on Joe Biden's cognitive condition, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals backs President Trump's ability to deploy the National Guard to the LA riots, audio from a CNN reporter interrupted by President Trump calling them fake news and audio from The View as Whoopi rants. Also breaking news from Tel Aviv as Iran bombards Ireael and damages the largest hospital facility and other residential targets, we await the President's decision on how the U.S. will get involved in the war as he issues an "unconditional surrender" warning to Iran and Israel immediately fires back targeting Iran's defense and military facilities. Also President Trump says he has a plan for a regime change in Iran and SCOTUS rules on state ban on gender transtion "treatments" for minors in landmark case, For more talk on the issues that matter to you, listen on radio stations across America Monday-Friday 12am-5am CT (1am-6am ET and 10pm-3am PT), download the RED EYE RADIO SHOW app, asking your smart speaker, or listening at RedEyeRadioShow.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

00:08 — Jamal Abdi is President of the National Iranian American Council in Washington D.C. 00:33 — Kian Sharifi is a feature writer about Iranian affairs at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's Central Newsroom in Prague. He was previously an editor at the Financial Tribune newspaper in Tehran. 00:45 — Tony Ghiotto, Teaching Professor/Director of Anderson Center for Advocacy and Professionalism/Director of Trial Advocacy at the University of Illinois College of Law Urbana-Champaign The post Israel's War in Iran; Plus, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals hearing on Trump use of National Guard appeared first on KPFA.

Police and Gangs, Her Battle With The Department and Court. In the gritty streets of California's Bay Area, former police officer Janelle Perez patrolled neighborhoods ravaged by gang violence, battling not only criminal organizations but also the very department she once proudly served. The Law Enforcement Talk Radio Show and Podcast episode is available for free on their website , Apple Podcasts , Spotify and most major podcast platforms. “I came into law enforcement with purpose,” Janelle shared during an interview on The Law Enforcement Talk Radio Show which is featured as a free podcast episode available on their website, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and many podcast platforms. The episode is also promoted across their Facebook , Instagram , LinkedIn , Medium and other platforms. “But I never imagined that the hardest fight I'd face wouldn't be with the gangs, but with my own department.” Janelle Perez is a former Bay Area police officer whose career was defined by front-line encounters with violent gangs like the Sureños, Norteños, and Wah Ching, organized groups deeply rooted in California's urban corridors which also grew into the suburbs. In her role, she confronted everything from drug trafficking to gangland turf wars fueled by stolen firearms and fear. But her story doesn't end with arrests and patrols. Her memoir, The Moral Police, tells a deeper story. It chronicles her unexpected and painful descent from decorated officer to plaintiff in a courtroom battle against the police department that dismissed her. Police and Gangs, Her Battle With The Department and Court. Look for supporting stories about this and much more from Law Enforcement Talk Radio Show and Podcast in platforms like Medium , Blogspot and Linkedin . Perez was fired after eight months with the Roseville Police Department, she says for an off-duty relationship with a fellow officer during her separation. She took her case to the court, citing gender discrimination and privacy violations. Her battle stretched across seven years and reached the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where she initially won. But that victory was later overturned. “It wasn't just a legal fight,” Janelle said. Janelle, a Penn State graduate in Justice Administration and Sociology, became a voice for reform and an advocate for female leadership in law enforcement. In her podcast interviews and media appearances, she says that the justice system often fails its own, especially when gender dynamics and departmental politics collide. Throughout her time in law enforcement, Perez worked in communities where gangs weren't just a threat, they were a way of life. From the Eddy Rock and Knock Out Posse gangs in San Francisco to major prison gangs like the Mexican Mafia, Nuestra Familia, and Aryan Brotherhood, she navigated a violent landscape that demanded vigilance, intuition, and resilience. “These gangs enforce their own kind of law,” Perez explained. “And when the actual justice system fails from the inside, it becomes hard to tell who you're really fighting.” Police and Gangs, Her Battle With The Department and Court. Available for free on their website and streaming on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and other podcast platforms. Statistics underscore the challenges she faced. By the early 1990s, California had become a hub for gang activity, with thousands of organized groups and hundreds of thousands of members. Urban centers like Oakland, San Jose, and Richmond became battlegrounds where gang-related homicides and turf wars eclipsed many other forms of crime. According to national surveys, gang membership and criminal incidents surged between 1991 and 1993, peaking at over half a million members and hundreds of thousands of gang-related crimes. In these conditions, law enforcement officers walk a razor-thin line. “When you're confronting people who operate by their own rules, you expect your department to have your back,” Janelle said. “But that's not always the case. And that's what hurts the most.” The Moral Police doesn't just delve into the systemic flaws of the police system. It's a call for accountability, leadership, and reform. Through her writing, radio interviews, and podcast appearances, Janelle Perez shines a light on the importance of transparency in law enforcement—especially when those in power misuse it. You can listen to her stories and interview on our website for free in addition to platforms like Apple Podcasts and Spotify, and other major podcast platforms. Her story resonates across social platforms and professional networks, drawing attention from news outlets and discussion forums alike. The Facebook and Instagram comments are filled with encouragement. LinkedIn readers are engaging with posts about her on workplace equity and integrity. Police and Gangs, Her Battle With The Department and Court. “I wanted to inspire others not to stay silent. Whether you're in law enforcement, education, or tech, speak up when something is wrong,” she said. “You shouldn't have to lose your job to hold leadership accountable.” Now, Janelle continues to share her journey and advocate for those who feel silenced within institutions meant to protect and serve. Her podcast appearances are gaining momentum, and her book is sparking conversation in communities far beyond California. Her story is about much more than a badge. It's about courage, conviction, and confronting the battles that exist both outside and within the blue line. The full podcast episode is streaming now on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and across Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn. You can follow updates and advocacy through our social media channels and find The Moral Police wherever books are sold. Listen to her full interview on the Law Enforcement Talk Radio Show and Podcast website for free, also on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or most major podcast platforms. Because sometimes the toughest fight isn't on the street, it's in the system you trusted.Police and Gangs, Her Battle With The Department and Court. Listen and decide for yourself. Your golden years are supposed to be easy and worry free, at least in regards to finances. If you are over 70, you can turn your life insurance policy into cash. Visit LetSavings.com , LetSavings.com or call (866) 480-4252, (866) 480-4252, again that's (866) 480 4252 to see if you qualify. Learn useful tips and strategies to increase your Facebook Success with John Jay Wiley. Both free and paid content are available on this Patreon page . Time is running out to secure the Medicare coverage you deserve! Whether you're enrolling for the first time or looking for a better plan, our experts help you compare options to get more benefits, lower costs, and keep your doctors, all for free! Visit LetHealthy.com , that's LetHealthy.com or call (866) 427-1225, (866) 427-1222 to learn more. You can help contribute money to make the Gunrunner Movie . The film that Hollywood won't touch. It is about a now Retired Police Officer that was shot 6 times while investigating Gunrunning. He died 3 times during Medical treatment and was resuscitated. You can join the fight by giving a monetary “gift” to help ensure the making of his film at agunrunnerfilm.com . Get the latest news articles, without all the bias and spin, from the Law Enforcement Talk Radio Show and Podcast on Medium , which is free. Find a wide variety of great podcasts online at The Podcast Zone Facebook Page , look for the one with the bright green logo. Be sure to check out our website . Be sure to follow us on MeWe , X , Instagram , Facebook, Pinterest, Linkedin and other social media platforms for the latest episodes and news. Background song Hurricane is used with permission from the band Dark Horse Flyer. You can contact John J. “Jay” Wiley by email at Jay@letradio.com , or learn more about him on their website . Police and Gangs, Her Battle With The Department and Court. Attributions Amazon Wikipedia Kulture Vultures OJP Wikipedia

Trump has imposed a travel ban on 12 countries that the administration deems dangerous. Ninth Circuit Court effectively outlawed women's only spas owned by religious people. The United States Supreme Court is hearing a case regarding the legality of mail-in ballots that are received after Election Day. // LongForm: GUEST: King County Assessor and candidate for King County Executive John Wilson responds to the allegations against him and the calls for him to resign. // Quick Hit: The Seattle City Council is considering establishing digital kiosks downtown.  

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.

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.

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.”

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

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