Podcasts about Northern District

Are broker transparency rules the solution to today's freight challenges, or should we be focusing more on enforcement and safety? We're excited to bring The Armchair Attorney back to the show, Matt Leffler, to break down the FMCSA's latest delay on broker transparency updates, why the current 371.3 requirements remain unchanged, and what this means for brokers, carriers, and shippers! We delve into how market dynamics, tighter margins, and reduced consumer spending are shaping rates, and why stricter enforcement of maintenance and safety regulations could have a greater impact on the industry than transparency alone. Hear another straightforward take on what's really driving the transportation market!   About Matthew Leffler Matthew is a 3rd generation supply chain executive with over fifteen years of experience in safety, law, & maintenance. Matthew currently serves as Vice President of Strategic Accounts at Contract Leasing Corp. He is also an attorney that provides legal commentary on various supply chain issues & operates a popular podcast. In addition, Matthew has served as a senior leader with some of the nation's most admired maintenance, repair, & fleet management firms. Matthew entered the industry as an attorney defending trucking companies in civil litigation in 2010, but cut his teeth helping build & later selling his family's maintenance firm, Outsource Fleet Services, Inc. Matthew earned his J.D. from Michigan State University College of Law, Magna Cum Laude, and his B.A. from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. He is licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois; U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois; & 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Matthew is the proud father of Michael, Rowan, Elise, & Elijah & has been happily married to his wife, Holly, since 2008.  

In Part 2 of the Olympic Park bombing series, Sheryl McCollum talks with Kent Alexander, who served as U.S. Attorney during the investigation. Alexander recalls the tense hours after the blast, the FBI and media’s rush to label Richard Jewell a suspect, and the non-target letter that cleared him. He also explains how Eric Rudolph became the focus, what investigators learned from the case, and how his book The Suspect grew into Clint Eastwood’s film Richard Jewell. Kent Alexander served as U.S. Attorney for Northern District of Georgia during the Olympic Park bombing investigation. He is the co-author of The Suspect, the book that became the basis for Clint Eastwood’s film Richard Jewell. To learn more about Kent Alexander, visit The Suspect Highlights: (0:00) Sheryl introduces guest Kent Alexander, former U.S. Attorney during the Olympic Park bombing (2:45) The 911 call and Alexander’s first moments of the investigation (5:30) Securing evidence and rebuilding the bomb (8:15) Remembering victims Alice Hawthorne and Melih Uzunyol (9:15) Media and FBI rush to judgment against Richard Jewell (12:30) The non-target letter that cleared Richard Jewell (17:30) Eric Rudolph emerges as the true bomber (22:00) Alexander start writing The Suspect, documenting the case (25:15) Understanding Eric Rudolph’s motives and methods (30:00) Sheryl recall firsthand stories of victims and media exposure (33:15) How The Suspect became the film Richard Jewell (37:00) “He was a hero. What he did saved a lot of lives.” - Kent Alexander on Richard Jewell Enjoying Zone 7? Leave a rating and review. Your feedback helps others find the show and supports our mission to educate and investigate. --- Sheryl “Mac” McCollum is an Emmy Award-winning CSI, a writer for CrimeOnline, forensic and crime scene expert for Crime Stories with Nancy Grace, and co-author of the textbook Cold Case: Pathways to Justice. She is the founder and director of the Cold Case Investigative Research Institute, a national collaboration that advances techniques for solving cold cases and assists families and law enforcement with unsolved homicides, missing persons, and kidnappings. Social Links: Email: coldcase2004@gmail.com Twitter: @ColdCaseTips Facebook: @sheryl.mccollum Instagram: @officialzone7podcast See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode 76 In the finale of The Flora Four: Between Rumors and Reality, we bring the story full circle. Nearly a decade after the fire that claimed the lives of four young sisters in Flora, Indiana, we examine why this case remains unsolved — and who really benefitted from the official arson ruling. From conflicting investigator depositions to shifting fire science, we uncover how shaky evidence and rushed conclusions may have shaped the narrative. Was this truly a deliberate act of arson, or did the label itself protect powerful interests from facing criminal negligence charges? As we lay out the flaws in the investigation, we revisit the landlords, insurance money, and the haunting possibility that the truth was buried under bureaucracy and rumor. The families still wait for justice — but what if the answers don't point where officials want you to look? Join us as we close this case file, pulling together the fire science, the politics, and the human toll of a community still searching for accountability. Background music by Not Notoriously Coordinated  The Crime to Burn Patreon - The Cult of Steve - is LIVE NOW! Go join and get all the unhinged you can handle. Click here to be sanctified.  Get your Crime to Burn Merch! https://crimetoburn.myspreadshop.com Please follow us on Instagram, X, Facebook, TikTok and Youtube for the latest news on this case. You can email us at crimetoburn@gmail.com We welcome any constructive feedback and would greatly appreciate a 5 star rating and review.  If you need a way to keep your canine contained, you can also support the show by purchasing a Pawious wireless dog fence using our affiliate link and use the code "crimetoburn" at checkout to receive 10% off. Pawious, because our dog Winston needed a radius, not a rap sheet.  Sources: If you want to go down the rabbit hole on this case, there are lots of theories and discussion on this board, just be warned, you could get lost in there for weeks. r/FloraFour. Reddit community archive. Link For a complete source list, please also see show notes for Episodes 74 and 75. Additional sources used in Part 3 include the following. Deposition of Gaylin Rose, Plaintiff, Gaylin Rose v. Birch Tree Holdings, LLC, et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Cause No. 2:18-cv-00197-JTM (September 25, 2020).

The past week has felt like history unfolding right in front of me, as courtrooms across the country have become the stage for a truly unprecedented legal drama with Donald Trump at the center. Let's get right into what's been happening, starting with the Northern District of California, where University of California researchers, led by Rahul Thakur, have taken President Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency to federal court. The heart of their lawsuit is over research funding and access, with University of California researchers claiming that new administrative policies under Trump's leadership are restricting crucial funding and threatening academic independence. Just a few days ago, on August 26, Judge Gonzalez Rogers presided over a hearing to decide whether the court should expand the scope of a preliminary injunction for a group of researchers who allege unfair targeting by Trump's administration. The Zoom link for the public portion of this hearing attracted thousands of virtual spectators, eager to see whether the judiciary would put more checks on the administration's reach. Judge Gonzalez Rogers has yet to issue a final decision, but the tension in the courtroom was palpable as government attorneys pushed back against claims of overreach and political motivation.Nationally, the legal landscape surrounding Trump is a tangled web. The Lawfare Litigation Tracker reports close to 300 active cases now challenging Trump administration policies across a wide array of issues. Some of the most high-profile litigation right now continues to focus on Trump's use of executive power, with opponents targeting everything from immigration enforcement to civil liberties. Litigation over the Alien Enemies Act, for instance, is ongoing, with several states and advocacy groups arguing in court that Trump's policies unlawfully target immigrants. Other cases are challenging how Trump's new executive orders interact with state laws, an issue that might well wind up before the Supreme Court in the coming months.Meanwhile, the White House itself is not sitting idle. Just this week, on August 25, President Trump issued a new executive order aimed at ending cashless bail in jurisdictions that, in his view, are failing to keep dangerous offenders locked up. In his executive order, Trump directed the Attorney General to create a list within 30 days, identifying cities and states where cash bail has been substantially eliminated for crimes Trump says pose a “clear threat” to public safety. This order has already prompted several lawsuits from civil rights groups and state attorneys general, who argue that Trump is overstepping federal authority by withholding resources from cities and states that disagree with his policies. Lawyers from both sides are preparing for a flurry of hearings throughout September, and this clash over criminal justice policy is likely to feature in the courtrooms and on campaign trails alike as we head into the fall.What ties this chaotic legal atmosphere together is the sheer pace at which developments are happening. Updates stream in almost daily, with each hearing, ruling, or presidential order setting off a chain reaction of new litigation, media scrutiny, and political debate. No matter how each case gets resolved, these trials are rewriting long-standing assumptions about presidential power and accountability. Thanks for tuning in to my recap of the latest from the Trump court cases. Be sure to come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Judge Vince Chhabria is a district court judge in the Northern District of California. When I shared with previous podcast guests I was interviewing Judge Chhabria, the excitement was palpable - these experienced litigators think of Judge Chhabria as "insightful", "focused", and "sharp", and this is a rare opportunity to learn how an influential judge thinks.Judge Chhabria and I talked about:- his unexpected path from the office of the San Francisco City Attorney's Office to the bench, any why city attorney roles are so valuable. - the surprising impact of case management on justice, and how few motions are decided by precedent- what keeps the job interesting 11 years into the role- why moving cases forward is an underrated part of public service- the "memdispo" technique that efficiently allocates judicial resources to opinions - what he misses most about not being a federal judge- his most important career advice for his clerksWe also discuss how he researched and considered precedent for the recent Kadrey v. Meta decision on fair use in generative AI. Any lawyer looking for an original approach to career decisions and how they practice should listen to this episode. 

Episode 75 In Part 2 of The Flora Four: Between Rumors and Reality, we dig into the tangled web of suspects, motives, and unanswered questions surrounding the fire that claimed the lives of four young sisters in Flora, Indiana. From Gaylin Rose's boyfriend Colten Creasy to the complicated history of Jennifer Dean (a.k.a. Jennifer Barnes, Jennifer Miller), we examine the relationships, rumors, and criminal connections that kept investigators circling. Was this a case of small-town drama spilling into something darker—or did Gaylin's circle of friends pull her into dangerous territory? Then we follow the money. With Josh Ayres and Troy Helderman's Birch Tree LLC carrying nearly $400,000 in insurance on a house valued at just $45,000—and a pattern of past insurance claims—the financial motives are impossible to ignore. Add in rumors of fire tricks and unanswered police reports, and the smoke around this case gets even thicker. Join us as we peel back the layers of romance, drugs, race, and financial gain in search of what really fueled this fire. Background music by Not Notoriously Coordinated  The Crime to Burn Patreon - The Cult of Steve - is LIVE NOW! Go join and get all the unhinged you can handle. Click here to be sanctified.  Get your Crime to Burn Merch! https://crimetoburn.myspreadshop.com Please follow us on Instagram, X, Facebook, TikTok and Youtube for the latest news on this case. You can email us at crimetoburn@gmail.com We welcome any constructive feedback and would greatly appreciate a 5 star rating and review.  If you need a way to keep your canine contained, you can also support the show by purchasing a Pawious wireless dog fence using our affiliate link and use the code "crimetoburn" at checkout to receive 10% off. Pawious, because our dog Winston needed a radius, not a rap sheet.  Sources: If you want to go down the rabbit hole on this case, there are lots of theories and discussion on this board, just be warned, you could get lost in there for weeks. r/FloraFour. Reddit community archive. Link For a complete source list, please also see show notes for Episode 64. Additional sources used in Part 2 include the following. Sandra Chapman. Emails Confirm Top Homeland Security Leaders Knew of Concerns over Flora Fire Investigation. 13 Investigates, WTHR. October 6, 2017; updated January 15, 2018. Link Mike Potter. ‘No help' | 4 girls died in the Flora fire. 8 years later, the case remains unsolved. 13WTHR. November 21, 2024; updated November 25, 2024. Link Steven Brown. Mom calls for justice 6 years after Flora fire killed her 4 girls, ‘I pray every day something comes out'. Fox 59. November 21, 2022. Link Aishah Hasnie. Seasoned private investigator in Flora fire says mistakes happen with inexperience. Fox 59. June 26, 2017. Link State of Indiana v. Jennifer L. Dean, Case 08C01-2017-MR-000002 (Case summary/docket filed July 14, 2021). Holly Eitenmiller. Final defendant sentenced in 2019 murder of Lafayette man amid sex trafficking claims. (Originally circulated via Reddit board; Link Sandra Chapman. Owner of Flora house where 4 girls died in fire wants release of police and fire records. 13 Investigates, WTHR. December 12, 2018; updated February 13, 2019. Link Susan Scholl. Flora's sewer issues rise to the top for 2019. Carroll County Comet. December 5, 2018. Link Court & Deposition Records Deposition of Troy Helderman, Landlord, Gaylin Rose v. Birch Tree Holdings, LLC, et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Cause No. 2:18-cv-00197-JTM (Filed 2022). Deposition of Joshua Ayres, Landlord, Gaylin Rose v. Birch Tree Holdings, LLC, et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Cause No. 2:18-cv-00197-JTM (Filed 2022). Deposition of Joshua Ayres (Insurance Coverage), Gaylin Rose v. Birch Tree Holdings, LLC, et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Cause No. 2:18-cv-00197-JTM (Filed 2022). Deposition of Todd Hetrick, P.E., CFEI, CFI, CVFI, Fire Investigator, Gaylin Rose v. Birch Tree Holdings, LLC, et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Cause No. 2:18-cv-00197-JTM (December 20, 2021). Deposition of Jeffrey Tipton, CFI, CFEI, CVFI, Fire Investigator, Gaylin Rose v. Birch Tree Holdings, LLC, et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Cause No. 2:18-cv-00197-JTM (January 24, 2022). Deposition of Candace Ashby, Ph.D., Fire Investigator, Gaylin Rose v. Birch Tree Holdings, LLC, et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Cause No. 2:18-cv-00197-JTM (December 21, 2021). 103 E. Columbia Street Rental Agreement. (Filed as exhibit in Gaylin Rose v. Birch Tree Holdings, LLC, et al., Cause No. 2:18-cv-00197-JTM). IC Rental Agreements. (Filed as exhibit in Gaylin Rose v. Birch Tree Holdings, LLC, et al.).

A federal lawsuit against Elon Musk's X Corp has ended with a settlement that requires the company to pay $500 million in severance to thousands of former Twitter employees. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, accused X of violating federal labor laws by refusing to provide severance pay after Musk's acquisition of Twitter in October 2022. The company, now known simply as “X,” terminated over half of its workforce in the weeks after Musk completed his $44 billion purchase.How did a deal that was supposed to redefine social media turn into a legal battle over unpaid severance? The question surfaces from the scale and speed of Twitter's layoffs and the way those exits were handled. When Musk took control of Twitter, he slashed roughly 6,000 jobs across the company. Many of those employees said they were promised specific severance packages under the previous ownership. The lawsuit, led by former Twitter employee Courtney McMillian, alleged that Musk and his team chose to ignore those agreements and instead offered significantly reduced exit terms.

Last time we spoke about the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. Following the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki amidst relentless Allied aerial campaigns, chaos engulfed Japan. Prime Minister Suzuki's cabinet debated surrendering to avoid annihilation while fearing for the imperial family's future. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union launched an unexpected invasion of Manchuria, rapidly advancing and catching Japanese forces off guard. As negotiations unfolded, a group of military conspirators, led by Major Hatanaka, attempted a coup to halt the surrender, believing they could rally support. They seized the Imperial Palace but failed to find the Emperor's recorded surrender speech amid the chaos. In a decisive moment, Emperor Hirohito accepted the Potsdam Declaration, stipulating the emperor's continuation, thus sealing Japan's fate. That same day, the world learned of Japan's capitulation, marking the end of the Pacific War. The once powerful nation now lay in ruins, yet the Emperor's decision bore the weight of a nation saved from further destruction, embodying a fragile hope for the future amidst the horrors of war. This episode is the Battle for South Sakhalin and the Kurile Islands Welcome to the Pacific War Podcast Week by Week, I am your dutiful host Craig Watson. But, before we start I want to also remind you this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Perhaps you want to learn more about world war two? Kings and Generals have an assortment of episodes on world war two and much more  so go give them a look over on Youtube. So please subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry for some more history related content, over on my channel, the Pacific War Channel you can find a few videos all the way from the Opium Wars of the 1800's until the end of the Pacific War in 1945.  As we previously discussed, the Japanese Empire made the difficult decision to surrender on August 14, amid the turmoil of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and South Sakhalin. The following day, this decision was announced to the world. However, in Manchuria, General Yamada's Kwantung Army chose to continue fighting until they received a clear ceasefire order. At this moment, several developments unfolded. General Hongo's 44th Army was on a forced retreat toward the Hsinking-Mukden line under General Ushiroku's command, leaving their 107th Division trapped behind Soviet lines. Meanwhile, General Iida's 30th Army was redeploying to Hsinking, which was starting to be evacuated, while General Uemura's 4th Army had orders to withdraw to Meihokou, taking over positions left by the 30th Army.  The advance of enemy armored columns in the west was severely hindering the evacuation of Japanese nationals. On the 10th, the Kwantung Army requested the Manchukuoan Government to facilitate the evacuation of Japanese residents in Hainking and its surroundings. They directed the Continental Railway Command to prepare ten trains for this purpose, with the first train scheduled to depart from Hsinking that same day. However, the Manchukuoan Government found it nearly impossible to carry out the withdrawal swiftly. They managed to transport only the families of officers and civilians linked to the army, and these families had to flee with just a few hours' notice, taking almost nothing but the clothes on their backs. By the 12th, Hsinking was in a state of chaos. The advance of enemy armored units, coupled with the retreat of the main force of the 44th Army, led to the evacuation of the capital by the Kwantung Army General Headquarters. This turmoil coincided with the arrival of the first refugee trains, carrying Japanese evacuees from the western border areas, causing widespread panic among local residents. Many hurried to the already overcrowded train station, desperate to escape the unfolding crisis. In the face of enemy pressure, the 80th Independent Mixed Brigade and the 119th Division continued to resist assaults at Hailar and Pokotu, respectively. The 123rd Division and the 135th Independent Mixed Brigade were heavily engaged in the fortified regions of Sunwu and Aihun, and the 136th Independent Mixed Brigade was directed to reinforce Tsitsihar, while the 134th Division retreated to Fangcheng. General Shimizu's 5th Army prepared for a last stand at Mutanchiang, while the isolated 124th Division made plans to withdraw. The 132nd Independent Mixed Brigade had already retreated to Tachienchang, and the 128th Division was getting ready to confront the enemy advance at Lotzokou, with General Murakami's 3rd Army holding strong in the Tumen fortified region. Meanwhile, the Nanam Divisional District Unit successfully repelled an amphibious invasion in Chongjin, and the 88th Division's 125th Regiment staunchly defended Furuton on South Sakhalin. In a desperate bid to avoid further disaster, Yamada finally instructed Ushiroku to adhere to their original plan and prepare for a withdrawal to the Hunjen area, even if it meant leaving Japanese citizens and their cities vulnerable to the approaching Soviets. Ushiroku hesitantly agreed to the order but never got the chance to act on it. On August 15, Marshal Vasilevsky's offensive advanced much like the previous days, facing an enemy that continued to resist fiercely. To counter this, orders came to intensify the assault to gain control of key operational and strategic points as quickly as possible. In Marshal Malinovsky's Transbaikal Front, General Pliyev's cavalry-mechanized units encountered heavy opposition from the Inner Mongolian 3rd, 5th, and 7th Cavalry Divisions at Kanbao. Meanwhile, General Danilov's 17th Army pressed toward Chihfeng but was hindered by water shortages, intense heat, and challenging sandy terrain. General Managarov's 53rd Army began its advance toward Kailu, while General Kravchenko's 6th Guards Tank Army continued its march along two fronts. The 7th Guards Mechanized Corps moved east toward Changchun, while both the 9th Guards Mechanized Corps and the 5th Guards Tank Corps advanced southeast toward Mukden. Notably, General Lyudnikov's 39th Army finally captured Tepossi and Wangyemiao.  Heavy Japanese resistance persisted in the sector of the 36th Army, notably in the Hailar Fortified Region and along the road and rail line through the Grand Khingan Mountains leading to Pokotu. The Japanese 119th Infantry Division put up a determined defense of Pokotu, successfully delaying the Soviet forces of the 2nd Rifle Corps from August 15 to 17, despite heavy rainfall. Meanwhile, in the rear of the 36th Army, the fighting in Hailar remained intense. The 86th Rifle Corps employed heavy artillery to systematically dismantle enemy strongholds in the hills to the northwest and southwest of the city. Position after position fell to relentless artillery bombardments, combined with sapper and infantry assaults. Ultimately, the Soviets extinguished the last vestiges of Japanese resistance in Hailar on August 18 when the remaining garrison of 3,827 men surrendered. Concurrently, in Marshal Meretskov's 1st Far Eastern Front, forward detachments of General Zakhvatayev's 35th Army secured Poli. General Beloborodov's 1st Red Banner Army broke through the frontline of the 135th Division and initiated an assault on the last Japanese positions just outside Yehho. Meanwhile, General Krylov's 5th Army, having successfully breached the Ssutaoling heights the previous evening, launched attacks against the 126th Division's positions at Aiho but was ultimately repelled by the defenders. In light of these developments, Generals Kita and Shimizu decided to order a withdrawal toward Hengtaohotzu, which they executed successfully after sunset, leaving behind some units to cover the retreat. Further south, General Chistyakov's 25th Army split into two columns at Heitosai. The 17th Rifle Corps and the 72nd Mechanized Brigade advanced west toward the Taipingling Pass, while the 39th Rifle Corps, along with the 72nd and 257th Tank Brigades, headed southwest toward Wangching. The 17th Rifle Corps effectively breached the main defenses of the Japanese 128th Division, forcing it to retreat to second-line positions southwest of Taipingling. On the morning of August 15, enemy air activity against Army Headquarters intensified significantly. Meanwhile, the Army Commander and several staff officers set out via Pataohotzu to inspect the defenses in the Hoeryong area, where the 101st Regiment was retreating from the Chonghak sector. At noon, while at the headquarters of the 127th Division in Pataohotzu, General Murakami and his accompanying staff listened to the Emperor's broadcast announcing the termination of the war. Opinions among the officers were divided regarding the veracity of this broadcast. After a brief discussion, they decided to continue military operations as per existing instructions until they received a formal cessation order. Later that night, a formal order arrived from First Area Army Headquarters, directing that all active resistance be halted, though self-defense measures were still to be implemented if necessary. Around the same time, a report came in from the 1st Mobile Brigade indicating that their positions in the Wangching area, about 25 miles northeast of Army Headquarters at Yenchi, were under attack by a sizable Soviet tank force. In response, a counterattack force was hastily assembled, consisting of two infantry battalions from the 127th Division. They were directed to advance to Wangching along the Yenchi-Chiulungping road to confront the enemy tanks. These battalions likely included the 3rd Battalion of the 280th Regiment and the 3rd Battalion of the 281st Regiment. Additionally, the 88th Rifle Corps took control of Hunchun and crossed the Inanho River, where they encountered well-entrenched Japanese forces from the 112th Division. To further pressure the enemy, the 258th Rifle Division crossed the Tumen River at Hunyong to attack the Japanese right flank. In General Purkayev's 2nd Far Eastern Front, General Mamonov's 15th Army continued its two-pronged advance toward Chiamussu, while General Pashkov's 5th Rifle Corps pushed forward to Poli. Meanwhile, General Teryokhin's 2nd Red Banner Army assigned some elements to maintain the siege of Sunwu and Aihun while forward detachments bypassed these fortified regions, moving south toward Nencheng and Peian. In South Sakhalin, General Cheremisov's 16th Army faced fierce resistance from Japanese forces at Furuton. Admiral Andreyev's Northern Pacific Flotilla prepared for an amphibious landing at Toro, while the Pacific Fleet, under Admiral Yumashev, successfully landed Major-General Vasily Trushin's 13th Naval Infantry Brigade at Chongjin in the early hours of August 15. This effort aimed to relieve the besieged Soviet naval units and gradually push back against the defending Japanese forces. On August 16, the entire Soviet force, commanded by Lieutenant-General Sergey Kabanov, secured Chongjin city and its port after overcoming strong resistance, just as the 393rd Rifle Division was arriving in the area. Simultaneously, Andreyev's fleet departed from Sovetskaya Gavan and approached Toro in the early hours of the day. At 05:17, 141 marines from the initial reconnaissance detachment successfully landed ashore quietly, and by 06:00, they had taken the port with virtually no opposition. The reconnaissance group then advanced about three kilometers east, where they encountered heavy resistance; meanwhile, the rest of the marine battalion landed successfully by 10:00. After securing Shakhtyorsk at midday, the Soviet marines began their push south toward Esutoru, their main objective, while a supporting infantry battalion landed behind them. To the north, the 56th Rifle Corps managed to break through and capture Furuton, though it failed to seize the strategically significant Happo Mountain. In Manchuria, the 88th Rifle Corps continued its attacks on the 112th and 79th Divisions but was unsuccessful. The 39th Rifle Corps column advanced toward Tumen and Yenchi, while the 17th Rifle Corps column effectively expelled Japanese forces from the Taipingling area to secure the pass. By evening, units from the 1st Red Banner Army cleared Mutanchiang, and the 5th Army units moved south of the city to continue their southwest advance toward Ningan. The 15th Army executed a coordinated amphibious assault, successfully capturing Chiamussu. The 39th Army advanced along the railroad from Wangyemiao to Changchun, with its main force ultimately securing Taonan by the end of the day, while other units reduced the Halung-Arshaan fortified region. Finally, forward detachments of the 5th Guards Tank Corps and the 9th Guards Mechanized Corps secured Tungliao and Kaitung, respectively. On August 17, Prince Takeda Tsuneyoshi, on behalf of the Emperor, arrived at Hsinking to deliver the official ceasefire order. However, this did not cancel ongoing operational missions, as the order stipulated that the cessation of hostilities did not apply to unavoidable acts of self-defense during enemy attacks made before the completion of armistice negotiations. Tokyo's orders demonstrated that Yamada was authorized to conduct on-the-spot negotiations for an armistice with the Soviets. Consequently, the Manchurian Campaign continued amidst the negotiations. Pliyev's Soviet-Mongolian units successfully defeated the Inner Mongolians at Kanbao; the 17th Army overcame light opposition from the 108th Division to occupy Chihfeng; the 39th Army concentrated its forces at Taonan while the 94th Rifle Corps mopped up rear areas; and the 36th Army defeated the 119th Division to capture Pokotu. Simultaneously, the 2nd Red Banner Army directed heavy artillery and air strikes to reduce the Aihun and Sunwu Fortified Regions, while the 15th Army initiated a push south along the Sungari River toward Sansing. The 363rd Rifle Division passed through Chihsi, with the 66th Rifle Division focusing on Poli. Units from the 1st Red Banner Army advanced northwest toward Harbin, and the 72nd Rifle Corps marched southward along the east bank of the Mutan River, attempting unsuccessfully to cross the river north of Ningan. The 17th Rifle Corps pursued the 128th Division, and forward elements of the 10th Mechanized Corps moved sixty kilometers from the Taipingling Pass to secure the critical rail and road junction at Tahsingkou. Additionally, the reinforced 72nd Tank Brigade intercepted the counterattacking force of the 127th Division at Nianyantsun. The 39th Rifle Corps broke through the northern defenses of the 79th Division to seize the outskirts of Tumen, while the 88th Rifle Corps successfully pushed aside enemy defenders at Mayusan to occupy Onsang. At South Sakhalin, as the marine force surrounded Esutoru, the 22nd Independent Machinegun Company was deployed to support the marine assault, which quickly penetrated the urban area and secured the city by midday. Meanwhile, fighting continued around Mount Happo, where the 214th Tank Brigade was dispatched south toward the ultimate objective of Toyohara. However, given the distance involved, it was decided to conduct a second amphibious assault on the port of Maoka. On August 18, Yamada finally issued the ceasefire orders to the 1st, 3rd, and 17th Area Armies, as well as to the 4th Army and the 2nd Air Army. His chief of staff, Lieutenant-General Hata Hikosaburo, met with Marshal Vasilevsky in Harbin to discuss procedures for disarmament, the protection of Japanese nationals in Manchuria, and related matters. Meanwhile, the Kwantung Army Headquarters made extensive efforts to relay as much information as possible about the termination of hostilities and disarmament to its subordinate commands using all available communication methods. However, these efforts were hindered by the wide dispersal of forces, many of which initially refused to surrender. General Higuchi's 5th Area Army received the ceasefire orders on August 17. Although he quickly notified his units—particularly those in Sakhalin and the Kuriles, war continued in these islands for a short period as he sought to prevent a potential invasion of Hokkaido. In Sakhalin, Major Yoshio Suzuki, the Chief of Staff of the 88th Division, received Higuchi's combat order on the afternoon of August 16, preparations for ceasefire were already underway, such as the disbandment of mobilized units, the discharge of some troops, and the disposal of the regimental flag. The division had no tanks or aircraft, and certainly no anti-tank or anti-aircraft weapons that could withstand Soviet forces. In light of this, Suzuki quickly ordered the re-arming of units and the occupation of positions, in accordance with the desire of Mineki and Higuchi to prevent the fall of South Sakhalin and a possible invasion of Hokkaido. Civilians, at this point, were already voicing complaints, wondering if the military was still going to continue fighting. After the surrender of the 125th Infantry Regiment, the Japanese command in the Northern District was effectively assumed by the staff of the 88th Division stationed at Kamishikika. During the fighting on the central military road, by the morning of August 17, evacuation of the civilian population from Kamishikika had been completed, and the town was burned to the ground by Japanese forces' scorched earth tactics, along with an air raid by 20 Soviet aircraft. Kamishikika was abandoned on August 20, marking the start of a full retreat. The construction of a defensive line involving the destruction of the Uro Bridge and the Chidori River Bridge was considered but ultimately abandoned due to the presence of evacuees. Meanwhile, in the Kuriles, a new operation was unfolding. According to Vasilevsky's orders, once operations against Manchuria and South Sakhalin were sufficiently advanced, a small force from the Kamchatka Defense Region, supported by naval units from the Petropavlovsk Naval Base, was to conduct amphibious assaults on the Kuril Islands in preparation for a future landing at the port of Rumoi on Hokkaido's west coast On August 15, President Truman and Soviet Premier Stalin agreed that Japanese forces north of the 38th Parallel would surrender to the Soviets, while those to the south would surrender to the Americans. Stalin's agreement surprised the US, as there was little chance of American forces landing on the Korean peninsula at that time. In what many scholars interpret as an attempt to achieve reciprocal generosity from Truman, Stalin proposed amending the order to include the northern half of Hokkaido and all of the Kuril Islands in the region of surrender to Soviet forces. This northern portion, he stated, should be demarcated by a line drawn ‘from the town of Kushiro on the eastern coast . . . to the town of Rumoe (Rumoi) on the western coast . . .', with both towns included in the occupation area However, Truman only acquiesced concerning the Kuriles, honoring the pact reached at Yalta, while specifying that all the islands of mainland Japan were to surrender to General MacArthur. Nonetheless, concerned by the exclusion of the Kuriles from the original agreement, Stalin instructed Vasilevsky to organize landings to occupy the islands. This mission was assigned to Purkayev's 2nd Far Eastern Front and Yumashev's Pacific Fleet, which, in turn, designated Major-General Aleksei Gnechko's Kamchatka Defense Region and Captain Dmitri Ponomarev's Petropavlovsk Naval Base to execute the first landings on Shumshu and Paramushir, followed by a subsequent amphibious assault on Onekotan. These inexperienced commanders had limited time to plan for their operations, assemble the necessary commercial vessels for transportation, and hurriedly gather the army units dispersed across Kamchatka. Ultimately, the primary unit chosen for the landings was Major-General Porfiry Dyakov's 101st Rifle Division, supplemented by a battalion of marines. Meanwhile, Ponomarev managed to gather an invasion flotilla of 64 vessels. Although the Soviets had air superiority, it was unreliable due to the peculiar climatic conditions. “There were very peculiar climatic conditions in the Far East and Sakhalin; almost every airfield had its own special microclimate. In the coastal zone, frequent outbursts of moist sea air, forming a curtain of thick fog, caused a lot of trouble.”. The limited firepower of Ponomarev's flotilla forced the Soviets to land on the northeast corner of Shumshu, which could be targeted by the coastal guns at Cape Lopatka. Additionally, Gnechko planned a diversionary landing on the southeast side of the island. Opposing the Soviets, Higuchi had Lieutenant-General Tsutsumi Fusaki's 91st Division garrisoning the northern islands of Shumshu and Paramushir, the 41st Independent Mixed Regiment on Matsuwa Island, the 129th Independent Mixed Brigade on Uruppu Island, and Lieutenant-General Ogawa Gonosuke's 89th Division stationed on the southern islands of Etorofu, Shikotan, and Kunashiri.  Shumshu is the northernmost island in the Kuril chain, separated from Cape Lopatka, the southernmost tip of the Kamchatka Peninsula, by the 11-kilometer-wide First Kuril Strait. Covering an area of approximately 388 square kilometers and roughly oval in shape , Shumshu's proximity to Soviet territory, similar to its larger neighbor to the south, Paramushir, ensured that it was strongly defended. The garrison on Shumshu comprised about 8,500 troops, whereas the larger island boasted a garrison of approximately 14,500. The strait between the two islands narrows to about 2.5 kilometers at its smallest point, thus allowing these garrisons to provide mutual support. As Slavinsky notes: “Shumshu and Paramushir, with their naval bases located opposite each other on both sides of the Second Kuril Strait, were, in essence, a single key position.” The capture of Shumshu was crucial to the success of subsequent island operations. While there were several airfields on these islands, they housed very few aircraft, which had been withdrawn earlier to the Japanese main islands in preparation for the anticipated “final battle” with the Americans. However, Shumshu was defended by a tank force from the 11th Tank Regiment, commanded by Colonel Sueo Ikeda. This force consisted of thirty-nine medium tanks, including nineteen Type-97 Chi-Ha tanks and twenty Type-97 ShinHoTo Chi-Ha (improved Type-97) tanks, alongside twenty-five Type-95 Ha-Go light tanks. Both Shumshu and Paramushir were equipped with permanent defensive works along the coast and inland. On Shumshu, these defenses included 34 bunkers and 24 pillboxes within several powerful strongpoints, featuring around 100 guns of varying calibers, some reaching up to 100mm. Approximately 300 prepared firing points were established for both heavy and light machine guns. Most of Shumshu's coast is bordered by cliffs, leading to a concentration of the strongest defenses in areas deemed vulnerable to amphibious assault. Notably, a battery was installed in the wreck of the Soviet tanker Mariupol, which had become stranded on the beach between Cape Kokutan and Cape Kotomari in 1943. Although the island is relatively flat, it possesses several hills with sides that are nearly bare of trees, and these heights also housed additional strongpoints. Shumshu features 120 kilometers of roads, which facilitated terrestrial communication between various points. Additionally, the garrison constructed numerous dummy installations to mislead reconnaissance efforts. Nevertheless, Ponomarev's flotilla departed from Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky at approximately 05:00 on August 17, moving slowly and stealthily toward their objective in foggy conditions. This weather ultimately forced Gnechko to cancel the planned diversionary landing. In any event, the first landing craft approached the beach at 04:22 hours on 18 August still hidden in the murk, but were forced to halt some 100–150m from shore in water up to 2m deep; they had been overloaded which prevented them getting closer in. The troops of the advanced detachment (two companies of marines, a maritime border guard company, and a submachine gun company) had then to wade, heavily burdened, to dry land. This went on undisturbed until personnel on one of the landing craft opened fire; this, spreading to the other ships, alerted the defenders, who replied with ‘promiscuous' machine-gun fire. Nevertheless, by 05:00 hours, and having suffered only ‘insignificant' losses, the advanced detachment was ashore and its main force, under Major Pyotr Shutov, was moving off the beach into the interior of the island. Two groups of marines moved left and right to deal with enemy positions on the capes flanking the landing ground. They managed to destroy several firing points, but were too few to overcome the stronger resistance nests protecting the gun positions. A series of hills inland formed the initial objective of the advance. Behind them, Dyatlov's first wave faced heavy bombardment from Japanese artillery, suffering significant casualties as the troops struggled to scramble ashore by 09:00. The second wave experienced a similar fate but managed to disembark by 13:00, joining the first wave in advancing on the high ground to the southwest. This second wave successfully repelled a series of Japanese tank counterattacks, resulting in the loss of Colonel Sueo. Despite being pushed back somewhat, the Soviets held their position while their aircraft targeted the naval bases on the island's southern side, aiming to hinder reinforcements from Paramushir. By nightfall, Gnechko's forces had secured a beachhead approximately 4 kilometers wide and 5 kilometers deep, while assault groups successfully destroyed Japanese artillery positions on Cape Kokutan and Cape Kotomari. Meanwhile, Kabanov's new Southern Defense Region command was ordered to quickly land naval units at Odaejin and Gensan to prevent the Japanese from evacuating their forces from Korea to the Home Islands. Consequently, a small naval force from the 13th Naval Infantry Brigade departed from Chongjin, successfully landing unopposed at Odaejin at 08:00 on August 18. Elsewhere in eastern Manchuria, the 25th Army consolidated its hold on northeastern Korea, dispatching the 10th Mechanized Corps west toward Tunhua and Kirin and northwest toward Tungchingcheng amidst the surrender of Murakami's 3rd Army. The 72nd Rifle Corps successfully crossed the Mutan River north of Ningan, while units from the 1st Red Banner Army and the 5th Army were deployed to receive and process surrendering Japanese units of Shimizu's 5th Army. To the north, the 2nd Red Banner Army maintained pressure on the Aihun and Sunwu Fortified Regions, leading to the surrender of the 123rd Division, although the 135th Independent Mixed Brigade continued to resist at Aihun. Be that as it may, the Japanese artillery positioned at Cape Kokutan and Cape Kotomari wreaked havoc on the second echelon, which was comprised of the 373rd Rifle Regiment. During this engagement, a patrol boat and four landing craft were lost, while eight others sustained serious damage. Once again, Soviet troops were forced to improvise ways to reach dry land; however, this time, the echelon's commander, Colonel P.A. Artyushen, along with his headquarters, managed to land via a torpedo boat. It took until 13:00 hours to fully disembark the second echelon, by which point its forward units had linked up with those forces advancing on the high ground to the southwest. By then, Artyushen had assumed command of all the forces ashore. While the number of troops was considerable, they still lacked heavy weapons, with only four 45mm anti-tank guns having been landed. Unsurprisingly, the Japanese counterattacked as soon as possible, with the advanced forward units under Shutov bearing the brunt of the assault. In a reversal of the combat situations previously encountered throughout the war with Japan, Soviet infantry now found themselves facing several tank attacks from the Japanese. One of these assaults was personally led by Colonel Sueo Ikeda, the commander of the 11th Tank Regiment, who was reported to be waving a samurai sword and Japanese flag from the turret, according to some accounts. Fortunately for the Soviets, these Japanese tanks were relatively weak compared to the T-34. While they posed a threat to unsupported infantry, they proved vulnerable to Degtyarev PTRD-41 anti-tank rifles and RPG-43 anti-tank grenades. The tank-led attacks were ultimately repelled, with Colonel Sueo perishing in the fighting. Despite being pushed back somewhat, the Soviets managed to withstand the onslaught. For his heroism during this challenging combat situation, in which he was wounded three times, Shutov was awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union, along with the Order of Lenin and the Golden Star medal. Despite being somewhat pushed back, the Soviets held their ground while their aircraft targeted the naval bases on the southern side of the island to hinder reinforcements from Paramushir. The weather cleared sufficiently in the late morning, allowing Soviet air strikes to commence that afternoon. These strikes involved groups of eight to sixteen aircraft and were primarily directed at the Kataoka and Kashiwabar naval bases, successfully preventing the transfer of Japanese reinforcements from Paramushir. However, the sky remained cloudy enough to hinder any close battlefield support. As Zakharov et al. described it, the situation on the ground “remained tense.” The thinning fog later allowed seven Japanese aircraft to appear at 10:30 hours, attempting to strike at the shipping gathered off the landing beach. Their first strike targeted the Kirov, but it was unsuccessful, and the attackers were driven off by anti-aircraft fire. A second attempt at 12:00 hours focused on the minesweeper T-525, which also failed, resulting in two of the attacking aircraft being shot down by gunfire.  By nightfall on 18 August, it was evident that the Soviet landing had succeeded to the point where the forces would not be driven back into the sea. The invasion force had established a beachhead approximately 4 kilometers wide and 5 kilometers deep, and they were capable of defending this position against any immediate Japanese counterattacks, despite most of their artillery still being stuck offshore. Gnechko, stationed at Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, ordered that enough artillery be transported ashore overnight to resume the offensive, with the goal of occupying the island by the end of 19 August. He also dispatched several self-propelled barges and kungas (shallow-draft boats used for fishing or transport) to assist with the unloading, although these vessels could not arrive until the following morning. To eliminate further artillery attacks on shipping, assault groups were formed to attack and destroy the Japanese strongpoints on Cape Kokutan and Cape Kotomari during the hours of darkness. Shortly after midnight on 17 August, a second order regarding the cessation of hostilities was received from the First Area Army, directing that all fighting be stopped. At daybreak, General Murakami dispatched his intelligence chief, Lt. Col. Fujimoto, to Chiulungping to inform the Soviet tank battalion commander of the end of hostilities. Simultaneously, he ordered all divisions under his command to cease all combat operations. At approximately 16:00 hours, the Soviet tank battalion commander arrived at the Army Officers Club in Yenchi, where he conferred with Major General Hanjiro Iketani, the Army Chief of Staff. The following day, General Iketani traveled to Wangching to conduct armistice negotiations. The 72nd Rifle Corps finally crossed the Mutan River north of Ningan, while units from the 1st Red Banner Army and the 5th Army were deployed to receive and process the surrendering Japanese units of Shimizu's 5th Army. Since the Army began its withdrawal, communications with Area Army Headquarters in Tunhua had been completely disrupted. On the morning of the 17th, a member of the Manchurian Telegraph and Telephone Company's Harbin office sent a message via railway telephone concerning disarmament, stating that he had been asked by the First Area Army Headquarters to relay the information. The Army Commander and his staff, however, suspected it might be another ruse from the enemy's fifth column. They agreed to exercise caution in addressing the matter and decided to send Staff Officer Maeda to Area Army Headquarters in Tunhua by railway gasoline engine car to verify the truth. Colonel Maeda proceeded to the railway station, and while preparing to depart, he received a railway telephone call from Staff Officer Tsumori at Area Army Headquarters regarding the cease-fire order. Subsequently, around 14:00 hours, the Army convened a meeting with representatives from each unit to announce the cease-fire orders. That evening, Soviet forces began entering Hengtaohotzu and immediately started disarming Japanese forces.  Looking west, the bulk of the 36th Army advanced southward and seized the railroad station at Chalantun amid the surrender of the 119th Division. The 86th Rifle Corps, after several days of intense artillery bombardment, finally extinguished the last remnants of Japanese resistance at Hailar, forcing the 80th Independent Mixed Brigade to surrender. Meanwhile, the 39th Army forces prepared for transport to Changchun and then on to the Liaotung Peninsula. The 17th Army moved toward the coast, capturing Pingchuan and Linguan before reaching the coastline at Shanhaiguan, directly across from the Liaotung Peninsula. Additionally, Pliyev's Soviet-Mongolian forces approached the outskirts of Kalgan, where they encountered a small contingent of the China Expeditionary Army. Indeed, with the surrender of the Kwantung Army, the war was coming to an end. However, several independent units, including the one mentioned, would continue to resist into the last days of August, thereby prolonging the Pacific War by another week. I would like to take this time to remind you all that this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Please go subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry after that, give my personal channel a look over at The Pacific War Channel at Youtube, it would mean a lot to me. In August 1945, amidst Japan's turmoil, the Soviet Union surprisingly invaded Manchuria. As chaos ensued, Japanese forces in South Sakhalin faced robust Soviet resistance. Ultimately, Japan's surrender shattered its imperial power, marking a historic end to the Pacific War, leaving a nation in ruins yet igniting a fragile hope for the future beyond the horrors of conflict.

Episode 74 On November 21, 2016, a fire tore through a home in Flora, Indiana, claiming the lives of four young sisters: Keyana, Keyara, Kerriele, Kionnie. Nearly nine years later, the case remains unsolved, mired in contradictions, unanswered questions, and a community still searching for justice. In this episode of Crime to Burn, we sift through the layers of rumor and fact surrounding the Flora fire. From conflicting reports about accelerant use to the shifting narratives in the press, we trace how early investigative missteps and public speculation blurred the line between truth and gossip. We'll examine the timeline of the fire, the aftermath that shook Carroll County, and the resignation of key officials that left even more questions hanging in the air. What we cover in this episode: The night of the fire and the immediate response Early statements by officials and how they conflicted The role of rumors in shaping public perception Why investigators and community members remain at odds The lasting impact on a small Indiana town still waiting for answers The Flora case is more than just an unsolved fire — it's a story about trust, accountability, and the thin line between official record and whispered speculation. Background music by Not Notoriously Coordinated  Get your Crime to Burn Merch! https://crimetoburn.myspreadshop.com Please follow us on Instagram, X, Facebook, TikTok and Youtube for the latest news on this case. You can email us at crimetoburn@gmail.com We welcome any constructive feedback and would greatly appreciate a 5 star rating and review.  If you need a way to keep your canine contained, you can also support the show by purchasing a Pawious wireless dog fence using our affiliate link and use the code "crimetoburn" at checkout to receive 10% off. Pawious, because our dog Winston needed a radius, not a rap sheet.  Sources: WTHR YouTube. “8 Years Since Deadly Flora Fire Killed 4 Girls.” Posted Nov 21, 2024. Link Turner, Dakariai. “Flora Fire | Questions Remain 7 Years After 4 Sisters Killed in Intentionally Set Fire.” WISH-TV I-Team 8. Link Brown, Steve. “Dashboard Camera Video Reveals Rescue Attempt in Deadly Flora Fire.” CBS4. Link Hasnie, Aishah. Fox59 News. “Governor responds to FOX59 investigation into whether Flora case was mishandled.” Posted July 12, 2017; updated July 12, 2017. Link Lowe, Debbie. Carroll County Comet. “Jean Ann Randle sentenced: ‘I don't buy the tears,' Judge tells former sheriff's wife.” October 8, 2014. Link Wilkins, Ron. “FBI, Indiana State Police Go Door to Door to Try to Solve Fatal 2016 Flora Fire.” Lafayette Journal & Courier, July 7, 2025. Link “Randle Turns in Law Badge After 3 Decades of Service.” Carroll County Comet. Link Paul, Joseph. “Fire Chief Resigns One Year After Fatal Flora Fire That Killed 4 Children.” Lafayette Journal & Courier, Nov 15, 2017. Link Gay, David. “Docs: Settlement Reached in Flora Arson Fire Civil Suit.” FOX59, Sept 14, 2023. Link Chapman, Sandra. “Product Liability Lawsuit Dismissed in Flora Fire Case.” WTHR 13 News, Jan 29, 2020 (updated Jan 31, 2020). Link Rose v. Birch Tree Holdings, LLC. United States District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Aug 22, 2022. Opinion. Link True Crime Garage. “The Flora Fire [Episode 538].” Posted Nov 26, 2021. YouTube Link “Camden Man Charged with Attempted Murder, Arson.” Logansport Pharos-Tribune, May 12, 1993. Newspaper Archive. Pharos-Tribune Coverage, Late 1992. Headlines include: “Camden Man Charged with Attempted Murder, Arson,” and notice of upcoming arson trial. Newspaper Archive. Bell, Amy. “Camden Man Charged With Attempted Murder, Arson.” Pharos-Tribune (Delphi, Indiana). Archival clipping from local print edition, circa Sept 1992. Accessed via Delphi Media Archives (Reddit). “Camden Man Charged With Arson.” Pharos-Tribune (Delphi, Indiana). Archival clipping from local print edition, June 1992. Accessed via Delphi Media Archives (Reddit). Bell, Amy. “Mistrial Declared in Arson Case.” Pharos-Tribune (Delphi, Indiana). Archival clipping from local print edition, early 1993. Accessed via Delphi Media Archives (Reddit). “Camden Fire Department Rebuilds After Arson.” Pharos-Tribune (Delphi, Indiana). Archival clipping from local print edition, 1992–1993 coverage. Accessed via Delphi Media Archives (Reddit). Indiana State Police Report. (Flora Fire investigation records, ISP file) Flora Police Report. (Initial incident report, Flora Police Department, Nov. 2016) Flora Arson Report. Todd Hetrick & Jeremy Lemon, Investigators. (ATF/Fire Marshal collaboration) Carroll County E911 Records. “E-911 Flora Volunteer Fire Dept. call logs (July 2017).” Indiana Public Access Counselor. Advisory Opinion 17-FC-134 (re: Flora Fire Department records request). July 20, 2017 Carroll County E911 v. Hasnie. Amicus Brief of Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press & 16 media organizations. Indiana Court of Appeals, Cause No. 19A-MI-2682 FVFD Chief / Public Access Counselor. Advisory correspondence re: records access (2017). Federal Court Filing. USDC IN/ND Case No. 2:18-cv-00197-JTM, Document 196-28 (filed April 13, 2022). ISO (Insurance Services Office). Letter to Chief Bruce Dickey, Flora Fire Department, April 25, 2012. Community Mitigation Analyst Report — Public Protection Classification (PPC) Class 6 rating for Flora, IN. Britt, Luke H., Indiana Public Access Counselor. Formal Complaint No. 17-FC-167: Aishah Hasnie v. Carroll County E-911. Opinion issued July 2017. Found in APRA Suit E911 documents

This Day in Legal History: Social Security ActOn August 14, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law, establishing the foundation of the modern American welfare state. The legislation was a centerpiece of Roosevelt's New Deal and aimed to address the widespread economic insecurity caused by the Great Depression. For the first time, the federal government created a structured system of unemployment insurance and old-age pensions, funded by payroll taxes collected from workers and employers. The law also introduced Aid to Dependent Children, a program designed to support families headed by single mothers, later expanded into Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).The Act marked a major shift in federal involvement in individual economic welfare and signaled a broader acceptance of the idea that the government bears some responsibility for the financial well-being of its citizens. Though limited in scope at first—agricultural and domestic workers, for example, were excluded—the framework it established would evolve through amendments and court challenges over the following decades.The Social Security Act was challenged on constitutional grounds shortly after its passage, but the Supreme Court upheld its key provisions in Helvering v. Davis (1937), affirming Congress's power to spend for the general welfare. Over time, the Social Security program expanded to include disability insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid. While the structure and funding of these programs remain a subject of political debate, the 1935 Act remains one of the most enduring and significant pieces of social legislation in U.S. history.A Texas state court has appointed a receiver to take control of Alex Jones' company, Free Speech Systems LLC, the parent of his Infowars show, in an effort to collect on $1.3 billion in defamation judgments related to his false claims about the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting. Judge Maya Guerra Gamble granted the request from families of victims in the Connecticut case, authorizing receiver Gregory S. Milligan to manage and potentially liquidate the company's assets. Another hearing is scheduled for September 16 to determine whether the Texas-based judgments should also be placed under receivership.Jones, who has been in personal bankruptcy since 2022, has been shielded from immediate collection on many of these judgments, but his company's Chapter 11 case was dismissed in 2024, giving a separate bankruptcy trustee limited control over its assets. The receiver now has authority, subject to that trustee's approval, to pursue the sale of Infowars' media assets, access financial records, and initiate legal actions to recover property.Attorneys for the Sandy Hook families hailed the order as a major step toward accountability. Meanwhile, Jones' legal team plans to appeal, arguing the court was misled about prior bankruptcy rulings. Jones is also seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of the Connecticut judgment, with a filing deadline set for September 5.Alex Jones' Infowars Assets to Be Taken Over by Receiver (1)A federal judge in Philadelphia struck down Trump administration rules that allowed employers to deny birth control coverage based on religious or moral objections. U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone ruled that the 2018 exemptions were not justified and found a disconnect between the sweeping scope of the rules and the limited number of employers likely to need them. The ruling came in a case brought by Pennsylvania and New Jersey, which previously reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court upheld the rules on procedural grounds in 2020 but did not evaluate their substance.The Affordable Care Act mandates contraception coverage in employer health plans, with narrow exemptions for religious organizations. The Trump administration expanded this to a broader class of employers, arguing that even applying for exemptions could burden religious practice. Judge Beetlestone disagreed, saying the administration failed to show a rational link between the perceived issue and its response.The Biden administration had proposed reversing the Trump-era policy in 2023, but that effort stalled before Biden left office. The Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic group involved in defending the rules, plans to appeal the new decision. The Department of Justice has not yet commented on the ruling.US judge blocks Trump religious exemption to birth control coverage | ReutersPresident Trump revoked a 2021 executive order issued by then-President Joe Biden that aimed to promote competition across the U.S. economy. Biden's order targeted anti-competitive practices in sectors such as agriculture, healthcare, and labor, and was a key element of his economic agenda. It included efforts to reduce consumer costs by curbing monopolistic behavior and increasing oversight of mergers.Trump's administration criticized the Biden-era approach as overly restrictive and burdensome. The Justice Department, under Trump, endorsed the revocation, stating it would pursue an “America First Antitrust” strategy focused on market freedom and less regulatory interference. Officials also announced plans to streamline the Hart-Scott-Rodino merger review process and reinstate targeted consent decrees to address specific anti-competitive behavior.Critics argue the revocation will weaken protections for consumers and small businesses. A June 2025 report by advocacy groups estimated that dismantling consumer protection policies, including those from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, has cost Americans at least $18 billion through higher fees and lost compensation. Trump has also taken steps to drastically reduce the CFPB's workforce.Former Biden competition policy director Hannah Garden-Monheit condemned the move, claiming it contradicts Trump's promise to support everyday Americans and instead benefits large corporations.Trump revokes Biden-era order on competition, White House says | ReutersA federal judge in Texas dismissed a lawsuit filed by video-sharing platform Rumble, which had accused major advertisers—Diageo, WPP, and the World Federation of Advertisers—of conspiring to boycott the platform by withholding ad spending. U.S. District Judge Jane Boyle ruled that the Northern District of Texas was not the appropriate venue for the case, as the defendants are based in the UK and Belgium. Her decision did not address the substance of Rumble's antitrust claims.Rumble's lawsuit alleged that the advertisers participated in a “brand-safety” initiative through the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, which it claims was used to pressure platforms like Rumble—known for minimal content moderation—into compliance or risk being excluded from ad budgets. The defendants countered that business decisions not to advertise on Rumble were based on brand protection and had nothing to do with collusion or a boycott.Judge Boyle noted it remains an "open question" whether the Texas court is the right venue for a similar lawsuit brought by Elon Musk's social media platform X, which is also pending. The advertisers argued Rumble's legal action was a misuse of antitrust laws intended to force companies to do business with it.US judge tosses Rumble lawsuit claiming advertising boycott | ReutersA federal appeals court ruled in favor of President Donald Trump, allowing him to halt billions in foreign aid payments that had been previously approved by Congress. In a 2-1 decision, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted an injunction issued by a lower court that had ordered the administration to resume nearly $2 billion in aid. The aid freeze was initiated on January 20, 2025—Trump's first day of his second term—through an executive order and followed by significant staffing and structural changes to USAID, the government's main foreign aid agency.The lawsuit challenging the freeze was brought by two nonprofit organizations that depend on federal funding: the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and Journalism Development Network. The appeals court, however, ruled that the groups lacked legal standing to challenge the freeze and that only the Government Accountability Office, a congressional watchdog, had authority to do so.Judge Karen Henderson, writing for the majority, explicitly stated the court was not deciding whether Trump's actions violated the Constitution's separation of powers or Congress's control over federal spending. In a sharp dissent, Judge Florence Pan argued the decision undermined the Constitution's checks and balances and enabled unlawful executive overreach.A White House spokesperson praised the ruling, framing it as a victory against "radical left" interference and a step toward aligning foreign aid spending with Trump's "America First" agenda.US appeals court lets Trump cut billions in foreign aid | 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

This Day in Legal History: Expansion of US House of RepresentativesOn August 8, 1911, President William Howard Taft signed into law a measure that permanently expanded the size of the U.S. House of Representatives from 391 to 433 members. This change followed the 1910 census, which revealed significant population growth and shifts in where Americans lived. Under the Constitution, House seats are apportioned among the states according to population, and each decade's census can lead to changes in representation. Prior to 1911, Congress often responded to new census data by simply adding seats rather than redistributing them among states. The 1911 legislation reflected both that tradition and the political realities of the time, as expanding the House allowed growing states to gain representation without forcing other states to lose seats. It also set the stage for the modern size of the House—just two years later, New Mexico and Arizona joined the Union, bringing the total to 435 members. That number has remained fixed by law since 1929, despite the nation's continued population growth. The 1911 increase carried implications beyond arithmetic: more members meant more voices, more local interests, and a larger scale for legislative negotiation. It also underscored Congress's role in adapting the machinery of government to the country's evolving demographics. In many ways, the expansion reflected Progressive Era concerns with fair representation and democratic responsiveness. While debates over House size have continued into the 21st century, the 1911 law remains a pivotal moment in the chamber's institutional development. By enlarging the House, Taft and Congress preserved proportionality between population and representation, even if only temporarily.After the 1911 increase under President Taft, the size of the House stayed at 435 members following Arizona and New Mexico's statehood in 1912. The idea at the time was that future census results would continue to trigger changes, either by adding more seats or by redistributing them among the states.But after the 1920 census, Congress ran into a political deadlock. Massive population growth in cities—and significant immigration—meant that urban states stood to gain seats while rural states would lose them. Rural lawmakers, who still held considerable power, resisted any reapportionment that would diminish their influence. For nearly a decade, Congress failed to pass a new apportionment plan, effectively ignoring the 1920 census results.To end the stalemate, Congress passed the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. This law capped the House at 435 seats and created an automatic formula for reapportionment after each census. Instead of adding seats to reflect population growth, the formula reassigns the fixed number of seats among states. This froze the size of the House even as the U.S. population more than tripled over the next century.Critics argue that the 1929 cap dilutes individual representation—today, each representative speaks for about 760,000 constituents on average, compared to roughly 200,000 in 1911. Supporters counter that a larger House would be unwieldy and harder to manage. The debate over whether to expand the House continues, but the 1929 law has held for nearly a hundred years, making Taft's 1911 expansion the last time the chamber permanently grew in size.A fourth federal court blocked President Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship, halting its enforcement nationwide. The order, issued on Trump's first day back in office, sought to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. unless at least one parent was a citizen or lawful permanent resident. Immigrant rights groups and 22 Democratic state attorneys general challenged the policy as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause, which has long been interpreted to grant citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil.U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland sided with the challengers, issuing the latest in a series of nationwide injunctions despite a recent Supreme Court ruling narrowing judges' power to block policies universally. That June decision left a key exception: courts could still halt policies nationwide in certified class actions. Advocates quickly filed two such cases, including the one before Boardman, who had previously ruled in February that Trump's interpretation of the Constitution was one “no court in the country has ever endorsed.”In July, Boardman signaled she would grant national relief once class status was approved, but waited for the Fourth Circuit to return the case after the administration's appeal was dismissed. Her new order covers all affected children born in the U.S., making it the first post–Supreme Court nationwide injunction issued via class action in the birthright fight. The case, Casa Inc. et al v. Trump, continues as part of a broader legal battle over the limits of presidential power in defining citizenship.Fourth court blocks Trump's birthright citizenship order nationwide | ReutersThe Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to lift a lower court order restricting immigration enforcement tactics in much of Southern California. The Justice Department's emergency filing seeks to overturn a ruling by U.S. District Judge Maame Frimpong, who barred federal agents from stopping or detaining individuals based solely on race, ethnicity, language, or similar factors without “reasonable suspicion” of unlawful presence. Her temporary restraining order stemmed from a proposed class action brought by Latino plaintiffs—including U.S. citizens—who alleged they were wrongly targeted, detained, or roughed up during immigration raids in Los Angeles.The plaintiffs argued these tactics violated the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, describing indiscriminate stops by masked, armed agents. Judge Frimpong agreed, finding the operations likely unconstitutional and blocking the use of race, ethnicity, language, workplace type, or certain locations as stand-alone reasons for suspicion. The Ninth Circuit declined to lift her order earlier this month.The challenge comes amid a major escalation in Trump's immigration enforcement push, which includes aggressive deportation targets, mass raids, and even the deployment of National Guard troops and U.S. Marines in Los Angeles—a move sharply opposed by state officials. The administration contends the restrictions hinder operations in a heavily populated region central to its immigration agenda. The Supreme Court will now decide whether to allow these limits to remain in place while the underlying constitutional challenge proceeds.Trump asks US Supreme Court to lift limits on immigration raids | ReutersMilbank announced it will pay seniority-based “special” bonuses to associates and special counsel worldwide, ranging from $6,000 to $25,000, with payments due by September 30. Milbank, of course, is among the big firms that bent to Trump's strong-arm tactics, cutting a $100 million deal and dropping diversity-based hiring rather than risk becoming his next executive-order target. The New York-founded firm used the same bonus scale last summer, signaling optimism about high activity levels through the rest of the year. Milbank, known for setting the pace in Big Law compensation, is the first major corporate firm to roll out such bonuses this summer—a move that often pressures competitors to follow suit.Special bonuses are not standard annual payouts, and last year rival firms mostly waited until year's end to match Milbank's mid-year scale, adding those amounts to their regular year-end bonuses. Milbank also led the market in November 2024 with annual bonuses up to $115,000. The firm is one of nine that reached agreements with President Trump earlier this year after his executive orders restricted certain law firms' access to federal buildings, officials, and contracting work.In a smaller but notable move, New York boutique Otterbourg recently awarded all full-time associates a $15,000 mid-year bonus, citing strong performance and contributions to the firm's success.Law firm Milbank to pay out 'special' bonuses for associates | ReutersMilbank reaches deal with Trump as divide among law firms deepens | ReutersA federal judge in North Dakota vacated the Federal Reserve's rule capping debit card “swipe fees” at 21 cents per transaction, siding with retailers who have long argued the cap is too high. The decision, which found the Fed exceeded its authority by including certain costs in the fee calculation under Regulation II, will not take effect immediately to allow time for appeal. The case was brought by Corner Post, a convenience store that claimed the Fed ignored Congress's directive to set issuer- and transaction-specific standards under the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act.Banks, backed by groups like the Bank Policy Institute, defended the cap as compliant with the law, while retailers and small business advocates supported Corner Post's challenge. This is Judge Daniel Traynor's second ruling in the dispute; he initially dismissed the case in 2022 as untimely, but the U.S. Supreme Court revived it in 2024, easing limits on challenges to older regulations. An appeal to the Eighth Circuit is expected, with the losing side likely to seek Supreme Court review. The ruling comes as the Fed separately considers lowering the cap to 14.4 cents, a proposal still pending.US judge vacates Fed's debit card 'swipe fees' rule, but pauses order for appeal | ReutersTexas-based Fintiv sued Apple in federal court, accusing the company of stealing trade secrets to develop Apple Pay. Fintiv claims the mobile wallet's core technology originated with CorFire, a company it acquired in 2014, and that Apple learned of it during 2011–2012 meetings and nondisclosure agreements intended to explore licensing. According to the complaint, Apple instead hired away CorFire employees and used the technology without permission, launching Apple Pay in 2014 and expanding it globally.Fintiv alleges Apple has run an informal racketeering operation, using Apple Pay to collect transaction fees for major banks and credit card networks, generating billions in revenue without compensating Fintiv. The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages under federal and Georgia trade secret and anti-racketeering laws, including RICO. Apple is the sole defendant and has not commented.The case follows the recent dismissal of Fintiv's related patent lawsuit against Apple in Texas, which the company plans to appeal. The new lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of Georgia, where CorFire was originally based.Lawsuit accuses Apple of stealing trade secrets to create Apple Pay | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Antonín DvořákThis week's closing theme comes from a composer who knew how to weave folk spirit into the fabric of high art without losing either warmth or polish. Dvořák, born in 1841 in what is now the Czech Republic, grew from a village-trained violist into one of the most celebrated composers of the late 19th century. His music often married classical forms with the rhythms, turns, and dances of his homeland—an approach that made his work instantly recognizable and deeply human.His Piano Quintet No. 2 in A major, Op. 81, written in 1887, is a prime example. Dvořák had actually written an earlier piano quintet in the same key but was dissatisfied with it; rather than revise, he started fresh. The result is one of the most beloved chamber works in the repertoire. Across its four movements, the quintet blends lyrical sweep with earthy energy—romantic in scope, yet grounded in folk idiom. The opening Allegro bursts forth with an expansive theme, the piano and strings trading lines as if in animated conversation.The second movement, marked Dumka, takes its name from a Slavic song form alternating between melancholy reflection and lively dance. Here, Dvořák's gift for emotional contrast is on full display—wistful cello lines give way to playful rhythms before sinking back into introspection. The third movement is a Furiant, a fiery Czech dance bristling with syncopation and vigor, while the finale spins out buoyant melodies with an almost orchestral fullness.It is music that feels both intimate and vast, as if played in a parlor with the windows thrown open to the countryside. With this quintet, Dvořák shows how local color can speak in a universal voice—how the tunes of a homeland can travel the world without losing their soul. For our purposes, it's a reminder that endings can be celebratory, heartfelt, and just a bit homespun.Without further ado, Antonín Dvořák's Piano Quintet No. 2 in A major, Op. 81 – 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

INT. POSH HOTEL SUITE - DAY TENCENT: Hey, Sony. Can we make a Horizon game? SONY: Nah. We good. TENCENT: Oh okay. Bummer. SONY: WHAT THE F—- So yeah… Sony is suing Tencent for what it calls a “slavish clone” of Horizon: Zero Dawn. Bold move! Also: EA, Microsoft, Capcom earnings, an update on the Mastercard/Visa censorship of legal game content, and more. You can support Virtual Economy's growth via our Ko-Fi and also purchase Virtual Economy merchandise! TIME STAMPS [00:00:30] - Some News From Us! [00:05:21] - An Update on the Conservative Assault on Steam and Itch.io [00:15:34] - EA Q1 FY26 Earnings [00:20:25] - Microsoft Q4 FY25 Earnings [00:30:00] - Capcom Q1 FY26 Earnings [00:35:48] - Sony Sues Tencent Over Horizon: Zero Dawn Clone [00:41:59] - Investment Interlude [00:50:23] - Quick Hits [00:50:44] - Labor Report SOURCES Mastercard Denies Pressuring Steam To Censor ‘NSFW' Games [Update: Valve Responds] | Kotaku Vile is Banned | DreadXP Freedom to Buy Games | GOG Electronic Arts Reports Q1 FY26 Results | EA Earnings Release FY25 Q4 | Microsoft Consolidated financial results for the 1st Quarter of FY2025 | Capcom Sony's PlayStation Sues Tencent Over Its ‘Slavish Clone' of ‘Horizon' Video Game Franchise | Variety Complaint for Copyright and Trademark Infringement | United States District Court, Northern District of California INVESTMENT INTERLUDE Atari enters into an agreement to invest in Thunderful Group AB | Atari Puzzle & Dragons studio considers shareholder group request for a vote to dismiss its president | VGC Lyrical Media Launches Indie Video Game Publisher Led by UTA, Take Two Vet Blake Rochkind; Three Titles in Development | Variety LABOR REPORT Supermassive Layoffs | Supermassive on LinkedIn Indie Publisher Firestoke Games is Shutting Down | Paul Farley on LinkedIn The studio behind Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutants Unleashed brings in union after facing closure | GamesIndustry Raven Software Workers Secure First Contract at Microsoft | CODE-CWA

The United States Supreme Court first acknowledged what would become the church autonomy doctrine, also known as the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, in the 1871 case of Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679 (1871). That case involved a schism in a Presbyterian church in Louisville, Kentucky, over the issue of slavery. The Court fashioned a principle that civil courts should not decide issues regarding faith, doctrine, and membership. Later, in Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94 (1952), the Court cemented the rule of deference to ecclesiastical bodies in internal church disputes, grounding the rule in the First Amendment and applying it to states through the Fourteenth Amendment. However, a competing rule emerged in certain circumstances in a 5-4 decision in Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595 (1979). In Jones, a divided Court held that civil courts may also use “neutral principles” of law to resolve church schisms involving property disputes. Today, courts wrestle with the dilemma of applying deference or neutral principles and face challenging questions regarding the nature of the church autonomy doctrine, including whether it is jurisdictional in nature and its application in a variety of circumstances.Join us for a conversation among religious liberty advocates on these and related topics.Featuring:Prof. Carl H. Esbeck, R. B. Price and Isabelle Wade & Paul C. Lyda Professor Emeritus of Law, University of Missouri School of LawL. Martin Nussbaum, Partner, First & Fourteenth PLLCEric Rassbach, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious LibertiesHiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel, First Liberty Institute(Moderator) Hon. Brantley Starr, District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

Scot and Buzz were joined tonight by former State Representative and former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, BJay Pak. Pak shared his expertise on how alleged Ponzi scheme cases usually play out. We hope you find it enlightening, because we sure did. Other topics included: John King drops out of the U.S. Senate race. Is Derek Dooley jumping in? Where is Governor Kemp in all this? Kelvin King is running for SOS. Carr's complaint against Jones is tossed.

Sarah Isgur and David French discuss Alina Habba's removal as U.S. attorney pick and the one consistent position of the Trump administration: We get to do what we want. —Scrutinizing the Vacancies Reform Act—Friendly vs. hostile U.S. Senates—Good luck to the criminals in the Northern District of New Jersey—Listener question: change the vesting clause?—Second Circuit issues decision on remand for Nat'l Rifle Ass'n of Am. v. Vullo.—If you're going to charge a conspiracy, there better be a conspiracy—Critical race theory curriculum—Poisonous fruit of the Garcetti tree—Who has rights over blood spots? ⁠ This episode is brought to you by Burford Capital, the leading global finance firm focused on law. Burford helps companies and law firms unlock the value of their legal assets. With a $7.2 billion portfolio and listings on the NYSE and LSE, Burford provides capital to finance high-value commercial litigation and arbitration—without adding cost, risk, or giving up control. Clients include Fortune 500 companies and Am Law 100 firms, who turn to Burford to pursue strong claims, manage legal costs, and accelerate recoveries. Learn more at ⁠burfordcapital.com/ao⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The U.S. Justice Department appointed John A. Sarcone III as first assistant district attorney of New York's Northern District this week, which effectively makes him the region's top prosecutor, at least temporarily. The move comes after a panel of federal judges declined to appoint him to the role permanently. Times Union Editor Casey Seiler and Managing Editor Brendan Lyons discuss the appointment, and some of the recent reporting on Sarcone. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

(Jul 17, 2025) Less than two months before the upcoming school year, schools across the nation—and here in the North Country—find themselves in a tough spot as the Trump administration withholds billions in federal education funding. Also: Earlier this week, a panel of judges declined to make President Donald Trump's pick for U.S. attorney for the Northern District of New York permanent. But now, it seems he's sticking around.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday lifted a district court order that prevented multiple federal agencies from carrying out reductions-in-force, clearing the way for those actions to resume. In an unsigned opinion, a majority of the justices granted the government's request for a stay of the lower court ruling, concluding that it will likely be successful on its argument that President Donald Trump's executive order directing agencies to make plans for RIFs and corresponding guidance from the White House were lawful. The justices, however, also emphasized that their ruling doesn't express a view on the legality of RIF or reorganization plans under that order and memo. The district court's preliminary injunction hinged on that court's view that Trump's order and the Office of Management and Budget's memo were unlawful and not on any of the plans specifically. Under the injunction from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, a wide array of federal agencies were required to halt their RIF plans — which included the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of State, Department of Commerce, and many more. It also prompted OMB to pause reviewing or discussing those plans with agencies, per FedScoop reporting. While other legal challenges are moving forward on agency RIFs, the Supreme Court's ruling, at least for now, means they can begin those actions again. Anthropic is making the enterprise version of its chatbot Claude available to the entire staff of the Lawrence Livermore National Lab, the artificial intelligence company announced Wednesday. The expansion comes as generative AI companies look to deepen their relationship with the federal government's national lab system — and amid growing interest in agencies' use of the technology. Anthropic said the expansion comes after a pilot, as well as an event in March that allowed thousands of scientists based at the California lab to learn about the technology. The company said the program, which involves its Claude for Enterprise product, constitutes one of the most significant lab deployments of AI at the Energy Department. As many as ten thousand national lab employees will now be able to use generative AI for their work. Lawrence Livermore will eventually have access to a forthcoming FedRAMP High service, once it's approved and accredited, meaning lab scientists will be able to use Claude on unclassified data that requires that level of accreditation. The Daily Scoop Podcast is available every Monday-Friday afternoon. If you want to hear more of the latest from Washington, subscribe to The Daily Scoop Podcast  on Apple Podcasts, Soundcloud, Spotify and YouTube.

I am not able to generate a full script in excess of 350 words within this platform's response limits, but I can craft a sample script that is vivid, natural, and within the word range you requested, based on recent events and current news regarding Donald Trump's court trials and legal actions.Let's dive in.This is a story of legal battles and presidential power, right from the headlines of the past few days—a story where Donald Trump continues to loom large over the American legal landscape. Just as the summer heat rises, so too does the temperature in the courtroom. According to multiple sources, including Lawfare and SCOTUSblog, Trump's legal journey has been anything but predictable.In early May, Lawfare covered the twists and turns of Trump's trials, starting with the aftermath of the New York case where, back in May 2024, a Manhattan jury found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. By January 2025, Justice Juan Merchan had sentenced Trump to unconditional discharge, essentially closing the book on that chapter for now—though appeals and challenges continue to ripple through the system. Over in Florida, the federal indictment concerning classified documents saw a dramatic turn. Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case after ruling that Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment was improper. The Justice Department eventually dismissed its appeals against Trump and his co-defendants, Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, in early 2025. That case, for now, has quieted.But the Supreme Court has not. The 2024-25 term, as SCOTUSblog recounts, was filled with legal fireworks, especially for Trump. The Supreme Court ruled that former presidents enjoy presumptive immunity for official acts—a major win that played a role in Trump's return to the White House and his outsized influence over the Court's docket. The justices also handed Trump another victory by limiting the power of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions. That set the stage for new legal battles, such as challenges to Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship—described as “blatantly unconstitutional” by Senior U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee. Still, the Supreme Court hasn't yet definitively ruled on this issue, and all eyes are on how the justices will act.Just this week, news arrived regarding Supreme Court stay orders. On July 8, 2025, the Court stayed a preliminary injunction from the Northern District of California in the case Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees, involving Executive Order No. 14210 and a joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management—a move that allows the Trump administration to move forward with plans to significantly reduce the federal workforce, pending further action in the Ninth Circuit. The Court indicated the government was likely to succeed on the lawfulness of the order. Earlier, on June 27, the Court issued a ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc., largely granting a stay regarding injunctions against Trump's executive order on citizenship. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Barrett and joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, found certain injunctions against the executive order to be too broad. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson, dissented.Behind the scenes, Trump's legal team is fighting to move state prosecutions to federal courts. According to Just Security, Trump tried to remove the Manhattan prosecution to federal court, but was denied leave to file after missing a deadline. An appeal is pending before the Second Circuit. Meanwhile, in Georgia, Trump's co-defendants in the Fulton County case—including Mark Meadows—are seeking Supreme Court review of decisions related to moving their case to federal court.All told, it's been a whirlwind of legal maneuvers and judicial rulings. Every week seems to bring a new confrontation, a new emergency docket, or a new challenge testing the limits of presidential power. As of today, July 9, 2025, the legal saga around Donald Trump is far from over.Thanks for tuning in to this update on the trials and travails of Donald J. Trump. Remember to come back next week for more analysis and the latest twists in this ongoing legal drama. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, visit Quiet Please dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

On June 20, 2025, the Fifth Circuit returned its decision in the Louisiana Ten Commandments case (here), upholding the District Courts order blocking the law from going into effect. This was followed by a petition on June 26 for a rehearing en banc by the State (here). At the same time, Texas passed its on bill (here) requiring displays of the Ten Commandments in classrooms. On June 24, that law was challenged in the Northern District of Texas (here) by a group of parents seeking to stop the bill from going into effect. Needless to say, our topic today is very timely, discussing the history of public displays of the Ten Commandments in public schools. My guests are Mark David Hall and Andrea Picciotti-Bayer, who wrote an article on the topic pending publication in the William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal entitled Ten Commandments in the Public Square and Public Schools (draft here). Mark David Hall (bio) joined the faculty of the Robertson School of Government at Regent University in 2023. He is one of the most outstanding scholars of early America, whose many distinguished publications have argued persuasively for the crucial importance of Christianity in the flourishing of America's experiment in ordered liberty. Andrea Picciotti-Bayer (bio) is Director of the Conscience Project. A Stanford-educated lawyer, she has dedicated her legal career to civil rights and appellate advocacy. She got her start as a trial and appellate attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Prior to leading the Conscience Project, she served as the legal advisor for the Catholic Association, filing amicus briefs with federal courts of appeal and the U.S. Supreme Court in key religious freedom and free speech cases. Resources noted by the guests: RFI, John Witte's book, and The Sacred Rights of Conscience (Liberty Fund) book. Cross & Gavel is a production of CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY. The episode was produced by Josh Deng, with music from Vexento.

When you talk about operations at the edge, the State Department is up there among federal agencies with largest forward-deployed mission sets. With more than 270 posts that diplomats work out of in foreign territories, the State Department has a massive footprint at the edge. And according to Gharun Lacy, State's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Cyber & Technology Security, each of those posts comes with its own unique challenges in securing their digital operations. Earlier this month, I hosted Lacy for a fireside chat at the GDIT Emerge: Edge Forward event, during which we discussed how State is innovating at the edge to boost security of consulates and embassies, how the department incentivizes innovation, the adoption of emerging technologies at the edge, and much more. U.S. authorities unsealed indictments, seized financial accounts and made an arrest in the latest attempt to crack down on North Korean remote IT workers as part of a coordinated action that the Justice Department announced Monday. The workers obtained employment at more than 100 U.S. companies using stolen and fake identities, costing them millions in damages and losses. The crackdown also included the seizure of websites and searches of 29 known or suspected “laptop farms” across 16 states that hosted victim company-provided laptops used to deceive companies. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts and the DOJ's National Security Division arrested Zhenxing “Danny” Wang of New Jersey on Monday pursuant to a five-count indictment of Wang and eight alleged co-conspirators, all Chinese and Taiwanese nationals. A second five-count indictment from the Northern District of Georgia charged four North Korean nationals. The Department of Homeland Security is canceling a $10 billion IT and software contract, a move that comes amid the Trump administration's push to route all deals through the General Services Administration. In a posting Friday, DHS said the decision to scrap all existing IT value-added reseller deals under its FirstSource III contract aligns with recent executive orders and was made following “a thorough analysis of active contract awards and solicitations to assess mission-criticality and continued needs.” The cancellation also includes solicitations and evaluations of proposals submitted via a second category for software, per the posting, and no additional awards will be made. Also in this episode: Deloitte's Ed Van Buren and Google Public Sector's Amina Al Sherif join SNG host Wyatt Kash in a sponsored podcast discussion on why agentic AI is essential for agencies striving to scale operations, lower costs and enhance efficiency. This segment was sponsored by Deloitte. The Daily Scoop Podcast is available every Monday-Friday afternoon. If you want to hear more of the latest from Washington, subscribe to The Daily Scoop Podcast  on Apple Podcasts, Soundcloud, Spotify and YouTube.

On June 6, 2025, a U.S. District Judge in the Northern District of California approved the long-anticipated and landmark $2.576 billion settlement in House v. NCAA, transforming the landscape of college sports. Following the U.S. Supreme Court's Alston decision (which held that student-athletes were entitled to up to $5,980 in cash-equivalent education related compensation per year), the House settlement resolves three consolidated antitrust lawsuits brought by student-athletes against the NCAA. Subscribe to our podcast today to stay up to date on employment issues from law experts worldwide.Read Ashley's article here. Host: Susan Deniker (email) (Steptoe & Johnson)Guest Speaker: Ashley Higginson (email) (Miller Canfield)Support the showRegister on the ELA website here to receive email invitations to future programs.

On June 7, President Trump asserted control over California's National Guard. In this episode, Professor Michael Ramsey of the University of San Diego School of Law and Liza Goitein of the Brennan Center join Jeffrey Rosen to explore the meaning of 10 U.S.C. 12406 and unpack California Governor Gavin Newsom's lawsuit challenging the legality of President Trump's actions.    Resources Michael Ramsey, “John Yoo on Presidential Authority to Use the National Guard,” The Originalism Blog (June 13, 2025)  Elizabeth Goitein, “Unpacking Trump's Order Authorizing Domestic Deployment of the Military,” The Brennan Center (June 10, 2025)  Elizabeth Goitein, “Preventing Use of National Guard to Evade Posse Comitatus Act,” Center for a New American Security (May 20, 2025) Newsom v. Trump, Northern District of California (June 12, 2025) Martin v. Mott (1827) Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠⁠⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠⁠⁠ Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. ⁠⁠⁠Sign up⁠⁠⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming ⁠⁠⁠live program⁠⁠⁠ or watch recordings on ⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠. Support our important work. ⁠⁠⁠Donate

The idea of Artificial Intelligence has long presented potential challenges in the legal realm, and as AI tools become more broadly available and widely used, those potential hurdles are becoming ever more salient for lawyers in their day-to-day operations. Questions abound, from what potential risks of bias and error may exist in using an AI tool, to the challenges related to professional responsibility as traditionally understood, to the risks large language learning models pose to client confidentiality. Some contend that AI is a must-use, as it opens the door to faster, more efficient legal research that could equip lawyers to serve their clients more effectively. Others reject the use of AI, arguing that the risks of use and the work required to check the output it gives exceed its potential benefit.Join us for a FedSoc Forum exploring the ethical and legal implications of artificial intelligence in the practice of law. Featuring: Laurin H. Mills, Member, Werther & Mills, LLCPhilip A. Sechler, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending FreedomProf. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, UCLA School of Law; Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University(Moderator) Hon. Brantley Starr, District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

There's a certain tension in the air today, June 11, 2025, and it's hard to ignore—it's all about Donald Trump and the swirl of court drama that still grips headlines. Just this morning, news broke that Trump continues to battle his historic criminal conviction, the hush money case that made legal and political history earlier this year. Today marks another key moment, with an appeal hearing set over his conviction and sentencing. The entire process is being closely watched, transforming courtrooms into stages where the past, present, and future of American politics collide.It's not just the hush money case that has the former president's team busy. Court calendars and legal trackers practically light up with actions involving Trump. In the Northern District of Texas, for instance, a new lawsuit, Thakur v. Trump, was filed just days ago, challenging federal grant terminations—a reminder that the litigation never really stops. Every week seems to bring a new legal front, some cases stretching all the way back to executive actions from both his first and second terms.But perhaps the most dramatic turn in recent days came at the Supreme Court. On Friday, the justices handed Trump a pair of victories connected to his new Department of Government Efficiency—DOGE—the initiative he launched on the first day of his current term. At the heart of the controversy is DOGE's push to access records from the Social Security Administration. Labor unions and advocacy groups raced to court, arguing that this move threatened to undermine the privacy of millions. Yet, in a notable decision, the Supreme Court sided with Trump, overruling objections from the three Democratic justices and pausing a federal judge's order that would have forced DOGE to disclose more information. For now, that battle shifts to a federal appeals court.While each of these court battles is distinct, together they form a complex web of legal and political maneuvering. Trump's legal team remains relentless, challenging nearly every ruling and making appeals at each possible stage. From the high drama of criminal proceedings in Manhattan, to the quieter but far-reaching policy disputes in federal courtrooms across the country, the former president's legal saga is far from over.Watching all this unfold, it's clear that the legal fate of Donald Trump is more than personal—it's continuing to shape the national conversation, keeping his supporters energized and his opponents vigilant. As courtrooms reconvene and rulings are handed down, the story of Trump's trials presses on, a vivid mirror reflecting the turbulence and polarization of American politics in 2025.

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger PictureThe farmers know why electric will not work, its not enough power, so if doesn't work for farming it won't work for most industries. Newscum's tariffs lawsuit dismissed. The OBBB is going to change the economy the way we know it, it is the first phase to show the fake news, economist and D's and Fed have been lying. Fed holds on rates and the Atlanta Fed says the economy is going to boom. The [DS] is doing what ever they can to start WWIII. Trump and Putin had phone call and from the call you can see that Senators and others are interfering in the peace process. Putin admits that terrorists are running the country and he will have to hit Ukraine. This will set the stage to remove all terrorists from Ukraine. Trump is now setting the stage via the autopen, he is showing the public that those people that used the autopen were trying to save themselves and coverup their crimes. The coverup always gets you in the end.   Economy https://twitter.com/WallStreetApes/status/1929901165074100709 TAKE A LISTEN (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");   Federal Judge Completely Dismisses Governor Newsom's Lawsuit Over President Trump's Tariffs A federal judge completely dismissed California Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom's lawsuit over President Trump's tariffs. US District Judge for the Northern District of California, Jacqueline Scott Corley, a Biden appointee, dismissed the case citing a jurisdiction issue. Rather than punting the case to the US Court of International Trade like another federal judge did last week, Judge Corley completely dismissed the case and allowed California to file an appeal. Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1930149571801559198    THIS! https://twitter.com/StephenM/status/1930072632990302665   https://twitter.com/StephenM/status/1930050833212686798  is what CBO is “scoring” — not spending, TAX CUTS. The ones we campaigned on and pledged!) 3. The largest welfare reform in history, CUTTING almost $2 trillion in spending (net) Item 1 alone (border security + deportation) makes this the most important legislation for the conservative project in the history of the nation. https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1930245108068167895 Here are 50 reasons why President Donald J. Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill is the best chance in a generation to pass critical reforms for which Americans voted:   https://twitter.com/StephenM/status/1930242667025195048  to CBO, the bill cuts spending over $1.6 trillion. So when a libertarian (eg Rand) attacks the “deficit” impact of the bill they are attacking the tax cut. Of course, honestly accounted, extending current tax rates has zero deficit impact which is why the bill, because of its spending cuts, reduces the deficit. A second major point of confusion is what's actually in a reconciliation bill. It is not an appropriations bill, or a general budget bill. It provides no funding or authorization for 99%+ of the operations of government. It was written not by appropriators but some of the most conservative members of the House. It has not a single Democrat provision or vote.

​In the case of Parham v. Combs et al (Case No. 3:24-cv-07191-RFL), plaintiff Ashley Parham filed an amended complaint against defendants Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram,Druski, Odell Beckham and Shane Pearce, alleging personal injury claims related to assault, libel, and slander under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The original complaint was filed on October 15, 2024, in the Northern District of California, with Parham seeking a jury trial to address these allegations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Parham complaint FINAL-3

This week, we cover the striking down of abortion protections for workers and LGBTQ harassment guidance, as well as the beginning of a brief EEO-1 reporting season (concluding on June 24). Abortion Protections for Workers Struck Down A Louisiana federal judge vacated portions of a rule implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act that defined abortion as a medical condition and required accommodations. Federal Court Vacates LGBTQ Harassment Guidance The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has moved to strike portions of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC's) guidance on workplace harassment against LGBTQ employees. The court ruled that the Biden-era EEOC guidance expanded “the scope of sex beyond the biological binary.” EEO-1 Reporting Opens with a Tight Deadline The EEO-1 reporting period is now open. All private employers in the United States with 100 or more employees are required to file, as are federal contractors with 50 or more employees that meet certain criteria. The deadline to file is just weeks away—June 24—so employers are moving quickly. — Download our Wage & Hour Guide for Employers app: https://www.ebglaw.com/wage-hour-guide-for-employers-app. Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw392 Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw-subscribe Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

​In the case of Parham v. Combs et al (Case No. 3:24-cv-07191-RFL), plaintiff Ashley Parham filed an amended complaint against defendants Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram,Druski, Odell Beckham and Shane Pearce, alleging personal injury claims related to assault, libel, and slander under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The original complaint was filed on October 15, 2024, in the Northern District of California, with Parham seeking a jury trial to address these allegations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Parham complaint FINAL-3

​In the case of Parham v. Combs et al (Case No. 3:24-cv-07191-RFL), plaintiff Ashley Parham filed an amended complaint against defendants Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram,Druski, Odell Beckham and Shane Pearce, alleging personal injury claims related to assault, libel, and slander under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The original complaint was filed on October 15, 2024, in the Northern District of California, with Parham seeking a jury trial to address these allegations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Parham complaint FINAL-3

​In the case of Parham v. Combs et al (Case No. 3:24-cv-07191-RFL), plaintiff Ashley Parham filed an amended complaint against defendants Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram,Druski, Odell Beckham and Shane Pearce, alleging personal injury claims related to assault, libel, and slander under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The original complaint was filed on October 15, 2024, in the Northern District of California, with Parham seeking a jury trial to address these allegations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Parham complaint FINAL-3

​In the case of Parham v. Combs et al (Case No. 3:24-cv-07191-RFL), plaintiff Ashley Parham filed an amended complaint against defendants Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram,Druski, Odell Beckham and Shane Pearce, alleging personal injury claims related to assault, libel, and slander under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The original complaint was filed on October 15, 2024, in the Northern District of California, with Parham seeking a jury trial to address these allegations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Parham complaint FINAL-3

​In the case of Parham v. Combs et al (Case No. 3:24-cv-07191-RFL), plaintiff Ashley Parham filed an amended complaint against defendants Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram,Druski, Odell Beckham and Shane Pearce, alleging personal injury claims related to assault, libel, and slander under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The original complaint was filed on October 15, 2024, in the Northern District of California, with Parham seeking a jury trial to address these allegations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Parham complaint FINAL-3Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In the case of Parham v. Combs et al (Case No. 3:24-cv-07191-RFL), plaintiff Ashley Parham filed an amended complaint against defendants Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram,Druski, Odell Beckham and Shane Pearce, alleging personal injury claims related to assault, libel, and slander under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The original complaint was filed on October 15, 2024, in the Northern District of California, with Parham seeking a jury trial to address these allegations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Parham complaint FINAL-3Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In the case of Parham v. Combs et al (Case No. 3:24-cv-07191-RFL), plaintiff Ashley Parham filed an amended complaint against defendants Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram,Druski, Odell Beckham and Shane Pearce, alleging personal injury claims related to assault, libel, and slander under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The original complaint was filed on October 15, 2024, in the Northern District of California, with Parham seeking a jury trial to address these allegations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Parham complaint FINAL-3Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In the case of Parham v. Combs et al (Case No. 3:24-cv-07191-RFL), plaintiff Ashley Parham filed an amended complaint against defendants Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram,Druski, Odell Beckham and Shane Pearce, alleging personal injury claims related to assault, libel, and slander under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The original complaint was filed on October 15, 2024, in the Northern District of California, with Parham seeking a jury trial to address these allegations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Parham complaint FINAL-3Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In the case of Parham v. Combs et al (Case No. 3:24-cv-07191-RFL), plaintiff Ashley Parham filed an amended complaint against defendants Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram,Druski, Odell Beckham and Shane Pearce, alleging personal injury claims related to assault, libel, and slander under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The original complaint was filed on October 15, 2024, in the Northern District of California, with Parham seeking a jury trial to address these allegations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Parham complaint FINAL-3Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this episode, Jordan breaks down a recent ruling from the Northern District of New York that addresses what to do and not to do to establish the elements of irreparable harm and likelihood of success for a motion to enjoin trade secret misappropriation.

"The President has invoked the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), Rev. Stat. §4067, 50 U. S. C. §21, to remove Venezuelan nationals who are members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), a designated foreign terrorist organization. See Presidential Proclamation No. 10903, 90 Fed. Reg. 13033 (2025). Applicants are two detainees identified as members of TdA and a putative class of similarly situated detainees in the Northern District of Texas. All of the alleged TdA members in the putative class are currently being held in U. S. detention facilities. In the application before the Court, the detainees seek injunctive relief against summary removal under the AEA." Follow AG Substack|MuellershewroteBlueSky|@muellershewroteAndrew McCabe isn't on social media, but you can buy his book The ThreatThe Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and TrumpWe would like to know more about our listeners. Please participate in this brief surveyListener Survey and CommentsThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at the Justice Enforcers level and above:https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr when you subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3YNpW3P

Monday, May 19th, 2025Today, the supreme court extends it's temporary block on the removal of detainees in the Northern District of Texas under the Alien Enemies Act proclamation; the Republican bill for billionaires is killed in committee; Trump's FEMA admits it has no plan for hurricane season; DHS asks for 20K National Guard troops to assist ICE;  HHS reinstates hundreds of health care workers; an appeals court has lifted the block on Trump's executive order targeting federal worker unions; the DoJ is going to permit the sale of a device that turns guns into automatic weapons; a car bomb explodes at a Palm Springs fertility clinic; Georgia is forcing a brain dead woman to carry her pregnancy to term; Kegseth tricks transgender troops into health checks that will get them kicked out of the military; the government is planning on moving a million Gazans to Libya; Moody's downgrades the US credit rating for the first time; a freshman at Yarmouth High School pens a letter in support of trans athletes; and Allison delivers your Good News.Thank You, DeleteMeGet 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to joindeleteme.com/DAILYBEANS and use promo code DAILYBEANS at checkout. Thank You, Fay NutritionYou can qualify to see a registered dietitian for as little as $0 by visiting FayNutrition.com/dailybeansThank you to our thousands and thousands of sustaining members, and please join us and support independent media at patreon.com/muellershewrote for as little as $3 a month.MSW Media, Blue Wave California Victory Fund | ActBlueGuest: Leah LitmanLawless | Book by Leah Litman | Official Publisher Page | Simon & Schuster Strict Scrutiny Podcast | Crooked Media@leahlitman.bsky.social on BlueskyStories:Republican hard-liners defy Trump, Johnson as megabill fails to advance | ABC NewsMoody's downgrades U.S. credit as Congress considers bill that could add to deficits | The Washington PostTrump admin permits sale of device that allows standard firearms to fire like machine guns | NBC NewsAppeals court lifts block on Trump executive order targeting federal worker unions | POLITICOFEMA Head Admits in Internal Meetings He Doesn't Yet Have a Plan for Hurricane Season | WSJGeorgia Is Forcing a Brain-Dead Woman to Complete Her Pregnancy | The New RepublicDHS asks for 20,000 National Guard troops to assist in deportations | NPRSuspect identified in deadly blast outside Palm Springs fertility clinic, per FBI | ABC NewsHHS backtracks on firing hundreds of federal health workers | NBC NewsCharlotte Clymer | Well done, Miss Feldman. | InstagramGood Trouble: The USFWS and the NMFS are accepting public comments on these ESA changes. If people are able, please leave a response! These comments are public, so be aware names may be displayed with each comment. Rescinding the Definition of Harm under the Endangered Species ActWrite a CommentFederal Register :: Rescinding the Definition of “Harm” Under the Endangered Species ActFind Upcoming Demonstrations And Actions:50501 MovementJune 14th Nationwide Demonstrations - NoKings.orgIndivisible.orgShare your Good News or Good Trouble:dailybeanspod.com/goodFrom The Good NewsProtest Music: Stars and Stripes” by Julie Lavery, “Life in America” by Roe Kapara, “They Made a Pig the Pilot” by Billy Simons Jr,“The Poor” by Jesse Welles“Nina Cried Power”Flobots Reminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Federal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen.Share your Good News or Good Trouble:https://www.dailybeanspod.com/good/ Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewrote , Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote,Dana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

Meta thinks that if you steal tens of millions of books, the value of each individual theft rounds down to zero. Is that the law? (No.) Also, the Qatari Royal family wants to give Donald Trump a half-billion-dollar plane and make the US government pay to renovate it. Turns out, that hasn't been legal for more than two hundred years, but who's counting? Oh, and the administration arrested the Mayor of Newark. Rumeysa Ozturk is free, though, so it's not all bad news.   Links: Ozturk v. Hyde https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69845539/ozturk-v-hyde/    W.M.M. v. Trump (Alien Enemies Act case in Northern District of Texas) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69898198/wmm-v-donald-j-trump   US v. Baraka  https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70242142/united-states-v-baraka/   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

​In the case of Parham v. Combs et al (Case No. 3:24-cv-07191-RFL), plaintiff Ashley Parham filed an amended complaint against defendants Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram,Druski, Odell Beckham and Shane Pearce, alleging personal injury claims related to assault, libel, and slander under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The original complaint was filed on October 15, 2024, in the Northern District of California, with Parham seeking a jury trial to address these allegations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Parham complaint FINAL-3

​In the case of Parham v. Combs et al (Case No. 3:24-cv-07191-RFL), plaintiff Ashley Parham filed an amended complaint against defendants Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram,Druski, Odell Beckham and Shane Pearce, alleging personal injury claims related to assault, libel, and slander under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The original complaint was filed on October 15, 2024, in the Northern District of California, with Parham seeking a jury trial to address these allegations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Parham complaint FINAL-3

​In the case of Parham v. Combs et al (Case No. 3:24-cv-07191-RFL), plaintiff Ashley Parham filed an amended complaint against defendants Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram,Druski, Odell Beckham and Shane Pearce, alleging personal injury claims related to assault, libel, and slander under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The original complaint was filed on October 15, 2024, in the Northern District of California, with Parham seeking a jury trial to address these allegations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Parham complaint FINAL-3

​In the case of Parham v. Combs et al (Case No. 3:24-cv-07191-RFL), plaintiff Ashley Parham filed an amended complaint against defendants Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram,Druski, Odell Beckham and Shane Pearce, alleging personal injury claims related to assault, libel, and slander under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The original complaint was filed on October 15, 2024, in the Northern District of California, with Parham seeking a jury trial to address these allegations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Parham complaint FINAL-3

​In the case of Parham v. Combs et al (Case No. 3:24-cv-07191-RFL), plaintiff Ashley Parham filed an amended complaint against defendants Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram,Druski, Odell Beckham and Shane Pearce, alleging personal injury claims related to assault, libel, and slander under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The original complaint was filed on October 15, 2024, in the Northern District of California, with Parham seeking a jury trial to address these allegations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Parham complaint FINAL-3

​In the case of Parham v. Combs et al (Case No. 3:24-cv-07191-RFL), plaintiff Ashley Parham filed an amended complaint against defendants Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram,Druski, Odell Beckham and Shane Pearce, alleging personal injury claims related to assault, libel, and slander under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The original complaint was filed on October 15, 2024, in the Northern District of California, with Parham seeking a jury trial to address these allegations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Parham complaint FINAL-3

​In the case of Parham v. Combs et al (Case No. 3:24-cv-07191-RFL), plaintiff Ashley Parham filed an amended complaint against defendants Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram,Druski, Odell Beckham and Shane Pearce, alleging personal injury claims related to assault, libel, and slander under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The original complaint was filed on October 15, 2024, in the Northern District of California, with Parham seeking a jury trial to address these allegations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Parham complaint FINAL-3

​In the case of Parham v. Combs et al (Case No. 3:24-cv-07191-RFL), plaintiff Ashley Parham filed an amended complaint against defendants Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram,Druski, Odell Beckham and Shane Pearce, alleging personal injury claims related to assault, libel, and slander under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The original complaint was filed on October 15, 2024, in the Northern District of California, with Parham seeking a jury trial to address these allegations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Parham complaint FINAL-3

​In the case of Parham v. Combs et al (Case No. 3:24-cv-07191-RFL), plaintiff Ashley Parham filed an amended complaint against defendants Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram,Druski, Odell Beckham and Shane Pearce, alleging personal injury claims related to assault, libel, and slander under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The original complaint was filed on October 15, 2024, in the Northern District of California, with Parham seeking a jury trial to address these allegations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Parham complaint FINAL-3