Podcasts about on dec

This week we try and talk about gaming over the holidays with the pandemic in mind.  And we do that, a bit, but we also have a few tangents here and there.  We may have scheduled a D&D session (Chris isn't sure).  We play a bit of heads up.  And at the every end we give you homework.  But doing that homework gets you entered into our holiday giveaway! On Dec 14th (all entries must be in by the 13th) we'll be drawing a name to win a $250 gift card.  You can get entries in the following ways: Patrons automatically get entries equal to the $ level they pledge at. Leave us a review on Apple Podcast and email us with your iTunes name for 10 entries. Email us and just say you want to enter will give you at least 1 entry (maybe more depending on the email). Play the game at the end of the episode (the last minute) and send us your result will also get you 10 entries. Good luck! Go to http://TabletopGameTalk.com/live to learn how to be part of our live audience. Follow us on twitter http://twitter.com/TabletopGameTLK http://twitter.com/GameMasterChris http://twitter.com/LawfulGoodMom http://twitter.com/NetFletch or Facebook http://www.facebook.com/TabletopGameTalkPodcast Chris's facebook (let him know you're a listener in the friend request): https://www.facebook.com/steele22374 Join the conversation on Board Game Geek http://TabletopGameTalk.com/bgg Support us via Patreon http://TabletopGameTalk.com/Patreon

McClure, from Charlotte, taught science at Willis High School in 1986. In 1990, he took the job as Campbell’s girls coach. The Lady Spartans have appeared in the Georgia state tournament 17 of the last 19 seasons. On nine occasions, McClure guided the Lady Spartans to the elite eight or better. Campbell is honoring the two coaches by naming its new basketball facility the Gwyn-McClure Gymnasium. The new gym, which seats 3,500, opened in 2017. Now it’s got a name. On Dec. 7, McClure led Campbell to a 48-46 win over Marietta to reach 500 career victories. He has a career mark of 502-317, with no plans of stepping down. RANDY.MCCLURE@cobbk12.org @WbbCampbell --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/kevin-furtado/support

On Dec. 10, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, a case involving a dispute over whether making a formal objection after pronouncement of the defendant’s sentence is necessary to invoke appellate review of the reasonableness of the sentence’s length.In 2016, Petitioner Gonzalo Holguin-Hernandez pled guilty in federal district court to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and was sentenced to 24 months of imprisonment followed by two years of supervised release. As a citizen of Mexico, he also admitted to being unlawfully present in the United States. In October 2017, after completing his term of incarceration and starting his supervised release, Holguin-Hernandez was removed from the United States. In addition to the condition that he not commit another federal, state, or local crime, the terms of supervised release required that Holguin-Hernandez not illegally reenter the United States. In November 2017, was arrested by Border Patrol agents, admitted having carried marijuana into the U.S. from Mexico, and again pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute. He was sentenced to 60 months of imprisonment and 5 more years of supervised release. The U.S. Probation office then alleged that Holguin-Hernandez had violated the terms of supervised release relating to his initial conviction and sought revocation. In a subsequent hearing he admitted the violations and was sentenced to 12 months of imprisonment, to run consecutively to the 60-month term of imprisonment for the second drug trafficking offense. Although Holguin-Hernandez’s counsel argued against a consecutive sentence during the hearing as unnecessary in light of the considerably longer drug trafficking one, she did not formally object or seek reconsideration after the judge imposed the revocation sentence.On appeal the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the sentence. Although Holguin-Hernandez argued that his sentence was longer than necessary to effectuate the statutory factors to be considered when imposing a sentence, the Court reasoned that he had not actually raised that objection in district court and therefore the sentence would be reviewed for plain error only. The Court found no plain error, indicating that the sentence fell within the Guidelines range and noting the Guidelines recommendation that a term of imprisonment for violation of supervised release be imposed consecutively to any other term the defendant might be serving. Other federal circuit courts of appeals had taken a different approach, however, and the Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari to address whether a formal objection after pronouncement of sentence is necessary to invoke appellate reasonableness review of the length of a defendant’s sentence.To discuss the case, we have Daniel Guarnera, Associate at Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

On Dec. 10, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, a case involving a dispute over whether making a formal objection after pronouncement of the defendant’s sentence is necessary to invoke appellate review of the reasonableness of the sentence’s length.In 2016, Petitioner Gonzalo Holguin-Hernandez pled guilty in federal district court to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and was sentenced to 24 months of imprisonment followed by two years of supervised release. As a citizen of Mexico, he also admitted to being unlawfully present in the United States. In October 2017, after completing his term of incarceration and starting his supervised release, Holguin-Hernandez was removed from the United States. In addition to the condition that he not commit another federal, state, or local crime, the terms of supervised release required that Holguin-Hernandez not illegally reenter the United States. In November 2017, was arrested by Border Patrol agents, admitted having carried marijuana into the U.S. from Mexico, and again pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute. He was sentenced to 60 months of imprisonment and 5 more years of supervised release. The U.S. Probation office then alleged that Holguin-Hernandez had violated the terms of supervised release relating to his initial conviction and sought revocation. In a subsequent hearing he admitted the violations and was sentenced to 12 months of imprisonment, to run consecutively to the 60-month term of imprisonment for the second drug trafficking offense. Although Holguin-Hernandez’s counsel argued against a consecutive sentence during the hearing as unnecessary in light of the considerably longer drug trafficking one, she did not formally object or seek reconsideration after the judge imposed the revocation sentence.On appeal the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the sentence. Although Holguin-Hernandez argued that his sentence was longer than necessary to effectuate the statutory factors to be considered when imposing a sentence, the Court reasoned that he had not actually raised that objection in district court and therefore the sentence would be reviewed for plain error only. The Court found no plain error, indicating that the sentence fell within the Guidelines range and noting the Guidelines recommendation that a term of imprisonment for violation of supervised release be imposed consecutively to any other term the defendant might be serving. Other federal circuit courts of appeals had taken a different approach, however, and the Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari to address whether a formal objection after pronouncement of sentence is necessary to invoke appellate reasonableness review of the length of a defendant’s sentence.To discuss the case, we have Daniel Guarnera, Associate at Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

I discuss the Pandemic and give tips and tricks to help with the anxiety, stress and/ or PTSD you might be feeling. On Dec 31, 2018, 1 year, 3 months and 27 days ago is when my Pandemic begin. On that day, New Year’s Eve 2018, my father died by a self- inflicted gun shot wound to his heart. I woke up to a nightmare and the absolute unimaginable happened. I understand how your world can be flipped upside down in the blink of an eye, when a life occurrence happens and there is nothing you can do to control it. I have spent the past year learning coping skills to heal from that trauma I have from the details surrounding my Father’s Day.

We are stoked to have one of the best and brightest stars on the independent scene on theshow today. He has been featured in GCW, Black Label Pro, CZW, Beyond Wrestling, locally inSUP and SCI, and even popped up on Impact Wrestling last year. On Dec 8th 2019 here inNashville, he defeated Nick Gage to become GCW World Heavyweight Champion after Gage’shistoric 722 day reign as champion. Joining Battle, Eli, and KB is non other than Indie Superstar AJ Gray!

We are stoked to have one of the best and brightest stars on the independent scene on theshow today. He has been featured in GCW, Black Label Pro, CZW, Beyond Wrestling, locally inSUP and SCI, and even popped up on Impact Wrestling last year. On Dec 8th 2019 here inNashville, he defeated Nick Gage to become GCW World Heavyweight Champion after Gage’shistoric 722 day reign as champion. Joining Battle, Eli, and KB is non other than Indie Superstar AJ Gray!

(Rock Hill, S.C.) -- Former Winthrop University President Dan Mahony resigned from his position, effective March 1 after five years of service, in order to become president of the Southern Illinois University system. On Dec. 3, students, faculty and staff received an email from the university's board of trustees informing them about the change in leadership. Mahony -- who spoke exclusively to the Palmetto Report, during a podcast, to discuss his departure and reflect on his time at Winthrop -- said it was difficult for him to leave the school. “I was in the last year of my contract, I didn't expect it to be extended so that obviously had an impact on my decision to look at other opportunities,” said Mahony. "Frankly I was little concerned that people would think I was abandoning them or leaving for reasons that I was unhappy with them at Winthrop, the people, the faculty, staff and students. That was obviously not the case."

Jeff Gronemeyer is the Director International Census Development with Meridian Senior Living. They run 23 senior living communities between US and China, one of which is in Wuhan. Jeff is here to share his experience weeks in China during the Coronavirus outbreak and how he managed to get back to his family.On Dec. 31, the government in Wuhan, China, confirmed that health authorities were treating dozens of cases. Days later, researchers in China identified a new virus that had infected dozens of people in Asia. At the time, there was no evidence that the virus was readily spread by humans.The world odometer indicates over 421,367 active cases and more than 18,810 Deaths and at least 108,388 recovered to date March 24, 2020. The World Health Organization has declared the situation a global pandemic.You can also listen to this podcast and other episodes at https://podcast.boomerliving.tv/Direct link to this audio interview: https://podcast.boomerliving.tv/insights-from-the-coronavirus-fight-in-china-with-jeff-gronemeyer/Jeff’s Links:LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/jeff-gronemeyer-38916116Twitter: https://twitter.com/IngeniillcEmail: jeffgronemeyer@gmail.com

Randy Nantz is a Green Beret (retired) that was wounded in combat. He’s an elite athlete receiving notice with his involvement in adventure sports, OCRs, etc. and is one of the more well known ATF grads.   Randy Nantz has managed and supports various veteran and adaptive organizations since injury.  Note this, Randy Nantz is one of the bright lights of the adaptive community.  He’s one of my favorite interviews.  I love being around Nantz and I believe his story will shed some light as to why Nantz is very beloved.   Part 1 (CIVILIAN to GREEN BERET to WOUNDED) -Enlistment military and becoming a green beret -Deployment and wounded -What it takes to become a green beret   Part 2 (WOUNDED to ADDICTION to ADAPTIVE THRIVER)   -Deployment is over, recovery begins, and domestic life -Pain medication, physical addiction (doctors enabling), and getting rid of pain meds -Work with Green Beret Foundation and then moving towards working and affiliating with adaptive organizations. -Competing in various sporting events and why -Returning to the middle east and walking off the battle field on his own terms. -What is life all about, how to adapt and thrive no matter the challenge, and how to get through setbacks   More about Randy Nantz Randy Nantz enlisted in the Army because of 9/11 and after deploying overseas with the 3rd Infantry Division in 2003, he was selected as a Green Beret Communications Sergeant in 2006. On Dec. 22nd of 2006, while deployed with 5th Special Forces Group, Randy’s vehicle was hit by an EFP (a devastating roadside bomb) and he sustained traumatic injuries that resulted in 22% 3rd degree burns, large muscle tissue loss, and severe nerve damage that ultimately led to his lower left leg being amputated.   Find Randy Nantz here, https://www.instagram.com/nantzrandy https://www.facebook.com/randy.nantz.37   This episode is brought to you by Living Adaptive with Scott Davidson.   Find Living Adaptive at, www.livingadaptive.com for more information. Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/living_adaptive/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/livingadaptive/

Randy Nantz is a Green Beret (retired) that was wounded in combat. He’s an elite athlete receiving notice with his involvement in adventure sports, OCRs, etc. and is one of the more well known ATF grads.   Randy Nantz has managed and supports various veteran and adaptive organizations since injury.  Note this, Randy Nantz is one of the bright lights of the adaptive community.  He’s one of my favorite interviews.  I love being around Nantz and I believe his story will shed some light as to why Nantz is very beloved.   Part 1 (CIVILIAN to GREEN BERET to WOUNDED) -Enlistment military and becoming a green beret -Deployment and wounded -What it takes to become a green beret   Part 2 (WOUNDED to ADDICTION to ADAPTIVE THRIVER)   -Deployment is over, recovery begins, and domestic life -Pain medication, physical addiction (doctors enabling), and getting rid of pain meds -Work with Green Beret Foundation and then moving towards working and affiliating with adaptive organizations. -Competing in various sporting events and why -Returning to the middle east and walking off the battle field on his own terms. -What is life all about, how to adapt and thrive no matter the challenge, and how to get through setbacks   More about Randy Nantz Randy Nantz enlisted in the Army because of 9/11 and after deploying overseas with the 3rd Infantry Division in 2003, he was selected as a Green Beret Communications Sergeant in 2006. On Dec. 22nd of 2006, while deployed with 5th Special Forces Group, Randy’s vehicle was hit by an EFP (a devastating roadside bomb) and he sustained traumatic injuries that resulted in 22% 3rd degree burns, large muscle tissue loss, and severe nerve damage that ultimately led to his lower left leg being amputated.   Find Randy Nantz here, https://www.instagram.com/nantzrandy https://www.facebook.com/randy.nantz.37   This episode is brought to you by Living Adaptive with Scott Davidson.   Find Living Adaptive at, www.livingadaptive.com for more information. Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/living_adaptive/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/livingadaptive/

On Dec. 9, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, a case involving a dispute over certain appeal and time restrictions applicable to “inter partes review” (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.In 2013, Ingenio--a predecessor entity to petitioner Thryv, Inc.--initiated IPR proceedings to challenge the validity of a patent held by Click-to-Call Technologies, LP (CTC). CTC countered that the IPR was time-barred under the one-year limit of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), because a complaint alleging infringement of that patent had been served on Ingenio back in 2001, well over one year before the IPR request. The Board rejected CTC’s argument, reasoning that the time bar did not apply because the complaint in question had been voluntarily dismissed, and was to be treated as if non-existent. Proceeding with IPR, the Board then ruled various claims of the disputed patent to be unpatentable. After a complicated series of appellate proceedings that included a vacatur and remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued the en banc decision that formed the basis for Thryv’s certiorari petition in this case. Citing a recent determination it had made in a similar case, the court first decided that it had jurisdiction to review the IPR time-bar dispute. Title 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) provides that a decision whether to institute an IPR “shall be final and nonappealable,” but the court treated that bar as inapplicable to questions of timeliness as opposed to the merits. The Federal Circuit then held that the time bar of § 315(b) was triggered by service of any complaint, even one later dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly, the court vacated the Board’s decision and remanded with instructions to dismiss the IPR as time-barred: a victory for CTC. But the Supreme Court then granted Thryv’s certiorari petition to address anew the key jurisdictional issue: whether 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) permits appeal of the Board’s decision to institute an IPR upon finding that § 315(b)’s time bar did not apply.To discuss the case, we have Robert J. Rando, Founder and Lead Counsel, the Rando Law Firm P.C.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

On Dec. 9, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, a case involving a dispute over certain appeal and time restrictions applicable to “inter partes review” (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.In 2013, Ingenio--a predecessor entity to petitioner Thryv, Inc.--initiated IPR proceedings to challenge the validity of a patent held by Click-to-Call Technologies, LP (CTC). CTC countered that the IPR was time-barred under the one-year limit of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), because a complaint alleging infringement of that patent had been served on Ingenio back in 2001, well over one year before the IPR request. The Board rejected CTC’s argument, reasoning that the time bar did not apply because the complaint in question had been voluntarily dismissed, and was to be treated as if non-existent. Proceeding with IPR, the Board then ruled various claims of the disputed patent to be unpatentable. After a complicated series of appellate proceedings that included a vacatur and remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued the en banc decision that formed the basis for Thryv’s certiorari petition in this case. Citing a recent determination it had made in a similar case, the court first decided that it had jurisdiction to review the IPR time-bar dispute. Title 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) provides that a decision whether to institute an IPR “shall be final and nonappealable,” but the court treated that bar as inapplicable to questions of timeliness as opposed to the merits. The Federal Circuit then held that the time bar of § 315(b) was triggered by service of any complaint, even one later dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly, the court vacated the Board’s decision and remanded with instructions to dismiss the IPR as time-barred: a victory for CTC. But the Supreme Court then granted Thryv’s certiorari petition to address anew the key jurisdictional issue: whether 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) permits appeal of the Board’s decision to institute an IPR upon finding that § 315(b)’s time bar did not apply.To discuss the case, we have Robert J. Rando, Founder and Lead Counsel, the Rando Law Firm P.C.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

On Dec 11, 2019 the Supreme Court decided Peter v. NantKwest Inc., a case considering whether a party opting to bring a challenge in federal district court to an adverse decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) must pay the PTO’s resulting attorney’s fees. When a patent applicant is rejected by the PTO, and the PTAB affirms that decision on appeal, the aggrieved applicant may either pursue further (but relatively constrained) review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit--or the applicant may file a more expansive challenge in federal district court. The latter option is authorized by 35 U.S.C. § 145, but the statute also provides that “[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings shall be paid by the applicant.”Here, NantKwest challenged an adverse PTAB decision in federal district court, but lost. After the judgment was affirmed by the Federal Circuit, the PTO sought reimbursement of its expenses from NantKwest, including nearly $80,000 in attorneys’ fees. The district court denied recovery based on the “American Rule” that parties in federal court typically bear their own fees unless otherwise directed by Congress. A divided en banc panel of the Federal Circuit ultimately affirmed the district court. This decision, however, was in tension with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s construction of similar language in the Lanham Act.By a vote of 9-0, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Federal Circuit. Justice Sotomayor, writing for a unanimous Court, held that the plain text of §145 did not provide the requisite “specific and explicit” indication that Congress had intended to depart from “the American Rule’s presumption against fee shifting.” Accordingly, the PTO could not recover attorneys’ fees from NantKwest under §145.To discuss the case, we have Robert J. Rando, Founder and Lead Counsel, The Rando Law Firm P.C.*As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers. *Please note that Mr. Rando is co-Counsel on an Amicus brief filed on behalf of the Association of Amicus Counsel in this case.

On Dec. 11, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in Monasky v. Taglieri, a case involving the standard of appellate review applicable to determinations of “habitual residence” under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, as well as the conditions under which habitual residence is established for an infant.The Hague Convention, and the federal law that implements it in the United States, indicate that a parent whose child has been removed to another country in violation of that parent’s custodial rights can petition in federal or state court for the return of the child to the child’s country of habitual residence. The courts of that country can then resolve any underlying custody disputes. Petitioner Michelle Monasky, an American, gave birth to her daughter A.M.T. in Italy. Monasky’s husband Domenico Taglieri, who is the father, is Italian. Alleging that Taglieri had become physically abusive, Monasky took the newborn A.M.T. to a domestic abuse shelter in Italy, and several weeks later both left for Ohio. Taglieri obtained an ex parte ruling from an Italian court terminating Monasky’s parental rights and then petitioned in federal district court in Ohio for A.M.T.’s return under the Hague Convention. The district court granted the petition, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court denied Monasky’s petition for a stay. She then returned A.M.T. to Italy. On appeal, a divided Sixth Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed the district court’s ruling on the merits. In doing so, the Sixth Circuit treated the question of habitual residence as ultimately one of fact to be reviewed on appeal for clear error only.Arguing that the Sixth Circuit’s approach was in tension with that of several other federal circuit courts of appeals, Monasky petitioned for certiorari. The Supreme Court granted the petition to consider whether (1) a district court’s determination of habitual residence under the Hague Convention should be reviewed de novo rather than for clear error; and (2) whether, when an infant is too young to acclimate to her surroundings, a subjective agreement between the infant‘s parents is necessary to establish her habitual residence under the Hague Convention.To discuss the case, we have Margaret Ryznar, Associate Professor of Law, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

On Dec 11, 2019 the Supreme Court decided Peter v. NantKwest Inc., a case considering whether a party opting to bring a challenge in federal district court to an adverse decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) must pay the PTO’s resulting attorney’s fees. When a patent applicant is rejected by the PTO, and the PTAB affirms that decision on appeal, the aggrieved applicant may either pursue further (but relatively constrained) review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit--or the applicant may file a more expansive challenge in federal district court. The latter option is authorized by 35 U.S.C. § 145, but the statute also provides that “[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings shall be paid by the applicant.”Here, NantKwest challenged an adverse PTAB decision in federal district court, but lost. After the judgment was affirmed by the Federal Circuit, the PTO sought reimbursement of its expenses from NantKwest, including nearly $80,000 in attorneys’ fees. The district court denied recovery based on the “American Rule” that parties in federal court typically bear their own fees unless otherwise directed by Congress. A divided en banc panel of the Federal Circuit ultimately affirmed the district court. This decision, however, was in tension with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s construction of similar language in the Lanham Act.By a vote of 9-0, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Federal Circuit. Justice Sotomayor, writing for a unanimous Court, held that the plain text of §145 did not provide the requisite “specific and explicit” indication that Congress had intended to depart from “the American Rule’s presumption against fee shifting.” Accordingly, the PTO could not recover attorneys’ fees from NantKwest under §145.To discuss the case, we have Robert J. Rando, Founder and Lead Counsel, The Rando Law Firm P.C.*As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers. *Please note that Mr. Rando is co-Counsel on an Amicus brief filed on behalf of the Association of Amicus Counsel in this case.

On Dec. 11, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in Monasky v. Taglieri, a case involving the standard of appellate review applicable to determinations of “habitual residence” under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, as well as the conditions under which habitual residence is established for an infant.The Hague Convention, and the federal law that implements it in the United States, indicate that a parent whose child has been removed to another country in violation of that parent’s custodial rights can petition in federal or state court for the return of the child to the child’s country of habitual residence. The courts of that country can then resolve any underlying custody disputes. Petitioner Michelle Monasky, an American, gave birth to her daughter A.M.T. in Italy. Monasky’s husband Domenico Taglieri, who is the father, is Italian. Alleging that Taglieri had become physically abusive, Monasky took the newborn A.M.T. to a domestic abuse shelter in Italy, and several weeks later both left for Ohio. Taglieri obtained an ex parte ruling from an Italian court terminating Monasky’s parental rights and then petitioned in federal district court in Ohio for A.M.T.’s return under the Hague Convention. The district court granted the petition, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court denied Monasky’s petition for a stay. She then returned A.M.T. to Italy. On appeal, a divided Sixth Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed the district court’s ruling on the merits. In doing so, the Sixth Circuit treated the question of habitual residence as ultimately one of fact to be reviewed on appeal for clear error only.Arguing that the Sixth Circuit’s approach was in tension with that of several other federal circuit courts of appeals, Monasky petitioned for certiorari. The Supreme Court granted the petition to consider whether (1) a district court’s determination of habitual residence under the Hague Convention should be reviewed de novo rather than for clear error; and (2) whether, when an infant is too young to acclimate to her surroundings, a subjective agreement between the infant‘s parents is necessary to establish her habitual residence under the Hague Convention.To discuss the case, we have Margaret Ryznar, Associate Professor of Law, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

On Dec 19, Cats, a movie that would widely become known as perhaps the worst of all time premiered. Or was it? Join us on this season of PodCats as we delve deep into the history of Cats, answering such burning questions as how was this movie made, what exactly is it all about (no but like, seriously), who sang the "Memory" climax best, which of the cats is which of the cats' mates, and whether Cats is actually..brilliant question mark? Enjoy this deep dive into the Cats fandom's psyche with PodCats, subscribe now!

On Dec. 4, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma, a case asking what degree of knowledge of a possible violation is necessary to trigger the three-year statute of limitations provided in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).Respondent Christopher Sulyma worked for Intel Corporation from 2010-12, and during that time participated in retirement plans governed by ERISA. In 2015, Sulyma brought suit against Intel’s investment policy committee under various provisions of ERISA, alleging that the committee had invested imprudently and failed to make certain disclosures. Intel moved to dismiss the complaint based on ERISA’s statute of limitations, which provides that actions like Sulyma’s may not be commenced more than “three years after the earliest date on which the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the breach or violation.” The district court found that Sulyma had actual knowledge of the alleged violations more than three years before bringing suit, and dismissed the case. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, concluding that Sulyma’s constructive knowledge of the alleged violations did not rise to the level of “actual knowledge” necessary to trigger the statute of limitations. It was not sufficient, the Court determined, that the relevant facts were available to the Sulyma; he had actually to be aware of those facts.The Ninth Circuit’s reasoning on the meaning of “actual knowledge” conflicted with that of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, however, and the Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari to consider whether the ERISA limitations provision bars suit when all the relevant information was disclosed to the plaintiff by the defendants more than three years before the plaintiff filed the complaint, but the plaintiff chose not to read or could not recall having read the information.To discuss the cases, we have Matthew S. Rozen, Associate Attorney at Gibson DunnAs always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

On Dec. 4, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma, a case asking what degree of knowledge of a possible violation is necessary to trigger the three-year statute of limitations provided in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).Respondent Christopher Sulyma worked for Intel Corporation from 2010-12, and during that time participated in retirement plans governed by ERISA. In 2015, Sulyma brought suit against Intel’s investment policy committee under various provisions of ERISA, alleging that the committee had invested imprudently and failed to make certain disclosures. Intel moved to dismiss the complaint based on ERISA’s statute of limitations, which provides that actions like Sulyma’s may not be commenced more than “three years after the earliest date on which the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the breach or violation.” The district court found that Sulyma had actual knowledge of the alleged violations more than three years before bringing suit, and dismissed the case. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, concluding that Sulyma’s constructive knowledge of the alleged violations did not rise to the level of “actual knowledge” necessary to trigger the statute of limitations. It was not sufficient, the Court determined, that the relevant facts were available to the Sulyma; he had actually to be aware of those facts.The Ninth Circuit’s reasoning on the meaning of “actual knowledge” conflicted with that of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, however, and the Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari to consider whether the ERISA limitations provision bars suit when all the relevant information was disclosed to the plaintiff by the defendants more than three years before the plaintiff filed the complaint, but the plaintiff chose not to read or could not recall having read the information.To discuss the cases, we have Matthew S. Rozen, Associate Attorney at Gibson DunnAs always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

Unifor has been found in contempt of a court injunction issued in connection with the labour dispute at the Co-op refinery. A Court of Queen’s Bench judgment issued Wednesday said the union "intentionally and deliberately disobeyed the order." On Dec. 18, Justice Janet McMurtry issued a temporary order that limited the amount of time picketers could hold up truckers at the refinery. Federated Co-operatives Limited then went to court claiming the union had violated the order. After ruling the union was in contempt, the justice fined Unifor $100,000. The union has been blockading the refinery since Monday. That action followed blockades around Co-op cardlocks and stores in Regina and Weyburn. CJME reporter Adriana Christianson was at a rally held by Unifor Wednesday and has been following this showdown between the Co-op and Unifor. Adriana joins Gormley now to talk about the latest in the Co-op refinery labour dispute.

Join the guys as they offer their take on the FAA drone remote ID proposal. On Dec 31,2019 the FAA announced a remote ID program for all unmanned aerial systems. This has caused quite a stir. Your hosts discuss the thoughts of this proposal and offer a short excerpt of the proposed law that will cause the biggest change in the industry. Please feel free to comment on our website or Facebook Listeners page.

The road to an at-large City Council spot was long for Isaiah Thomas. He first ran for office at 26 years old and led another unsuccessful bid at 30. Each time Thomas garnered more support and more of the vote, and it put him over the hump in 2019. On Dec. 18, Thomas visited AL DÍA to recount some of that journey and told of his plans now that he's in office.

More and more states are legalizing online casino gambling within their borders. One Pennsylvania online slot player cashed in big at an online casino in the Keystone State to close out 2019. Playing NetEnt’s Divine Fortune, the winner walked away with a jackpot worth $285,385. The online site was Hollywood Casino.com as part of Penn National. This was reported to be the biggest jackpot ever won at Hollywood. Divine Fortune is one of NetEnt’s most popular online progressive slots. The Mega Jackpot as reached the high six figures in the past. The current jackpot at the winning machine is back to $80,000.Next up, New York Lawsuit Challenges Allegations of Slot Machine AbuseResorts World Casino in Queens opened its doors for business in 2011. Since that time, it has been reported that 493 casino patrons have been arrested for criminal mischief. This is according to the Queens’ District Attorney’s office. Most of the cases involve damage to slot machines. One suspect was Pren Mrijaj. He was accused of damaging a slot machine in 2018. The case was eventually dismissed by police. However, Mr. Mrijaj was detained in a return trip to the casino when he tried to cash a $5000 voucher. As a result of his ordeal, he has filed a class action lawsuit in the Bronx Supreme Court against Resorts World.In the next story, A Desert Diamond Casino West Valley Pays Out a $1 Million JackpotChristmas came early for a Phoenix-area casino bettor. On Dec. 20, the winner walked away with a slots jackpot worth $1,038,429. They were playing an AGS Gold Series wide-area progressive slot game. The casino is owned and operated by the Tohono O’odham Nation. It is located near Glendale outside of Phoenix. The casino just celebrated its fourth anniversary in business. The facility is also getting ready to unveil a massive expansion project. The entire casino floor was expanded to house additional slots and table games. Added dining and entertainment venues are also part of the overall expansion . It is due to open early this year.Lastly, 2020 Lines Up as Big Year for New First-Person Shooter GamesComing off a solid year for First-Person Shooter (FPS) games, the lineup for new releases this year is impressive. Sony Interactive Entertainment will release Marvel’s Iron Man VR on February 28. This should be the most immersive Marvel game that players have ever experienced. Bethesda Softworks is getting ready to release DOOM Eternal on March 20 for PS24, Xbox One and PC applications. It is described as having “a unique asymmetrical multiplayer game mode.” Half-Life: Alyx by Valve should be available in March as well. Following Half-Life 2, Alyx Vance and her father start up their crusade against the Combine.

On Dec. 29, Carlos Ghosn escaped arrest in Tokyo and fled to Beirut, Lebanon. JT staff writer Satoshi Sugiyama (https://twitter.com/satoshijournal?lang=en) discusses how he managed that escape as well as Ghosn's first public press conference since he was first arrested in November 2018. Hosted by Oscar Boyd (https://twitter.com/omhboyd?lang=en) . Since recording this podcast, Lebanon has announced that Carlos Ghosn has been banned from leaving the country. Read/see/hear more: • Our previous podcast on Carlos Ghosn: The extraordinary fall of Carlos Ghosn (https://www.japantimes.co.jp/podcast/episode-13-extraordinary-fall-carlos-ghosn/#.Xhgsni2B124) • The Japan Times' reporting on Carlos Ghosn (https://www.japantimes.co.jp/tag/carlos-ghosn/) • Satoshi Sugiyama's reporting for The Japan Times (https://www.japantimes.co.jp/author/satoshi-sugiyama/) • Former Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn holds a news conference after escape to Lebanon (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4KH7_TwV0M&t=479s) (CNBC, YouTube) Photo by AP

The year is 1809 in the city of London where Laurence Gilson from Oldcastle, County Meath is writing his last Will and Testament. It is an endowment that will have far reaching consequences for thousands of people across north Meath, Cavan, Westmeath and beyond, for more than two hundred years. Hear the story the story of Laurence Gilson and the educational legacy he left in his home town." On Dec 31st from 12 noon here on LMFM. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Do one pushup and win! Q: what is the best time to make new year resolutions? A: On Dec. 31st OR TODAY! Book review of 'Players Ball".

On Dec 21 2019 we had a pop-up tenx9 in Belfast City Centre, here are two stories from the event: Helen McClements finds love after tragedy while Pádraig Ó Tuama finds the Irish relationship with the fabled immersion to be “complicated”. Paul is your host. Tenx9 is a monthly storytelling event where nine people have up to ten minutes to tell a true story from their own life on a particular theme. It began in Belfast in 2011, started by Pádraig Ó Tuama & Paul Doran, and as well as filling the main venue in the Black Box, it has spread to Scotland, England, USA, Canada, Netherlands & Australia. While it draws on the tradition of oral storytelling, we also encourage the shy, the nervous & the reticent.

On Dec 21 2019 we had a pop-up tenx9 in Belfast City Centre, here are two stories from the event: Helen McClements finds love after tragedy while Pádraig Ó Tuama finds the Irish relationship with the fabled immersion to be “complicated”. Paul is your host. Tenx9 is a monthly storytelling event where nine people have up to ten minutes to tell a true story from their own life on a particular theme. It began in Belfast in 2011, started by Pádraig Ó Tuama & Paul Doran, and as well as filling the main venue in the Black Box, it has spread to Scotland, England, USA, Canada, Netherlands & Australia. While it draws on the tradition of oral storytelling, we also encourage the shy, the nervous & the reticent.

On Dec 24, 1798 the Virginia Senate passed resolutions drafted by James Madison in response to the hated alien and sedition acts. Three days earlier, the House had done the same. The month prior, the Kentucky legislature passed similar resolutions drafted by Thomas Jefferson. Known as the “principles of ’98” Jefferson and Madison both recognized […]

The largest democracy on the planet has again demonstrated the failure of democracy by institutionally meddling in the livelihood of the people. On Dec. 11, 2019, the Government of India passed Citizenship Amendment Act. The...

The largest democracy on the planet has again demonstrated the failure of democracy by institutionally meddling in the livelihood of the people. On Dec. 11, 2019, the Government of India passed Citizenship Amendment Act. The...

On Dec. 2, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, a case involving a dispute over whether New York City rules limiting transportation of licensed firearms to ranges within New York City limits (and certain state-designated hunting areas) violate the Second Amendment, the dormant Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.Under New York state law, possessing a firearm without a license is prohibited. New York City issues “premises” licenses that permit possession of a pistol or revolver at a particular address, and under city “Rule 5-23” such firearms may not be lawfully removed from that address except for transport directly to or from authorized shooting ranges within New York City limits (as well as certain state-designated hunting areas). Plaintiffs, who hold New York City premises licenses, wished to transport their firearms to shooting ranges, competitions, and/or homes outside of New York City. They sued for injunctive relief in federal district court, alleging that Rule 5-23’s restrictions violated the Second Amendment and were otherwise invalid under the dormant Commerce Clause, the First Amendment right of expressive association, and the fundamental right to travel. The district court rejected all these claims and dismissed the case. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, applying intermediate scrutiny to the Second Amendment claims, affirmed. The Supreme Court, however, subsequently granted certiorari to address whether the City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel. To discuss the cases, we have Robert Leider, professor at Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University. As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

On Dec. 14, local burger chain P. Terry’s held it’s quarterly Giving Back Days hit a new milestone: More than $1 million was donated given to nonprofit organizations across the Austin area. One of those is the Statesman Season for Caring, which features 12 families from local nonprofit organizations and helps hundreds of others throughout the year. We talked to P. Terry’s co-founders Kathy and Patrick Terry about why they give back to the community and the appeal of burgers, shakes and fries.

On Dec. 2, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, a case involving a dispute over whether New York City rules limiting transportation of licensed firearms to ranges within New York City limits (and certain state-designated hunting areas) violate the Second Amendment, the dormant Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.Under New York state law, possessing a firearm without a license is prohibited. New York City issues “premises” licenses that permit possession of a pistol or revolver at a particular address, and under city “Rule 5-23” such firearms may not be lawfully removed from that address except for transport directly to or from authorized shooting ranges within New York City limits (as well as certain state-designated hunting areas). Plaintiffs, who hold New York City premises licenses, wished to transport their firearms to shooting ranges, competitions, and/or homes outside of New York City. They sued for injunctive relief in federal district court, alleging that Rule 5-23’s restrictions violated the Second Amendment and were otherwise invalid under the dormant Commerce Clause, the First Amendment right of expressive association, and the fundamental right to travel. The district court rejected all these claims and dismissed the case. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, applying intermediate scrutiny to the Second Amendment claims, affirmed. The Supreme Court, however, subsequently granted certiorari to address whether the City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel. To discuss the cases, we have Robert Leider, professor at Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University. As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

Before Katherine Gilmore Richardson ran for an at-large City Council spot, she spent 11 years on the staff of former at-large Councilmember Blondell Reynolds Brown. When she assumes office in January, she will be the youngest woman to ever hold a spot on Council, but arguably one of the most experienced first-time members. On Dec. 11, Gilmore Richardson visited AL DÍA to talk about her journey to City Council and her plans once she assumes office.

On Dec. 17, 2019, engineers took NASA’s next Mars rover for its first spin.

On Dec. 17, 2019, engineers took NASA’s next Mars rover for its first spin.

On Dec. 13, 2019, The Washington Post Live welcomed Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg for an interview with The Washington Post's Robert Costa.

On Dec. 5, the ACB Information Access Committee (IAC) hosted an evening webinar on accessible shopping, technology, and home appliances with special guest J.J. Meddaugh, Author, Access World. ACB Director of Advocacy and Governmental Affairs, Clark Rachfal, and IAC Chair, Tony Stephens, led this discussion on what is naughty and nice in terms of accessibility, highlighted tips and tricks to improve the shopping experience, and shared ways that we can overcome the challenges when smart appliances fail the test on accessible interfaces for customers who are blind and visually impaired. To listen to the full webinar, including listener Q&A, visit the ACB Radio Special Events page at: http://acbradio.org/special To learn more about Access World and read the 2019 Holiday Gift Buying Guide, visit: https://www.afb.org/aw A transcript of this podcast is available at: https://acb.org/ACB-Advocacy-Update-12-12-19-transcript

On Dec. 5, the ACB Information Access Committee (IAC) hosted an evening webinar on accessible shopping, technology, and home appliances with special guest J.J. Meddaugh, Author, Access World. ACB Director of Advocacy and Governmental Affairs, Clark Rachfal, and IAC Chair, Tony Stephens, led this discussion on what is naughty and nice in terms of accessibility, highlighted tips and tricks to improve the shopping experience, and shared ways that we can overcome the challenges when smart appliances fail the test on accessible interfaces for customers who are blind and visually impaired. To listen to the full webinar, including listener Q&A, visit the ACB Radio Special Events page at: http://acbradio.org/special To learn more about Access World and read the 2019 Holiday Gift Buying Guide, visit: https://www.afb.org/aw A transcript of this podcast is available at: https://acb.org/ACB-Advocacy-Update-12-12-19-transcript

On Dec. 5, the ACB Information Access Committee (IAC) hosted an evening webinar on accessible shopping, technology, and home appliances with special guest J.J. Meddaugh, Author, Access World. ACB Director of Advocacy and Governmental Affairs, Clark Rachfal, and IAC Chair, Tony Stephens, led this discussion on what is naughty and nice in terms of accessibility, highlighted tips and tricks to improve the shopping experience, and shared ways that we can overcome the challenges when smart appliances fail the test on accessible interfaces for customers who are blind and visually impaired. To listen to the full webinar, including listener Q&A, visit the ACB Radio Special Events page at: http://acbradio.org/special To learn more about Access World and read the 2019 Holiday Gift Buying Guide, visit: https://www.afb.org/aw A transcript of this podcast is available at: https://acb.org/ACB-Advocacy-Update-12-12-19-transcript

On Dec. 5, the ACB Information Access Committee (IAC) hosted an evening webinar on accessible shopping, technology, and home appliances with special guest J.J. Meddaugh, Author, Access World. ACB Director of Advocacy and Governmental Affairs, Clark Rachfal, and IAC Chair, Tony Stephens, led this discussion on what is naughty and nice in terms of accessibility, highlighted tips and tricks to improve the shopping experience, and shared ways that we can overcome the challenges when smart appliances fail the test on accessible interfaces for customers who are blind and visually impaired. To listen to the full webinar, including listener Q&A, visit the ACB Radio Special Events page at: http://acbradio.org/special To learn more about Access World and read the 2019 Holiday Gift Buying Guide, visit: https://www.afb.org/aw A transcript of this podcast is available at: https://acb.org/ACB-Advocacy-Update-12-12-19-transcript

France braced for even worse transportation woes when the new work week begins Monday due to nationwide strikes over the government's redesign of the national retirement system. French President Emmanuel Macron convened top officials to strategize for the high-stakes week ahead.Sunday saw more travel chaos as the strikes entered their fourth day, with most French trains at a standstill. Fourteen of Paris' subway lines were closed, with only two lines — using automated trains with no drivers — functioning. International train routes also suffered disruptions.Monday will be an even bigger test of the strike movement's strength and of commuters' and tourists' patience. Unions are calling for more people to join the strike Monday. Many employees worked from home or took a day off when the strikes began last week, but that's not sustainable if the strikes drag on.Warning of safety risks, the SNCF national train network and the Paris transit authority RATP warned travelers to stay away from train stations Monday instead of packing platforms for the few trains still running."On Dec. 9, stay home or find another means of locomotion," SNCF warned travelers.Facing a challenging week ahead, French Prime Minister Edouard Philippe met Sunday afternoon and evening with government ministers involved in the pension reform, and later met with Macron.Macron, a centrist former investment banker, argues that the retirement overhaul will make a convoluted, out-dated pension system more fair and financially sustainable, uniting 42 different plans into one. The government says it won't change the official retirement age of 62, but the new plan is expected to include financial conditions to encourage people to work longer as lifespans lengthen.Unions see the reforms as an attack on worker rights and fear that people will have to work longer for smaller pensions. Some French workers can now retire in their 50s.The new retirement plan will affect all French workers but the strikes involve primarily public sector workers, including train drivers, teachers and hospital employees.New nationwide protests are scheduled Tuesday and the prime minister will release details of the new retirement plan on Wednesday.Yellow vest activists joined the protests Saturday, adding retirement reform to their list of economic grievances in protests around the country.A few thousand yellow vest protesters marched from the Finance Ministry complex on the Seine River through southeast Paris, pushing their year-old demands for economic fairness — and adding the retirement reform to their list of grievances. Most marchers were peaceful but some threw projectiles or pushed riot officers, prompting repeated bursts of tear gas from police.The marchers appear to be emboldened by the biggest national demonstrations in years Thursday that kicked off a mass strike-and-protest movement against President Emmanuel Macron's redesign of the pension system.Truckers striking over a fuel tax hike disrupted traffic on highways from Provence in the southeast to Normandy in the northwest. A similar fuel tax is what unleashed the yellow vest movement a year ago, and this convergence of grievances could pose a major new threat to Macron's presidency.Macron says the reform, which will streamline a convoluted system of 42 special pension plans, will make the national pension system more fair and financially sustainable. The government says it won't raise the official retirement age of 62 but the plan is expected to including financial conditions to encourage people to work longer. Those most against the changes are workers in special categories like transport who can now retire earlier than 62.So far the travel chaos is not deterring the government. Prime Minister Edouard Philippe plainly told the French in a nationwide address Friday: "You're going to have to work longer."He will present details of the plan next week. Philippe did offer one olive branch, saying the changes w...

On Dec. 21, Peoria area native Archbishop Fulton Sheen was scheduled to be beatified by the Catholic Church, or officially declared “Blessed.” On Dec. 3, it was announced it was going to be postponed, shocking the Catholic faithful. Why was it postponed, what’s next, and what are we to make of all of this?

On Dec. 1, 1948, an unknown man died on a beach in Somerton, South Australia and in his pocket was a piece of paper with the words "tamám shud." Jimmy Akin and Dom Bettinelli explore what it could mean, why the mystery of his identity has endured, and why it may be solved soon. The post The Mysterious Death of Somerton Man (Tamam Shud) appeared first on SQPN.com.

On Dec. 4, 1881 the Los Angeles Times published its very first edition. And while the paper ran into severe financial trouble just a year after its founding, it nevertheless survived and over its 138 year lifespan has been at the forefront of some monumental stories in American history. But, the news industry today is vastly different and extremely divisive. So how did we get here? The LA Times' Steve Padilla has worked at the paper for 32 years and he joins us to look back at the roots of the journalism industry and newspapers and how we go to where we are today.Support us by supporting our sponsors!

After student Drew Woodson took a playwriting course with Philip Gotanda, a professor in the Department of Theater, Dance and Performance Studies at Berkeley, he realized he had a story to tell. Two years later, that story would become his first play, Your Friend, Jay Silverheels. “The original idea for this play came out of this frustration I was having as an actor of not being able to find monologues that really fit and felt true to who I am as a Native person,” says Woodson. “I knew I had to write this story, to get it down on paper — not only for myself as an actor, but for other Native actors who maybe felt the same way as me.”On Dec. 5, Woodson is staging a reading of Your Friend, Jay Silverheels in Durham Studio Theater in Dwinelle Hall on campus.Listen, see photos and read a transcript on Berkeley News. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Andrew Grey Chapman was a 32 year old from Columbus, OH. He was a father and worked for the state government. On Dec. 6, 2006, Andy called his mother, urgently requesting that she come pick something up. However, his mother was sick and couldn’t make it. When she showed up two days later, Andy was gone. He was never seen again. Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/helpfindandychapman/?epa=SEARCH_BOX Charley Project: http://charleyproject.org/case/andrew-grey-chapman NAMUS: https://www.namus.gov/MissingPersons/Case#/11454?nav Article: https://myfox28columbus.com/news/local/family-continues-to-hunt-down-leads-nearly-12-years-after-loved-ones-disappearance If you have any information regarding the disappearance of Andy Chapman, please contact the Columbus Police Department at (614) 645-4545. Unfound supports accounts on Podomatic, iTunes, Stitcher, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook. --Please join us on Wednesday nights at 9pm ET for the YouTube Live Show. --Contribute to Unfound at Patreon.com/unfoundpodcast. And at Paypal: unfoundpodcast@gmail.com --that is also the email address. --The Website: unfoundpodcast.com. - --Merchandise: --The books at Amazon.com in both ebook and print form. --don't forget the reviews. --shirts at myshopify.com/unfound-podcast. --cards at makeplayingcards.com/sell/unfoundpodcast --And please mention Unfound at all true crime websites and forums. Thank you.

Julie Lynn Seay was a 25 year old from Daytona Beach, FL. She was the mother of two and had recently gotten divorced. On Dec. 23, 1988, Julie was at her job. She mentioned she planned to do some Christmas shopping later that evening. Julie departed her work at the usual time. She was never seen again. Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/leslieseaym/ Charley Project: http://charleyproject.org/case/julie-lynn-seay NAMUS: https://www.namus.gov/MissingPersons/Case#/1626?nav Article: https://www.news-journalonline.com/news/20171215/retired-mayor-police-commissioner-tackle-daytonas-79-cold-cases If you have any information regarding the disappearance of Julie Seay, please contact the Daytona Beach Police Department at (386) 671-5224. Unfound supports accounts on Podomatic, iTunes, Stitcher, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook. --Please join us on Wednesday nights at 9pm ET for the YouTube Live Show. --Contribute to Unfound at Patreon.com/unfoundpodcast. And at Paypal: unfoundpodcast@gmail.com --that is also the email address. --The Website: unfoundpodcast.com. - --Merchandise: --The books at Amazon.com in both ebook and print form. --don't forget the reviews. --shirts at myshopify.com/unfound-podcast. --cards at makeplayingcards.com/sell/unfoundpodcast --And please mention Unfound at all true crime websites and forums. Thank you.

#megtheestallion #Lala #carmeloanthony #meekmill #Camron #juju #williowsmith #redtabletalk #jordynwoods #hotgirl On Thursday, Megan Thee Stallion addressed homophobic tweets she wrote while in high school and denounced the users who felt compelled to dig them up after she had already apologized. https://www.complex.com/music/2019/06/megan-thee-stallion-resurfaced-homophobic-tweets-apologized/ NBA superstar Carmelo Anthony says reports suggesting he's cheating on his wife, La La Anthony, with a woman on a yacht in France are COMPLETELY FALSE ... and says the blogs have it ALL WRONG. https://www.tmz.com/2019/06/26/carmelo-anthony-lala-anthony-yacht-france-reports-video/ Meek Mill is making big moves in the fashion industry. The rapper, entrepreneur and prison reform advocate is now a co-owner of sports-apparel retailer Lids, he announced in an interview with Business Insider on Wednesday. https://people.com/style/meek-mill-becomes-co-owner-lids/ Jordyn Woods is out to prove she’s more than Kylie Jenner‘s (former) best friend. https://pagesix.com/2019/06/27/jordyn-woods-claps-back-at-claims-kylie-jenner-financially-supported-her/ In a video jokingly presented as being sponsored by Dipset couture, Cam'ron has shared his side of things regarding his split from JuJu. The clip, embedded for convenience below, is an apparent response to a "Whew Chile..." comment she left on a recent Shade Room post. https://www.complex.com/music/2019/06/camron-split-juju-wanted-to-beat-up-co-worker-unfollowing Ebony Jemison wishes she could have done something different on the day she fired a shot that killed Marshae Jones’ unborn child outside a store in Alabama. On Dec. 4, 2018, Jemison, 23, fired a bullet that hit Jones’ stomach outside the Dollar General store in Pleasant Grove, Alabama, during an altercation over the baby’s father. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tasneemnashrulla/pregnant-woman-shot-alabama-manslaughter-jones-jemison Willow Smith wouldn’t be opposed to a polyamorous relationship. https://people.com/movies/willow-smith-not-opposed-polyamorous-relatiosnhip/ --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/fyp/message