Podcasts about patchak

In this episode, Mischa Zvegintzov sits down with Martin Pietrzak, the visionary CEO behind Pinch Marketing, to discuss the evolving landscape of digital marketing in the tech and startup sectors. They explore Martin's two-decade journey, his firm's unique approach to B2B digital marketing, and the stories of resilience and innovation that have propelled his career forward. This insightful conversation sheds light on the power of strategic marketing, the role of content in customer engagement, and the personal motivations that drive industry leaders like Martin.Show NotesIntroduction to Martin Pietrzak, CEO of Pinch MarketingOverview of Pinch Marketing's approach to digital strategy and growth hackingMartin's insights on creating impactful campaigns and SEO-optimized contentDiscussion on the importance of resilience and innovation in the tech industryExploring the role of personal challenges in shaping entrepreneurial journeysMartin's perspective on the future of digital marketing and technology Guest Speak On 50 Podcasts In 100 Days! Join The Influence Army Waitlist HERE!Join My Newsletter Here!Email me: contact@belove.mediaFor social Media: FaceBook - https://www.facebook.com/MrMischaLinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/mischaz/Subscribe and share with your business associates who could use a listen!

Mitch's Austin trip continues with a stop at the famous Voodoo Doughnut. He samples one from both the cake and the raised yeast categories, choosing the Sprinkle Cake and the Old Dirty Bastard. Special guest Greg Patchak returns to the podcast to talk about gigantic doughnuts, a thick layer of peanut butter and Oreos and flavor so intense they had to gather themselves between bites. Patches: "I walked away from this experience quite full." Please subscribe in iTunes, SoundCloud, Stitcher or Google Play. Leave a rating and review to help others find the podcast. Search for Mitch Goldich on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram for food pictures, plus the new @mitcheatsfoodpod account on IG.

In this episode, we unload on the judicial crisis unfolding before our eyes, as the courts issue one civilization-killing opinion after another every few hours. We go through the history of judicial review and distinguish it from judicial supremacy. We explore some solutions for judicial reform, such as mandatory appeals of any lower court ruling on political issues.  Today was also oral argument day for the immigration pause executive order at the Supreme Court. We explain why a 5-4 “victory” won’t be much of a victory in the long-run and how unless the courts are kicked out of immigration, the lower courts will continue doing their thing. There are many reasons why the courts are a sure thing for the Left and why merely “selecting better judges” never changes the arc of the jurisprudential velocity.    Finally, we end with a discussion of Alfie Evans and how, unless we change the power of the courts and the power of government over health care, we will have the same horror on this side of the Atlantic. Key quotes: “This regulation [judicial review] is far from throwing any disparagement upon the legislative authority of the United States. It does not confer upon the judicial department a power superiour, in its general nature, to that of the legislature; but it confers upon it, in particular instances, and for particular purposes, the power of declaring and enforcing the superiour power of the constitution — the supreme law of the land.” ~James Wilson, Lectures on Law, Chapter XI, 1791. “Now, Judge Douglas understands the Constitution according to the Dred Scott decision, and he is bound to support it as he understands it. [Cheers.] I understand it another way, and therefore I am bound to support it in the way in which I understand it.” ~Abraham Lincoln, debate VI with Stephen Douglas “When Congress strips federal courts of jurisdiction, it exercises a valid legislative power no less than when it lays taxes, coins money, declares war, or invokes any other power that the Constitution grants it.” ~Clarence Thomas, Patchak v. Zinke  Show links 7 crazy rulings in just one week GOP judge rules Trump must violate immigration law Bureaucrats are already practicing medicine  Link to our series of articles on the president’s absolute power to exclude for any reason Mark Levin’s rant on judicial tyranny Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Mitch goes back home to Philly to satisfy his need for a cheesesteak. He and special guest Greg Patchak visit Woodrow’s Sandwich Shop on South Street for their unique take on a Philly classic: House-made truffle whiz, cherry pepper mayo and caramelized onions. It sounds a little unusual, but this hidden gem was recently named one of the Top 3 cheesesteaks in Philly by Bon Appetit. Please subscribe in iTunes, SoundCloud, Stitcher or Google Play. Leave a rating and review to help others find the podcast. Search for Mitch Goldich on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram for food pictures.

We're live from Brett's living room today, as Brett and Nazim go old school to explain why immigrants don't have bail hearings (Jennings v. Rodriguez), why Congress can decide cases for the Courts (Patchak v. Zinke), and why podcasters shouldn't eat while recording.  Law starts at (03:10).

in re: Article III separation of powers.

On November 7, 2017, the Supreme Court heard argument in Patchak v. Zinke, a case involving separation of powers concerns that may arise when Congress passes a statute directing federal courts to “promptly dismiss” a pending lawsuit without amending any underlying substantive or procedural laws. In 2012, the Supreme Court held in the case Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak that David Patchak had prudential standing to bring a lawsuit under the Administrative Procedure Act against the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), to challenge DOI’s taking title under the Indian Reorganization Act to a certain tract of land that was then put into trust for use by the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians, also known as the Gun Lake Band or Gun Lake Tribe. Congress responded by passing the Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act (the Gun Lake Act), reaffirming DOI’s taking of land into trust for the Gun Lake Tribe, removing jurisdiction from the federal courts over any actions relating to the land in question, and indicating that any such actions “shall be promptly dismissed.” The district court in which Patchak had filed his suit determined that its jurisdiction to resolve the suit had been stripped by the Gun Lake Act and that the act was not unconstitutional. It therefore dismissed Patchak’s case. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment on appeal.The Supreme Court then granted certiorari to address whether a statute directing the federal courts to “promptly dismiss” a pending lawsuit following substantive determinations by the courts (including the Supreme Court’s determination that the “suit may proceed”) – without amending the underlying substantive or procedural laws – violates the Constitution's separation of powers principles.To discuss the case, we have Erik Zimmerman, Attorney at Robinson Bradshaw.

On November 7, 2017, the Supreme Court heard argument in Patchak v. Zinke, a case involving separation of powers concerns that may arise when Congress passes a statute directing federal courts to “promptly dismiss” a pending lawsuit without amending any underlying substantive or procedural laws. In 2012, the Supreme Court held in the case Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak that David Patchak had prudential standing to bring a lawsuit under the Administrative Procedure Act against the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), to challenge DOI’s taking title under the Indian Reorganization Act to a certain tract of land that was then put into trust for use by the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians, also known as the Gun Lake Band or Gun Lake Tribe. Congress responded by passing the Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act (the Gun Lake Act), reaffirming DOI’s taking of land into trust for the Gun Lake Tribe, removing jurisdiction from the federal courts over any actions relating to the land in question, and indicating that any such actions “shall be promptly dismissed.” The district court in which Patchak had filed his suit determined that its jurisdiction to resolve the suit had been stripped by the Gun Lake Act and that the act was not unconstitutional. It therefore dismissed Patchak’s case. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment on appeal.The Supreme Court then granted certiorari to address whether a statute directing the federal courts to “promptly dismiss” a pending lawsuit following substantive determinations by the courts (including the Supreme Court’s determination that the “suit may proceed”) – without amending the underlying substantive or procedural laws – violates the Constitution's separation of powers principles.To discuss the case, we have Erik Zimmerman, Attorney at Robinson Bradshaw.

Argued 11/7/2017. Description from Oyez.org: "A case in which the Court will decide whether a statute that directs the federal courts to "promptly dismiss” certain lawsuits without affecting any underlying laws violates the Constitution’s separation of powers principles, and whether that statute violates the due process rights of a plaintiff with a pending lawsuit affected by the statute."

Patchak v. Zinke | 11/07/17 | Docket #: 16-498

This week's episode covers the case of Patchak v. Zinke, which on a small scope covers whether or not the government can force you to live next to a casino, but on a broader scale deals with who wins in a fight, the branch of government filled with mostly old white people who are out of touch with the average person, or the other branch of government who's like basically the same thing.  Law starts at (04:06).

A case in which the Court held that a neighbor of a proposed Indian casino had standing to sue the government for taking 147 acres of a town's land under Section 465 of the Indian Reorganization Act.

Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak | 04/24/12 | Docket #: 11-246