Podcasts about plaintiffs

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> Trump's GDP has hit 3.8%, the economy is on fire even without the Fed lowering the rates the way Trump wants. The [DS] is now trying to stop Trump's economy. They have now created another event which they are trying to use to stop Trump's economy, this will fail just like everything else. The [DS] is holding steady on the shutdown. The cover story is that they want money for illegal medical insurance, this is falling apart. They know they don't have the people so they are using this to distract from the push to WWIII and they are hoping that ICE, NG will cease their operations. Trump is using this to drain the swamp, expose the D's.  This is a no win situation for the [DS]. Trump knows the playbook and most likely he is using backchannels to speak to Putin. No war, no civil unrest, clean and swift.   Economy (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"); https://twitter.com/profstonge/status/1973712063529631995 Treasury Sec. Bessent: Dem Shutdown to Cut Trump's GDP Growth The Democrats' government shutdown could reduce gross domestic product (GDP) growth that has emerged under President Donald Trump, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Thursday. "We were left with a mess [by the Biden administration]. It was the largest deficit when we weren't in a recession, weren't at war, and [now] we are fixing the deficit," Bessent said. "There could be a discussion, but this isn't the way to have a discussion — shutting down the government and lowering the GDP." "We could see a hit to the GDP, a hit to growth, and a hit to working America." Source: newsmax.com Political/Rights https://twitter.com/C_3C_3/status/1973706295841816644 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1973469908358086957   https://twitter.com/C_3C_3/status/1973547026534277539 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1973488279153680690   https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1973479707619590625 https://twitter.com/DHSgov/status/1973535704337486011  this Salvadoran man is not going to be able to remain in our country. He will never be allowed to prey on innocent Americans again. Never forget the Democrats flew to a foreign land on the US taxpayer's dime to break bread with this terrorist gang member and visit him in prison. While they continue to fight for criminal illegal aliens, we will continue to put the safety of the American people FIRST. https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1973715576750305650     DOGE Federal Court Rules Bans on Carrying Firearms in Post Offices Are Unconstitutional, Democrats Hardest Hit In a win for the Second Amendment and law-abiding gun owners across America, a federal court has ruled that bans on carrying firearms in U.S. Post Offices are unconstitutional.  , Chief United States District Judge Reed O'Connor handed down an opinion on Firearms Policy Coalition Inc, et.al. v. Bondi. FPC was joined by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) in challenging the federal law. The ruling also applies to carrying firearms on property surrounding post offices. Here's more, via Bearing Arms: O'Connor wrote that the law “is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment with respect to Plaintiffs' (and their members) possession and carrying of firearms i...

Too many professionals pursue prestige and big paydays, only to feel trapped in exhausting, unfulfilling careers. Nowhere is that more obvious than in Big Law, where young attorneys trade passion for paychecks—often at the cost of burnout, depression, and a life they never wanted.Bill Reid broke that mold. As a nationally recognized trial lawyer and co-founder of Reid Collins, he's spent decades taking on corporate giants—banks, accounting firms, and institutions most people thought were untouchable. In his new book, Fighting Bullies: The Case for a Career in Plaintiffs' Law, he reveals the truth behind Big Law's broken model and shows why pursuing passion and purpose leads not only to success, but to freedom.What makes Bill's story resonate far beyond the legal world is the life he's designed along the way—one of wealth, health, impact, and experiences that his peers envy. His journey is proof that you don't have to sacrifice your freedom to build real prosperity.In this episode, you'll learn: 1.) Why Big Law traps so many young attorneys—and how to avoid falling into the same paycheck-driven path.2.) How AI is disrupting industries like law—automating tasks like document review and contracts, and forcing efficiency over billable hours.3.) Bill's blueprint for an “epic life”—balancing high-stakes work, entrepreneurship, health, and unforgettable experiences with friends and family.Show Notes: LifestyleInvestor.com/258Tax Strategy MasterclassIf you're interested in learning more about Tax Strategy and how YOU can apply 28 of the best, most effective strategies right away, check out our BRAND NEW Tax Strategy Masterclass: www.lifestyleinvestor.com/taxStrategy Session For a limited time, my team is hosting free, personalized consultation calls to learn more about your goals and determine which of our courses or masterminds will get you to the next level. To book your free session, visit LifestyleInvestor.com/consultationThe Lifestyle Investor InsiderJoin The Lifestyle Investor Insider, our brand new AI - curated newsletter - FREE for all podcast listeners for a limited time: www.lifestyleinvestor.com/insiderRate & ReviewIf you enjoyed today's episode of The Lifestyle Investor, hit the subscribe button on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen, so future episodes are automatically downloaded directly to your device. You can also help by providing an honest rating & review.Connect with Justin DonaldFacebookYouTubeInstagramLinkedInTwitterSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

After years of having their belongings destroyed by city workers while homeless in San Francisco, Apple Cronk and her partner fought back through the courts.Join Apple and her partner Josh with our Host, Street Sheet editor TJ Johnston as they explore how this settlement protects ALL unhoused San Franciscans from routine property destruction, as well as their journey fighting back against the city's attack on unhoused people's human rights, their dignity and their vital and precious belongings. Check out Apple's op-ed in the Chronicle telling her story about why she joined the lawsuit. Support the show

In breaking news, A Republican Federal Judge, used Trump enabler Kari Lake's own words against her, to find her “dripping in indifference” and not only blocking her efforts to fire yet another 500 employees at Voice of America, but also observed that the Trump Administration's conduct before him would support civil contempt proceedings if only the Plaintiff would ask him for it. Michael Popok unpacks Judge Lamberth's order and his chastising of the Supreme Court while he is at it on his latest hot take. Done With Debt: Visit https://DoneWithDebt.com and talk to a strategist for FREE. Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Starting your own law firm can be one of the most rewarding (or one of the most challenging) decisions you'll ever make as a lawyer. In this episode of The Effective Lawyer Podcast, Jack Zinda breaks down the 7 essential questions every attorney should ask before taking the leap into running a practice.From understanding your “why” to building financial runway, generating business, handling risk, and surrounding yourself with the right support, this episode gives attorneys a framework for deciding if now is the right time to start a firm — and how to avoid common mistakes.What You'll Learn in This Episode:The most important question to ask before starting a law firm.How much financial runway you really need.Why client acquisition matters more than anything.The balance between being a lawyer and a CEO.How to prepare for uncertainty and risk.The systems you need beyond hustle.Why mentors, advisors, and family support are essential.Whether you're a young lawyer considering going solo or a seasoned attorney ready to take control of your career, this episode will help you make smarter, more confident decisions about your future.Learn more and explore other episodes at zdfirm.com/the-effective-lawyerHave a question for Jack? jack@zindalaw.com 

After winning a landmark climate case at the state level last year, a group of young Montanans are taking the fight to the federal government. They presented their arguments to a judge in Missoula last week.

In this episode, Florida attorney Chad Robinson discusses how AI is reshaping the insurance industry and why the human touch still matters. Gain insights into how claims are being handled with AI and automation, and discover tools professionals can use to stay ahead. Whether you're in legal, adjusting, or even contracting, Chad's expertise shows how to thrive in an AI-driven world. A must-listen for those wanting to elevate their claims game!   Highlights Impact of AI on Insurance Industry. Chad Robinson's Multifaceted Career. From Defense to Plaintiff's Side in Law. Importance of Human Element in Claims. Policyholders' Role in Documenting Damage. Adjusters' Approach to Inspections. Concerns with AI in Claims Decisions. Logic Loops in AI Handled Claims. Tools for Legal Professionals. Automation: Enhancing AI Efficiency. Leveling Up Through Professional Civility. Episode Resources Connect with Galen M. Hair https://insuranceclaimhq.com hair@hairshunnarah.com  https://levelupclaim.com/

Seeks class-action status over First Amendment claims The U.S. Military Academy at West Point is banning opinions by professors in the classroom and some books and courses in a crackdown that violates the First Amendment, a law professor at the military school said in a lawsuit Monday (Sept. 22) seeking class-action status. Tim Bakken filed the lawsuit in Manhattan federal court and named the school and its leaders as defendants. He said he wants to protect free speech and the right to academic freedom at an institution where he has flourished despite his public criticisms of the academy and the U.S. military. Bakken also noted in the lawsuit that he has a contract with a publisher for a book that is critical of some aspects of West Point and doesn't want to seek approval from the school's leadership prior to its publication because "it is very likely such approval will be withheld." The lawsuit seeks class action status for West Point's civilian faculty members, believed to be more than 100 individuals, and a court order to stop restrictions on free speech, along with unspecified damages and legal fees. Bakken's lawsuit said the school began to scrutinize faculty speech after a January executive order from President Donald Trump to "carefully review the leadership, curriculum and instructors of the United States Service Academies and other defense academic institutions." In February, the military academy at West Point issued a policy preventing faculty members from using the school's "affiliation or branding" in connection with any public comments or writings without the academy's approval, the lawsuit said. The lawsuit said the policy was "to control, chill and suppress faculty speech." The lawsuit said the academy in the spring withdrew books from its library, removed words and phrases from faculty members' syllabi, eliminated courses and majors and threatened or punished faculty members for teaching, speaking and writing without prior approval from the school. During the summer, the academy removed information about faculty members' published books, articles, essays and scholarship entries from all faculty members' webpages on the school's website, the lawsuit said. It also directed instructors not to express opinions in the classroom, it said. "As a professor of law, Plaintiff's inability to express opinions on the subject matter being taught is stifling and disruptive to the educational process," the lawsuit said. It added that he no longer would be able to express to students whether a major or dissenting opinion is persuasive and why. The military academy did not immediately return a request for comment. Bakken, a civilian professor of law in the academy's Department of Law and Philosophy for the last 25 years, is the longest-serving law professor in West Point's history and has written extensively, including books, articles and essays, along with appearances on podcasts, radio and television, the lawsuit said. His most recent books are The Cost of Loyalty: Dishonesty, Hubris, and Failure in the U.S. Military (2020) and The Plea of Innocence: Restoring Truth to the American Justice System (2022). According to the lawsuit, he traveled with U.S. soldiers to Kabul in 2007 during the war in Afghanistan and created the Department of Law at the National Military Academy of Afghanistan. He seeks class action status for West Point's faculty and a court order to stop restrictions on free speech.

Today - A lawsuit settlement that once quieted a major election dispute in Cochise County could now land the same plaintiff back in court — this time as the defendant.Support the show: https://www.myheraldreview.com/site/forms/subscription_services/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

*Content warning: substance use disorder, death, distressing and mature topics, drug use, institutional child abuse, emotional, physical and sexual violence of adolescents, childhood abuse, grooming.  *Free + Confidential Resources + Safety Tips:  somethingwaswrong.com/resources    *SWW S23 Theme Song & Artwork:  The S24 cover art is by the Amazing Sara Stewart Follow Something Was Wrong: Website: somethingwaswrong.com  IG: instagram.com/somethingwaswrongpodcast TikTok: tiktok.com/@somethingwaswrongpodcast  Follow Tiffany Reese: Website: tiffanyreese.me  IG: instagram.com/lookieboo *Sources  "Academy at Ivy Ridge Withdraws From World Wide Association of Specialty Programs & Schools." PRNewswire, January 1, 2006 https://web.archive.org/web/20120925185503 Bruening, Lexi, "District Attorney: dozens of Ivy Ridge abuse complaints pour in after documentary." 7 News, WWNY, March 11, 2024 https://www.wwnytv.com/2024/03/11/district-attorney-dozens-ivy-ridge Chomik, Alexandra, "TORTURE CHAMBER What was the Academy at Ivy Ridge?" The U.S. Sun, Mar 6 2024 https://www.the-sun.com/tv/10592100/what-was-academy-at-ivy-ridge  Editor, Letter to the. “Letter to the Editor: Bob Lichfield Offers Rebuttal to Allegations in Netflix Documentary.” St. George News, 27 Mar. 2024, www.stgeorgeutah.com/opinion/letter-to-the-editor-opinion/letter-to-the-editor-bob-lichfield-offers-rebuttal-to-allegations-in-netflix-documentary/article_c6e27554-f37b-555a-b4be-2c31f617c546.html. "Former Academy at Ivy Ridge students meet in Ogdensburg, rally outside city hall" 7 News, WWNY, April 27, 2024 https://www.wwnytv.com/2024/04/27/former-academy-ivy-ridge Hill, Michael, "Netflix docuseries on abuse allegations at New York boarding school prompts fresh investigation." InfoTelNews, April 03, 2024 https://infotel.ca/newsitem/us-boarding-academy-abuse-claims  Kenton, Luke, "'ABUSER UNMASKED' Amy Ritchie is named as the Ivy Ridge ‘predator' by four alleged victims who claim sexual abuse & sick grooming cycle." The Sun UK, March 23, 2024 https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/26880799/academy-ivy-ridge-abuser-amy-ritchie “Key to His Schools' Success? It's God, Founder Says.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 13 July 2003, www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-jul-13-na-toughbar13-story.html Kubler, Katherine, creator and director. The Program: Cons, Cults and Kidnapping. Netflix, 2024 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt31183637/  Mitchell, Max, "IDirector: Ivy Ridge to close until fall" Watertown Daily Times, MARCH 12, 2009 https://web.archive.org/web/20160530232325 “Riot at Cult School Finally Helped Close It after Abused Students Fought Back.” The US Sun, The US Sun, 28 Mar. 2024, www.the-sun.com/news/10623840/academy-ivy-ridge-riot-cult-school-closed-abuse-netflix/.  Rutherford, Diane, "NYS saw serious problems at Ivy Ridge in 2006, says letter obtained by 7 News." 7 News, WWNY, Mar. 12, 2024 https://www.wwnytv.com/2024/03/12/nys-saw-serious-problems-ivy-ridge Semple, Kirk, "Melee Keeps Spotlight on Hard Life at Academy." The New York Times, June 8, 2005 https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/nyregion NewsNation. “Teens' Alleged New York Boarding School Sexual Abuser Identified: Report | Banfield.” YouTube, 22 Apr. 2024 www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_oKRuKXdAQ.  “UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, BRUCE DUNGAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE ACADEMY AT IVY RIDGE, et al., Defendants.” April 22, 2008 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nynd Warner, Greg, "Riot at Ivy Ridge School for Troubled Teens." NCPR, May 19, 2005 https://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story Winters, David, "Ivy Ridge, home sold for $2.8m." Watertown Daily Times, APRIL 25, 2009 https://web.archive.org/web/20140130123642 7 News. "Former Academy at Ivy Ridge Students Meet in Ogdensburg, Rally Outside City Hall." YouTube, 27 Apr. 2024, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRNMUgnUkNw 

John is joined by William T. Reid IV, Senior Founding Partner of Reid Collins & Tsai LLP, and author of Fighting Bullies: The Case for a Career in Plaintiff's Law.  They discuss Bill's view that young lawyers are too often funneled into BigLaw careers before they understand the full range of options available in the legal profession—particularly plaintiffs' work.The impetus for Bill's book came from his experience teaching at the University of Texas School of Law and advising students who often expressed frustration at the lack of career guidance and exposure to alternative paths.  The law school hiring process, particularly the On-Campus Interview (OCI) process, now often takes place in January of the students' first year—rather than the fall of the students' second year.  This, Bill believes, is too soon for the students to have meaningful legal experience or career insights.  The result is a “conveyor belt” that locks students into BigLaw roles primarily for the salary, often at the expense of passion, fulfillment, and long-term satisfaction.Bill's book makes the case for the personal and professional rewards of plaintiffs' practice.  He emphasizes that his firm, Reid Collins, generally only brings cases after extensive pre-suit investigation.  This selectivity allows him to accept cases he believes in which brings deep meaning and satisfaction to his work.  He argues that plaintiffs' lawyers, especially those focused on commercial and institutional wrongdoing, play a vital societal role by holding wrongdoers accountable, especially when government agencies fail to act.  While not every case—or plaintiff's lawyer—meets a high moral bar, the ability to choose meaningful work and act on principle often leads to a highly satisfying career in law.Finally, John and Bill also discuss the evolution of the legal profession, including how artificial intelligence may reshape law firm structures by increasing efficiency and altering the traditional BigLaw pyramid.  These changes may lead to firms pursuing alternative billing structures to traditional hourly billing.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Plaintiffs suing the Trump administration over its energy policies argue the executive orders to boost fossil fuel development jeopardize their health. A federal court in Missoula heard arguments in the case this week.

During Ep. 28 of the Ask the Law Firm Seller Show, Tim McKey, CPA, CEO of Vista Consulting Team, joins to address 3 Tips for Strategic Planning to Sell a Plaintiff Contingency Law Firm   McKey initially explains that Vista Consulting Team provides strategic consulting to Plaintiff contingency law firms, assisting clients with systemizing their businesses per Vista's tagline: The business resource for Plaintiff law firms.   McKey then shares the following 3 tips for strategic planning to sell a Plaintiff contingency law firm:   Tip No. 1: As McKey says, “The best thing you can do to prepare your firm to be sellable is to be profitable.”   Underlying that tip relates to law firms knowing their numbers.   Examples of numbers to know include: (a) Gross revenues vs. Net Revenues; (b) The EBITDA for your firm; (c) Average fee per case; (d) Case acquisition costs; (e) Number of open cases, together with estimated values of those cases; and (f) Average time on desk to resolve cases, including differentiating between pre-lit. and litigation matters.   Tip No. 2: Know the value of your firm per 1 or more recognized methodologies of valuation.   Tip No. 3: Have efficient, effective, and documented operations within your firm, including (a) A methodology for internal reports that hold teams at a firm accountable; and (b) A means to make sure that a firm does not need its founder/rainmaker for the firm to operate.   McKey and Poock also discuss their thoughts about what buyers want/need when purchasing Plaintiff contingency practices, including strategic purchasers who seek to purchase more than one law firm, usually, in anticipation of a future roll-up type transaction.

Description: Dive into the chilling true crime saga of Michelle Lyn Michaud and James Anthony Daveggio, the infamous killer couple who terrorized California and Nevada in the 1990s. From abductions in a modified "torture van" to brutal rapes, tortures, and the murder of Vanessa Samson, this episode uncovers their meth-fueled rampage, twisted fantasies inspired by other killers, and the shocking assaults on victims including their own family members. Explore Jim's violent youth, Michelle's dark past, and their deadly partnership that led to death row. Perfect for fans of serial killers, couple murderers, true crime podcasts, kidnapping cases, and forensic psychology. #TrueCrime #SerialKillers #DeathRow #MichaudDaveggio #MurderMysterySources:Parker, RJ. ABDUCTION: The Minivan Murders: Killer Couple Michelle Michaud and James Daveggio. Kindle Edition. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,S110294 v. JAMES ANTHONY DAVEGGIO and MICHELLE LYN MICHAUD, Alameda CountyDefendants and Appellants. Super. Ct. No. 134147. Filed 4/26/18.https://maamodt.asp.radford.edu/psyc%20405/serial%20killers/Daveggio,%20James%20_fall,%202007_.pdfUnited States of America, Plaintiff-appellee v. Michelle Lyn Michaud, Defendant-appellant, 268 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2001). In the Supreme Court of the United States MICHELLE LYN MICHAUD, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA. No. 18-5079. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-5079/55822/20180727182319666_Opposition.pdfCourt Upholds Death Sentences In Pleasanton Woman's Murder. For CBS News. April 26, 2018.

Two Native American voters in the Chippewa Cree Tribe are suing Chouteau County for minimizing the impact of Native voters' voices in local elections. They say at-large elections prevent Native Americans in the county from getting a fair say in who represents them.

The Trump administration has sought to advance its extreme and often unlawful agenda through the strategic use and abuse of the law and legal system, including Executive Orders targeting law firms and litigation and misconduct complaints against district court judges. While some lawyers and courts are holding the administration accountable, others are quick to capitulate. Mark Lemley joins Christopher Wright Durocher to talk about the administration's abuse of the law and legal system and what can be done to stop it. Join the Progressive Legal Movement Today: ACSLaw.orgHost: Christopher Wright Durocher, Vice President of Policy and ProgramGuest: Mark Lemley, William H. Neukom Professor of Law and Director of the Program in Law, Science and Technology, Stanford Law School; Partner, Lex Lumina, LLPLink: Amicus Brief of 676 Law Professors in Support of Plaintiff, WilmerHale v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 25-cv-917 (Apr. 11, 2025)Link: As July 4 Approaches, Supreme Court Signs Away American Democracy, by Mark LemleyVisit the Podcast Website: Broken Law Podcast Email the Show: Podcast@ACSLaw.org Follow ACS on Social Media: Facebook | Instagram | Bluesky | LinkedIn | YouTube -----------------Broken Law: About the law, who it serves, and who it doesn't.----------------- Production House: Flint Stone Media Copyright of American Constitution Society 2025.

Episode Info Cayce E. Lynch is the National Managing Partner and an Equity Partner at Tyson & Mendes. In this capacity, she leads the firm's strategic vision and execution across all offices, focusing on optimizing the firm's performance and addressing challenges in the evolving insurance defense industry. As part of the firm's executive leadership team, Ms. Lynch is passionate about fostering a culture centered on people while driving results, reflecting her belief that organizations thrive when they balance purpose with humanity. Under Ms. Lynch's leadership, the firm has more than quadrupled in size and strengthened its reputation as a leader in insurance defense. She is the founder of several transformative initiatives, including the Tyson & Mendes Women's Initiative, Young Professionals Group, and Diversity & Inclusion Committee, which provide mentorship and support for the firm's attorneys and staff as well as insurance professionals nationwide. She also established Tyson & Mendes University, the firm's premier internal education program that delivers unparalleled training for attorneys to ensure excellence in legal practice and client service. In her leadership, Ms. Lynch prioritizes work-life harmony over rigid concepts of “balance.” She is a vocal advocate for supporting working parents, empowering underrepresented groups, and encouraging individuals to fully embrace authenticity in their work. Her initiatives and approach aim to support employees in thriving personally and professionally. An industry-recognized speaker and educator, Ms. Lynch regularly presents CE and MCLE updates on topics such as preventing Nuclear Verdicts® and social inflation. She also serves as faculty for the Nuclear Verdicts Defense Institute, helping train defense professionals to combat Nuclear Verdict® trends. Ms. Lynch has been recognized with numerous awards, including San Diego Business Journal's “Business Women of the Year” Award (2017), “Top 40 Under 40” by both San Diego Metro and San Diego Business Journal (2018, 2019), and CLM's inaugural “Phenoms Under 40” (2022). She has also been listed as a “Woman of Influence in Law” (2021-2023)and a “Leader of Influence in Law” (2023) by San Diego Business Journal. Ms. Lynch earned her J.D., cum laude, in 2011 from the William S. Richardson School of Law, University of Hawaii at Manoa, where she served as the Outside Articles Editor for the University of Hawaii Law Review. After graduation, she clerked for Associate Justice James Duffy at the Hawaii Supreme Court. She is licensed to practice law in California and Colorado. Episode Highlights The Apex Method: Cayce Lynch introduces the "Apex" method, a holistic approach designed to prevent nuclear verdicts by diffusing juror anger from the onset of a case. This method emphasizes reasonableness and being a good human. Core Four Strategies: The Apex method includes four key strategies, referred to as the "Core Four," which are crucial in preventing juror anger and, consequently, nuclear verdicts. Research indicates that these strategies are often not utilized by the defense. Data-Driven Insights: The book is backed by extensive research, including the analysis of trial transcripts from 100 nuclear verdicts over the past decade. This research highlights the importance of understanding the psychological tactics used by the plaintiff's bar. Message of Hope: Despite the increasing challenge of nuclear verdicts, Cayce Lynch offers a message of hope. By changing defense strategies and presentations in court, there is potential to alter the trajectory of these verdicts and improve the viability of the insurance industry. Upcoming Book Release: "Nuclear Verdicts: The Apex" is set to launch on October 22nd, with pre-sales available from early September. These insights from Cayce Lynch's interview provide a comprehensive look at the challenges and solutions surrounding nuclear verdicts, offering valuable strategies for defense attorneys and claims professionals. This episode is brought to you by The Future of Insurance book series (future-of-insurance.com) from Bryan Falchuk. Follow the podcast at future-of-insurance.com/podcast for more details and other episodes. Music courtesy of Hyperbeat Music, available to stream or download on Spotify, Apple Music, and Amazon Music and more.

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).

It's been a whirlwind few days in courtrooms across Washington and beyond, as legal battles tied to former President Donald Trump have dominated headlines. I'll jump right into it. The most closely watched case right now is Taylor v. Trump, which is being heard in the District Court. This one centers on Trump's executive order restoring the death penalty and toughening conditions of imprisonment, a direct move under Executive Order 14164. The trial kicked off on August 11, lasted three days, and legal experts have been watching for how the judge will interpret civil liberties claims versus federal power.At the same time, the National Association of the Deaf is suing Donald Trump along with White House officials like Susan Wiles and Karoline Leavitt. Their core argument? By ending ASL interpretation at federal press briefings and events, Trump is violating not only the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which protects disability rights, but also key First and Fifth Amendment protections. Plaintiffs have asked the court to order the administration to restore these services, arguing it's essential for equal protection and free speech.Meanwhile, legal teams on both sides have been busy in appellate courts and even the Supreme Court. Just a few nights ago, Judge Florence Pan on the D.C. Circuit wrote a pivotal opinion that reshaped how grantees could challenge Trump's actions on foreign aid payments. The panel's revision sent the case back to district court, offering a pathway for the groups involved to seek relief under the Administrative Procedure Act. In the wake of these moves, counsel for the government officially withdrew the request for emergency Supreme Court intervention, meaning Congress will now weigh in on Trump's proposed rescissions for a $15 billion foreign aid package.Immigration issues also remain front and center. A federal court has blocked Trump's fast-track deportation policy after a lawsuit led by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ruling states this expansion denied immigrants their due process, and the court made clear: during litigation, the policy is halted.And one more headline out of the Court of Appeals—V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump is on hold pending a possible Supreme Court review. The appellate court ordered the mandate withheld until October 14, giving either side time to seek a writ of certiorari from the highest court.Each one of these cases underscores the ongoing tension between presidential authority and individual rights, as well as the ability—and the limits—of the courts to check executive orders. Thanks for tuning in to this special update. Be sure to come back next week for the latest developments. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out QuietPlease Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Greg Bishop gets to the latest in gun ban litigation with plaintiffs challenging Cook County's ban asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case. This comes as the statewide ban a district judge found unconstitutional is cued up for appeals' court arguments next month.

Dive into one of America's most brutal true crime stories: the 1984 Geronimo Bank Murders. In this gripping episode of Almost Fiction, uncover how two debt-ridden lovers, Jay Wesley Neill and Robert Grady Johnson, turned desperation into a deadly Oklahoma bank robbery, stabbing and shooting innocent victims, including a pregnant woman, in a small-town heist gone horrifically wrong. Explore conflicting confessions, survivor testimonies, and the long fight for justice that ended in execution and life sentences. Perfect for fans of dark history, unsolved mysteries, and chilling true crime podcasts. Follow for daily cases on Instagram @almostfictionpod.Sources:https://www.upi.com/Archives/1985/05/20/A-teenage-survivor-of-a-bloody-bank-robbery-Monday/7006485409600/Geronimo bank robber put to death. By News on 6. December 12th 2002, 12:00 am.https://murderpedia.org/male.N/n1/neill-jay-wesley.htmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geronimo_bank_murdersJay Wesley Neill, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Gary Gibson, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Respondent-appellee, 278 F.3d 1044 (10th Cir. 2001) December 7, 2001.JAY WESLEY NEILL, APPELLANT v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA, APPELLEEOklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. OK CR 69 896 P.2d 537. Case Number: F-92-975. 1994.http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/neill818.htmhttps://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-10th-circuit/1050363.htmlJOHNSON v. MULLIN. United States Court of Appeals,Tenth Circuit. Robert Grady JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mike MULLIN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. No. 06-6260. Decided: October 26, 2007.

In This Episode It's an ACP Round Table! Join Oddball, David, Erin, and Weer'd as they discuss: the SIG P320 saga getting even more complicated now that an Airman present at the fatal shooting has been arrested and charged; the Giffords gun control lobby showing that there will never be enough gun control for them; the plaintiffs in Duncan v. Bonta urging SCOTUS to do their job; and David and Oddball, fresh from GOALS, share some highlights of the expo. Did you know that we have a Patreon? Join now for the low, low cost of $4/month (that's $1/podcast) and you'll get to listen to our podcast on Friday instead of Mondays, as well as patron-only content like mag dump episodes, our hilarious blooper reels and film tracks. Show Notes Airman arrested for death that prompted Air Force-wide safety review of Sig M18 Giffords:  New York's Easy Access to Guns will they try and BAN HARDWARE STORES next?! Plaintiffs in Duncan v Bonta petition SCOTUS *again,* and straight up ask them to finally do their jobs. William Kirk gives us some hope. GOALS Expo TCRT self healing targets Black Steel USA Bond Arms Kahr Arms unsuppressed 50BMG vs Barrett suppressed 50BMG DSArms FALs Stern Defense Battle Arms Development G80 Oriskany Arms BOE Suppression/DuraMag Wren Metal Works Ranger Point AS Designs Gear Head Works DefGrip Trailblazer Firearms (Lifecard update) Microtech Ultratech ZPT StogieMag 2nd Amendment Bourbon Ballistic Dummy Lab Arc Fire Freedom Ordnance Devil Dog Concepts Rock Island Armory USA (Folding Shotgun) Freedom Ordnance Stuff and Things, Inc Arise Armament Strike Industries Emily Stanley (Princess and the Pistol) Tony Simon Stephen Willeford (Stopped Texas church shooter barefoot) Tim Hoffman (Hoffman Tactical) William Kirk (Washington Gun Law) Jeff Yeager (Appleseed)  

In this episode of Friday Fiduciary Five, Eric Dyson talks about the LabCorp case, focusing on record-keeping fees. Plaintiffs argued fees should be $20-$25 per person per year, while the plan completed RFIs in 2017, 2019, and benchmarked in 2021 and 2022. The court found the process met the standard of care, though some argue a competitive bid process might have been more effective. Eric emphasizes the importance of fiduciary duty in looking out for participants' best interests. He plans to cover share classes and float income in upcoming episodes, aiming to educate and equip plan sponsors and advisors to improve participant outcomes.Connect with Eric Dyson: Website: https://90northllc.com/Phone: 940-248-4800Email: contact@90northllc.com LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/401kguy/ The information contained herein is general in nature and is provided solely for educational and informational purposes.It is not intended to provide a specific recommendation of any type of product or service discussed in this presentation or to provide any warranties, financial advice or legal advice.The specific facts and circumstance of all qualified plans can vary and the information contained in this podcast may or may not apply to your individual circumstances or to your plan or client plan specific circumstances.

A guest panel discusses aircraft accidents, air turbulence injuries, airline and airframer culture, pilot training and experience, FAA shortfalls, and other topics that impact the flying public. In the news, the 90-second evacuation rule, the fatal Jeju Air crash at Muan Airport, and Zunum Air's suit against Boeing for the misappropriation of trade secrets. Guests Chris Manno became an Air Force pilot after graduation from college and served seven years as a squadron pilot in the Pacific. He flew as a pilot with American Airlines for 35 years and was a captain for 29 of those years. Over his career, Chris logged over 25,000 hours of jet time. He's a cartoonist and author of many books. Chris has just written a new book based on actual airline incidents titled Whiskey Air. It's a fictionalized deep-dive into actual airline incidents. James Albright co-wrote Whiskey Air. He's a fellow USAF pilot (they flew together in a squadron in PACAF) who went on to command a USAF squadron, then retired and spent another twenty years as a corporate pilot. He also writes safety analysis for AvWeek. Erin Applebaum is a Partner in the aviation practice at Kreindler & Kreindler LLP. She represents the interests of passengers severely injured or killed in general aviation and commercial airline accidents. Erin is currently on the team representing numerous victims of the DCA midair collision. She's also handling cases on behalf of several passengers from the February 2025 Delta Air Lines crash in Toronto. Erin is a foremost authority on litigating claims governed by the Montreal Convention, the international treaty on commercial air travel. Erin's other major cases at Kreindler include the Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 catastrophic engine failure and the Liberty Helicopters doors-off tour helicopter crash in the East River. For the past six years, Erin has played a key role in Kreindler's fight against Boeing in the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302/737 MAX litigation. She was appointed by the court as a member of the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee for the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 cases and was instrumental in the victims' families' effort to overturn the Deferred Prosecution Agreement between Boeing and the Department of Justice. Discussion In this episode's roundtable, our guests bring their knowledge and experience to the discussion of important issues faced by the industry, including:  The 90-second evacuation rule. The liability of the airlines, airports, and the regulators. Boeing's corporate culture, reputation, and the DOJ's criminal case. Profit motives over safety. Decision making in the cockpit and being the captain that sometimes has to say, “no.” Lack of FAA oversight resources and the Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP). Delegated oversight authority. Injuries sustained due to air turbulence. See: Whiskey Air on Amazon Chris Manno's author page Code 7700 page by James Albright Rough Skies Ahead: Legal Options for Turbulence Injuries [PDF] by Erin Applebaum and Taylor Sandella. Aviation News Senator Pushes FAA to Examine Aircraft Evacuation Rules Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) sent a letter to the FAA asking the agency to compare its 90-second evacuation standard against recent incidents. The rule originated in the late 1960s and requires aircraft manufacturers to demonstrate during certification that all passengers and crew can evacuate the aircraft within 90 seconds, even with only half of the emergency exits available. Duckworth's letter: “While FAA has yet to disclose how long any of the referenced passenger evacuations took, these incidents once again raise serious questions about FAA's 90-second evacuation standard as well as FAA's assumptions about how evacuations occur in real world conditions (such as the assumption every passenger will comply with instructions to deplane without carry-on bags).”

 Many lawsuits have been brought against the second Trump Administration on the basis of overreach of its authority in trying to enact policies. President Trump declared victory over ‘radical left wing judges' when the U.S. Supreme Court declared that the concept of the ‘universal' injunction, wherein one lower federal court can make a ruling which … Read More Read More

This Day in Legal History: Economic Opportunity ActOn August 20, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Economic Opportunity Act into law, marking a major legal milestone in the federal government's efforts to address systemic poverty. The Act authorized $1 billion to fund a wide range of social programs aimed at improving education, employment, and economic security for low-income Americans. It was the legislative backbone of Johnson's "War on Poverty" and a cornerstone of his broader Great Society agenda.The law created the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) to oversee a suite of initiatives, including Job Corps, Head Start, and Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA). These programs sought to address poverty through direct services, job training, and community empowerment rather than traditional welfare.Legally, the Act reflected a dramatic expansion of federal authority in the realm of economic and social rights, shifting the understanding of poverty from a local issue to a national legal and policy concern. It encouraged the formation of Community Action Agencies, which brought poor communities into the policy-making process—a novel approach for federal law at the time.Critics challenged the constitutionality and effectiveness of the programs, with some arguing the Act encroached on states' rights and created administrative overreach. Nonetheless, the Economic Opportunity Act became a model for future federal social legislation.By institutionalizing anti-poverty efforts through law, the Act marked a turning point in American legal and political history. While many of its original provisions have since been revised or repealed, its legacy continues in modern public assistance and education programs.California Republican lawmakers have filed an emergency lawsuit with the state Supreme Court to block Governor Gavin Newsom's redistricting proposal, which would create five new Democratic congressional districts. The GOP legislators argue that the state constitution requires a 30-day review period for new legislation and that Democrats cannot legally move forward with the plan until September 18 unless both legislative chambers approve it by a three-fourths vote. The lawsuit seeks either a ruling on the merits by Wednesday or a temporary halt to the legislative process.Newsom's proposal is intended as a direct response to a controversial redistricting initiative in Texas, championed by Governor Greg Abbott and supported by President Donald Trump, which is expected to yield five new Republican congressional seats. With the GOP holding a narrow 219-212 majority in the U.S. House, the outcome of these redistricting efforts could have significant national political implications ahead of the 2026 midterms.California Democrats aim to pass the redistricting bills by August 22 in order to place the revised maps on a special November ballot. They justify bypassing the state's independent redistricting process, established by voters in 2008, as a necessary emergency countermeasure to what they describe as partisan manipulation in Texas. That state's plan, criticized for potentially disenfranchising minority voters, led to a dramatic walkout by Texas House Democrats. Upon their return, Republican leaders imposed restrictions requiring lawmakers to remain under state police escort during sessions, sparking further protest.California Republicans sue to block Democratic redistricting plan | ReutersA federal appeals court has sided with Elon Musk's SpaceX and two other companies, ruling that the structure of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is likely unconstitutional. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that laws protecting NLRB board members and administrative judges from being removed at will by the president likely violate the Constitution's separation of powers. The court said these protections improperly restrict the president's authority over the executive branch.This decision is the first from a federal appeals court to challenge the NLRB's structure on these grounds, setting a precedent as similar lawsuits are pending. The ruling blocks the NLRB from continuing enforcement actions against SpaceX, Energy Transfer, and Aunt Bertha while the companies' constitutional challenges proceed. Circuit Judge Don Willett, writing for the panel, stated that the companies should not have to choose between following NLRB procedures and asserting their constitutional rights.The NLRB, an independent agency created by Congress, handles private-sector labor disputes, and its structure was designed to insulate it from political influence. However, this independence is now under scrutiny. The issue gained momentum after President Trump fired Democratic board member Gwynne Wilcox in January—a move that left the board without a quorum and marked the first time a sitting board member had been removed by a president.Musk, once an adviser to Trump, has a separate pending lawsuit against the NLRB related to another dispute. The court's panel consisted entirely of Republican-appointed judges.Musk's SpaceX, others win US court challenge to labor board's structure | ReutersNevada's Chief Justice Douglas Herndon is spearheading an initiative to establish a dedicated business court in the state, aiming to attract companies seeking an alternative to Delaware's Chancery Court. During a public hearing in Las Vegas, Herndon urged the state Supreme Court to approve a commission to draft rules for the new tribunal, which could begin hearing cases as early as 2026. The court would feature judges appointed by the chief justice to four-year terms from a vetted list, with input from legal, governmental, and business stakeholders.Currently, Nevada handles business cases through district courts in Las Vegas and Reno, where judges balance other civil and criminal matters. Herndon said the creation of a specialized court would streamline corporate litigation and provide data to inform future legislative reforms. While a constitutional amendment to establish a fully independent business court is underway, that process will take years. The commission's work would serve as an interim step.This move follows a broader trend of states competing for corporate incorporations. Nevada and Texas are positioning themselves as more business-friendly venues, especially for Big Tech and firms led by controlling shareholders. Companies like Andreessen Horowitz and AMC Networks have already opted to leave Delaware in favor of Nevada. Recent changes in Nevada law now allow companies to waive jury trials via their articles of incorporation, aligning the state more closely with Delaware's procedures.Delaware, while still the leading venue for corporate law, has faced criticism over judicial bias and repetitive judge assignments. In response, it has revised statutes and begun implementing judge rotation. Texas, meanwhile, launched its business court last year and issued its first final judgment in June. Judges there serve two-year terms and juries are allowed in some cases.Nevada's Top Judge Calls for Plan to Craft Business Court RulesInvestors suing Elon Musk over his delayed disclosure of a large Twitter stake in early 2022 are challenging his attempt to use an advice-of-counsel defense while withholding related legal documents. The plaintiffs, led by an Oklahoma firefighters pension fund, argue Musk is employing a “sword and shield” tactic—invoking legal advice to justify his actions while citing attorney-client privilege to avoid releasing relevant evidence.They've asked a federal judge in Manhattan to force Musk to formally declare whether he intends to rely on legal counsel or a good-faith defense before he testifies in late August and early September. If Musk invokes this defense, plaintiffs want access to communications with lawyers from Quinn Emanuel and McDermott Will & Emery, both of which advised Musk around the time he disclosed his 9.2% Twitter stake in April 2022.The lawsuit alleges Musk defrauded shareholders by delaying disclosure, causing them to sell stock at artificially low prices. Musk has denied wrongdoing, stating he misunderstood SEC disclosure rules and acted in good faith once he realized the mistake. Plaintiffs argue that if Musk refuses to share legal advice-related documents, the court should prevent him from using that defense at trial.A similar civil lawsuit by the SEC over the same issue remains pending. The outcome of this discovery dispute could shape the strength of Musk's defense in both cases.Musk's advice-of-counsel defense faces test in Twitter lawsuit | 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

In the 1980s, a group of wealthy young men calling themselves the Billionaire Boys Club set out to make millions under the leadership of charismatic con man Joe Hunt. What started as a flashy business-meets-brotherhood venture quickly spiraled into a Ponzi scheme, manipulation, and two brutal murders — one of a fellow scam artist, and another of a wealthy father kidnapped for ransom. Thank you to this week's sponsors! See thicker, stronger, faster-growing hair with less shedding in just 3-6 months with Nutrafol. For a limited time, Nutrafol is offering our listeners $10 off your first month's subscription and free shipping when you go to Nutrafol.com and enter the promo code MOMS.  Get organized, refreshed, and back to routine for way less. Head to Wayfair.com right now to shop all things home. Wayfair. Every style. Every home. Elevate your fall wardrobe essentials with Quince. Go to Quince.com/moms  for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns.  Right now save 20% on your FIRST order and get a free cat toy at PrettyLitter.com/moms. Terms and conditions apply. See site for details. Check-out bonus episodes up on Spotify and Apple podcast now! Get new episodes a day early and ad free, plus chat episodes, at Patreon.com/momsandmysteriespodcast .    To advertise on the show, contact sales@advertisecast.com or visit https://www.advertisecast.com/MomsandMysteriesATrueCrimePodcast.    Check-out Moms and Mysteries to find links to our tiktok, youtube, twitter, instagram and more.      Sources: Billionaire Boys Club Bodyguard Admits Slaying in TV Interview May 21, 1993 Free Joe Hunt https://www.newspapers.com/image/402515483/?match=1&terms=%22Billionaire%20boys%20club%22 Feb 3, 1987 HUNT v. PLILER CSP CDC (2003) | FindLaw https://www.newspapers.com/image/402516769/?match=1&terms=%22Billionaire%20boys%20club%22 Feb 4, 1987 https://www.newspapers.com/image/404875828/?match=1&terms=%22Billionaire%20boys%20club%22 Feb 20, 1987 Charges In Famed Death Dropped / Victim's son accused in `billionaire' slaying Nov 7, 2000 Former Billionaire Boy wants drug trial moved | Local News | smdailyjournal.com Oct 21, 2005 Ex-Billionaire Boys Club member sought for vehicular manslaughter | Reuters May 13, 2013 brian eslaminia letter : r/MenendezBrothers https://web.archive.org/web/20160305061613/https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1987/02/07/saga-of-fast-track-group-told-at-trial/41c5b752-dcfe-46db-bb36-c13e6b29531b/ Feb 7, 1987 https://web.archive.org/web/20210804131916/https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a37200506/billonaire-boys-club-joe-hunt-true-story/ original, Sept. 1986, updated Aug 4, 2021 No. 13-56207 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSEPH HUNT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. TIM V. VIRGA, How the 'Billionaire Boys Club' Led to Murder Aug 13, 2106 https://charleyproject.org/case/ronald-george-levin WITNESS SAYS CLUB FOUNDER DIRECTED MURDER OF BEVERLY HILLS MAN - The New York Times 1987 https://web.archive.org/web/20171101155156/https://www.nytimes.com/1987/04/23/us/murder-conviction-for-club-leader.html A Timeline of the Entire Menendez Brothers Murder Case https://mail.crimelibrary.org/notorious_murders/young/joe_hunt/11.html https://mail.crimelibrary.org/notorious_murders/young/joe_hunt/2.html https://mail.crimelibrary.org/notorious_murders/young/joe_hunt/3.html https://mail.crimelibrary.org/notorious_murders/young/joe_hunt/4.html https://mail.crimelibrary.org/notorious_murders/young/joe_hunt/5.html https://mail.crimelibrary.org/notorious_murders/young/joe_hunt/6.html https://mail.crimelibrary.org/notorious_murders/young/joe_hunt/7.html https://mail.crimelibrary.org/notorious_murders/young/joe_hunt/8.html https://mail.crimelibrary.org/notorious_murders/young/joe_hunt/9.html Joe Hunt, Plaintiff-appellant, v. National Broadcasting Company, Inc.; Itc Productions, Inc.,defendants-appellees, 872 F.2d 289 (9th Cir. 1989) :: Justia The True Story of the Billionaire Boys Club Original 1986, Sept.  The Billionaire Boys' Club Billionaire Boys Club Founder Convicted Of Murder Is Asking Gov. Brown For Parole - CBS Los Angeles https://www.newspapers.com/image/404116359/?match=1&terms=Dosti Jan 26, 1988 https://www.newspapers.com/image/404116662/?match=1&terms=Dosti https://freejoehunt.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/box-4-rt-volume-53-of-101-pages-7982-8195.pdf.pdf ESLAMINIA v. WHITE (1998) | FindLaw Two BBC members get life in prison - UPI Archives Billionaire Boys Club's Joe Hunt seeks cut in life sentence | News, Sports, Jobs - Times Republican The Billionaire Boys Club Podcast Tells a Twisted Tale of Greed, Murder and 1980s Excess August 3, 2020 Governor Gavin Newsom 1303 10th Street, Suite 1173 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Joe Hunt https://www.newspapers.com/image/402980517/?match=1&terms=James%20Pittman https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=iAYqAAAAIBAJ&pg=6928,221426 https://ciris.mt.cdcr.ca.gov/details?cdcrNumber=D6186 https://freejoehunt.com/reward/

Summary:Boosting law firm client satisfaction doesn't have to be complicated. In this episode of The Effective Lawyer, Zinda Law Group CEO Jack Zinda shares a simple, proven system that can help you reach a 95% satisfaction rate or higher. You'll learn how to set communication expectations, keep clients informed, and resolve issues before they become complaints.What You'll Learn:    The #1 factor in improving client satisfaction in a law firm    How to outline the legal process for clients in clear, simple terms    The “Client Satisfaction Alert” system for catching concerns early    Practical attorney communication tips to reduce complaints    Why team training is essential for consistent client experience

The I Love CVille Show headlines: NY Times Columnist Suggests Demolishing CVille Home Jamelle Bouie Wants Revenge On Zoning Plaintiffs Respond/React To Fred Missel v Scott Smith Debate How Different Are Missel & Smith's Ideologies CVille Rent Prices Outpacing Richmond/Norfolk First Arrest Made In July 4 Orangedale Shootout Shooting Suspect Tied To Multiple Gun Violence Connections Executive Offices For Rent ($350 – $2000), Contact Jerry Read Viewer & Listener Comments Live On-Air The I Love CVille Show airs live Monday – Friday from 12:30 pm – 1:30 pm on The I Love CVille Network. Watch and listen to The I Love CVille Show on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, iTunes, Apple Podcast, YouTube, Spotify, Fountain, Amazon Music, Audible, Rumble and iLoveCVille.com.

In this episode, Wayne Pollock (Founder of the Law Firm Editorial Service) discusses the benefits of plaintiffs' firms crafting thought leadership that discuses how they secured the big settlements and verdicts they tout in their advertising and marketing.====+ Learn more about Wayne Pollock, the host of Legally Contented and the founder of the Law Firm Editorial Service: https://www.linkedin.com/in/waynepollock+ Learn more about the Law Firm Editorial Service:http://www.lawfirmeditorialservice.com+ Do you have any idea how much money your firm is losing when its lawyers write thought-leadership marketing and business development content themselves?Learn how much with the Law Firm Editorial Service's Thought Leadership Cost Calculator:http://www.WriteLessBillMore.com+ Do you want to elevate your thought leadership, distinguish yourself from your competitors, and never again be your target clients' second choice? Our Legal Thought Leadership Accelerator is a FREE five-day educational email course, in which you will learn five advanced principles for conceptualizing and crafting revenue-generating legal thought leadership that positions you to be your target clients' top choice over your competitors (and the one the media regularly calls and conference organizers regularly put on stage): https://www.lawfirmeditorialservice.com/legal-thought-leadership-accelerator+ Check out blog posts and videos designed to help you and your colleagues improve their content marketing and thought-leadership marketing efforts:https://www.lawfirmeditorialservice.com/bloghttps://www.lawfirmeditorialservice.com/videos+ Do you have a question about content  marketing or thought-leadership marketing you would like us to answer on a future Practice Pointer episode? Please email us at hello@legallycontented.com

Are deposition expenses busting your budget? In this episode, Jim Garrity spotlights a clever strategy conceived by a southern California litigator to sharply cut the costs of deposition transcripts. It's yet another effort by trial lawyers to combat the insane costs of stenographic reporting, and one worth trying. The show notes point to seventeen relevant filings on this issue, four federal rules, and a website for a service that is actively helping lawyers cut deposition costs.Like this podcast? Our production crew LOVES 5-star reviews. They're free, fast to leave, and provide us the kind of appreciative good vibes we crave. Would you mind taking ten seconds and clicking on the five-star rating? Thanks!SHOW NOTES:Note: All filings listed below are from the case Black v. City of San Diego, Case No. 21-cv-1990-RBM-JLB (S.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2025)Plaintiff's Application For Leave To Conduct Deposition By Video And To Prepare Transcript Using Voice Recognition Technology According To FRCP Rule 30(b)(3)(A) (initial application by Plaintiff) PACER Doc. 153Defendants' Opposition To Plaintiffs Application For Leave To Prepare Deposition Transcript Using Voice Recognition Technology, PACER Doc. 160.Declaration Of Casey Stark In Support Of Plaintiffs Motion For Leave To Conduct Deposition By Video And To Prepare Transcript Using Voice Recognition Technology According To FRCP 30(b)(3)(A), PACER DOC. 153-1Defendant Tutterow's Notice Of Joinder In Defendant City Of San Diego's Opposition To Plaintiffs Ex Parte Application For Leave To Conduct Deposition By Video And Prepare Transcript Using Voice Recognition, PACER Doc. 162.Defendants Supplement To Opposition To Plaintiffs Application For Leave To Prepare Deposition Transcript Using Voice Recognition Technology, PACER Doc. 164Plaintiffs Reply To Opposition To Application For Leave To Conduct Deposition By Video And To Prepare Transcript Using Voice Recognition Technology According To FRCP Rule 30(b)(3)(A), PACER Doc. 165Second Supplemental Declaration Of Casey Stark In Support Of Plaintiff Motion For Leave To Conduct Deposition. Etc., PACER Doc. 170Defendants Second Supplement To Opposition To Plaintiffs Application For Leave To Prepare Deposition Transcript Using Voice Recognition Technology, PACER Doc. 171Order (Magistrate Judge) Denying Plaintiff's Application For Leave To Conduct Deposition By Video And To Prepare Transcript Using Voice Recognition Technology, PACER Doc. 172Plaintiff's Notice Of Objection To Order Denying Application For Leave To Conduct Deposition, Etc. PACER Doc. 173 (appealing magistrate judge's order to district judge)Defendant's Response To Plaintiff's Objection To Magistrate's Order Denying Claims Application For Leave, PACER Doc. 174Plaintiffs Opposition To Defendants Response To Player's Objection To Magistrate's Order Denying Plaintiff's Application, Etc., PACER Doc. 175Order (District Judge) Overruling Plaintiff's Objections, PACER Doc. 178Order Granting Joint Motion For Protective Order, PACER Doc. 32 (providing that certain information was to remain confidential)Modified Protective Order, PACER Doc. 156Readback.legal (reporting agency dedicated to reducing deposition -related costs; interview of Readback's Chief Legal Officer in podcast episode 87)1993 Committee Note to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (noting that where a deposition isn't stenographically recorded, transcripts are often later prepared by counsels' own law firmsFed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(3)(a) (allowing lawyers to capture deposition testimony by stenographic means only, audio only, video only, or any combination of the three)FRCP 26(a)(3)(A)(ii) and FRCP 32(c) (providing that if counsel chooses to record a deposition by video only and plan to present it at trial or hearing, they must provide a transcript of the testimony to the other parties and the court)Readback.legal (innovative and budget-friendly service advertised as "certified, court-admissible deposition service built for legal professionals who need clarity, speed, and accuracy, without relying on outdated stenography")

In Harrington v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., the Ninth Circuit ruled that, in FLSA collective actions, federal courts must evaluate personal jurisdiction before allowing notices to out-of-state employees in nationwide claims—a move that strengthens employers' ability to challenge these cases. Key Takeaways for Employers Jurisdiction matters: Courts must confirm jurisdiction before notifying out-of-state employees. Limited forum shopping: Plaintiffs face limits to filing in unrelated jurisdictions. Stronger grounds for employers: Employers can challenge out-of-state claims with no forum ties. Arbitration implications: Courts may notify employees under arbitration agreements. In this episode of Employment Law This Week®, Epstein Becker Green attorney Courtney McFate describes the Harrington ruling and shares insights to help employers adapt and minimize costly lawsuits. Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw399 Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw-subscribe Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com Download our Wage & Hour Guide for Employers app: https://www.ebglaw.com/wage-hour-guide-for-employers-app. 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.

Episode 33: Lowery v. MillsLowery v. Mills, argued before Circuit Judges Jerry E. Smith, Dana M. Douglas, and Carolyn Dineen King in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on August 4, 2025. Argued by Institute for Free Speech Senior Attorney Del Kolde on behalf of Prof. Richard Lowery and Jeff Oldham on behalf of the University of Texas at Austin officials. Background of the case [from the Institute for Free Speech case page]: Prof. Richard Lowery, an Associate Professor of Finance at the McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas at Austin (UT), said the officials at the state's flagship university violated his constitutional right to criticize government officials. With the help of the Institute for Free Speech, Prof. Lowery sued UT officials who threatened to punish him for his criticism of the university administration by threatening his job, reducing his pay, and ending his affiliation with UT's Salem Center.  One key target of Prof. Lowery's critiques was the UT administration's use of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) requirements to filter out competent academics who dissent from the DEI ideology. He also opined during a podcast that part of the job of university presidents in red states is to deceive republicans into funding leftwing indoctrination on college campuses.  Statement of the issues [from the Plaintiff-Appellant's Opening Brief]: Have subsequent Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit decisions overruled or cabined to its facts the standard for public-employee First Amendment retaliation claims described in Breaux v. City of Garland, 205 F.3d 150 (5th Cir. 2000)?  Did Plaintiff state a viable claim for free-speech chilling under Jackson v. Wright, 82 F.4th 362 (5th Cir. 2023) and other cases?  Did Defendants' choice to repeatedly argue that the standard in Keenan v. Tejeda, 290 F.3d 252 (5th Cir. 2002) applied to Plaintiff's free speech chilling claim, and the district court's decision to accept this standard, render this standard binding under the law-of-the-case doctrine and judicial estoppel?  Did the district court err when it withheld various UT documents, reviewed by the magistrate judge in camera, under claims of attorney client privilege, including text messages sent by UT President Jay Hartzell shortly before the pressure campaign against Lowery began?  Did the district court err when it granted a protective order to block all discovery into allegations that President Hartzell engaged in nepotism by using state resources to benefit his son in admission to UT?Resources: Institute for Free Speech Case Page Plaintiff-Appellant's Opening Brief Brief of Appellees The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

Donald Trump's court battles have dominated national headlines this past week, unfolding across multiple jurisdictions and touching on core questions about presidential power and American democracy. I'm here to take you through the whirlwind developments, connecting the dots so you get the full picture.Let's begin with the most high-profile outcome: the historic New York case, The People for the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump. After a months-long trial, Donald Trump was found guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records in Manhattan. That guilty verdict was delivered back in May of 2024, but what many found surprising was Justice Juan Merchan's sentencing decision in January. Trump faced the possibility of jail time, but ultimately received an unconditional discharge. That means, despite the felony convictions, no jail, fines, or probation—a legal oddity that analysts say was influenced by both the unprecedented nature of the case and its proximity to the 2024 election.Meanwhile, in the Southern District of Florida, things took a sharp turn regarding Trump's handling of classified documents. Originally, the indictment included 32 counts of retaining national defense information and several other obstruction-related charges. However, on July 15, 2024, Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the indictment altogether, ruling that Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment was improper. The Department of Justice did try to appeal, but by early 2025, those efforts had quietly ended, leaving Trump unscathed in that federal case.Georgia's Fulton County has also played host to legal drama. Trump and 18 others were indicted, accused of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election results. While this sprawling RICO case has moved slowly, it remains one of the most closely watched state efforts.On a separate legal front, there's been fresh turmoil over Trump's executive actions. This week, Chief Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. ordered the Trump administration to answer tough questions about how they implemented Executive Order 14248, which mandates proof of citizenship for federal voting, restricts mail-in ballots, and ties election funding to compliance. Plaintiffs, which include the Democratic Party and civil rights groups, argue the order threatens to disenfranchise millions. The administration now faces a tight August 15 deadline to provide answers. This is happening as Trump's team also appeals a court order that blocked key provisions of the same order, keeping uncertainty swirling around future voting rules.And it's not just voting rights on the docket. The Trump administration's new policy authorizing Immigration and Customs Enforcement to arrest people attending mandatory court hearings has triggered an urgent lawsuit. Groups like the New York Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU are fighting this policy, calling it an unprecedented assault on due process and immigrant rights.It's a dizzying array of legal fights involving not just Donald Trump himself but the very machinery of his administration—the outcomes of which could fundamentally reshape the legal landscape and the 2026 election season.Thank you for tuning in to this court update. Come back next week for more insights and breaking developments. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out QuietPlease.ai.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

This conversation delves into the complexities of defamation law, exploring the critical distinctions between public and private figures, the role of actual malice, and landmark cases that have shaped the legal landscape. It also examines the impact of social media and Section 230 on defamation claims, and contemplates the future of defamation law in the context of artificial intelligence.TakeawaysDefamation can cause real harm to individuals' reputations.The law balances protecting reputation and freedom of speech.Defamation law allows individuals to fight back against false statements.Public figures face a higher burden of proof in defamation cases.Actual malice is a key standard for public figures in defamation claims.Social media complicates the landscape of defamation law.Section 230 provides immunity to online platforms for user-generated content.Landmark cases like Sullivan and Gertz have shaped defamation law.Private figures generally need to prove negligence, not actual malice.The rise of AI poses new challenges for defamation law.defamation, public figure, private figure, actual malice, social media, Section 230, landmark cases, reputation, free speech, legal analysis

AI for lawyers isn't about replacing attorneys—it's about helping law firms work smarter. In this episode, trial lawyer Jack Zinda explains how lawyers can use AI tools like OpenAI and ChatGPT to streamline their practice, save hours of work, and improve client service.You'll learn how to: Use AI for intake call reviews & case spotting Analyze deposition transcripts before trial Run deep AI research on experts, companies, & venues Review medical records faster & more accurately Draft better client letters & marketing contentPlus Jack shares what AI should NEVER do for lawyers (and how to protect your bar card).

U.S. Supreme Court Affirms Parental RightsPlaintiff in Mahmoud v Taylor Case on Show TodayIn 2022, a Washington, DC public school district told parents they were introducing a bundle of LGBTQIA+ affirming books to students to be more "inclusive."One of the books tasked three- and four-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes “intersex flag,” “[drag] queen,” “underwear,” “leather,” and the name of a celebrated LGBTQ activist and sex worker.Turns out the school district kicked a bee hive and droves of parents took advantage of a Maryland law allowing them to opt their kids out.The school district then decided to double down and take another kick at the hive by refusing parents their right to opt out. Parents sued and lower courts stood with the school district's intent to "advocate a child-knows-best approach to gender transitioning, telling students that a decision to transition doesn't have to “make sense” and that doctors only “guess” when identifying a newborn's sex anyway." and "suppress free speech and independent thinking by having teachers tell students they are “hurtful” if they question these controversial ideologies."Ultimately, the United States Supreme Court took up the case (Mahmoud v Taylor) and on June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the parents have the right to opt their children out of the storybooks. In the Court's decision, Justice Alito writing for the majority said, “Today's decision recognizes that the right of parents ‘to direct the religious upbringing of their' children would be an empty promise if it did not follow those children into the public school classroom.”Jeff Roman, one of the plaintiffs in this historical parental rights legal victory, is on the show today..In a declaration, Roman noted that “We believe that much of what is taught via the pride storybooks is false religiously and scientifically. Issues of sexuality and gender identity are complex and sensitive. Our son is not old enough to be thinking about many of the issues presented in the books MCPS is requiring him to read, and would find them confusing.”I hope you can tune in.Support the show

This Day in Legal History: Fourteenth Amendment RatifiedOn July 28, 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was officially adopted, reshaping the legal and constitutional landscape of the nation. Ratified in the wake of the Civil War, it was one of the Reconstruction Amendments designed to integrate formerly enslaved people into American civic life. Section 1 of the amendment granted citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States," effectively nullifying the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had held that Black people could not be citizens.The amendment also introduced two foundational legal principles: the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. These clauses placed new limitations on state governments, barring them from infringing on individual rights and mandating that laws be applied equally to all people. The Due Process Clause would later become a cornerstone in expanding civil liberties, providing the basis for numerous Supreme Court decisions involving privacy, marriage, and bodily autonomy. The Equal Protection Clause became instrumental in the fight against racial segregation and discrimination, notably underpinning Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which dismantled “separate but equal” doctrine in public education.Initially resisted by many Southern states, the amendment's ratification was made a condition for reentry into the Union. Over time, its scope grew far beyond the post-Civil War context, influencing legal battles on gender equality, LGBTQ+ rights, and immigration. It also played a critical role in the doctrine of incorporation, through which many protections in the Bill of Rights became applicable to state governments. The Fourteenth Amendment remains one of the most litigated and interpreted sections of the Constitution, central to the American concept of civil rights and liberties.A&O Shearman has postponed the start date for some of its incoming associates until January, according to a source familiar with the matter. The firm typically offers new associates a choice between two start dates and provides a salary advance to those opting for the later one. The decision comes amid broader industry trends of delaying associate onboarding as a cost-management strategy in response to uneven client demand, despite overall revenue growth among top firms.Formed through the May 2024 merger of Shearman & Sterling and Allen & Overy, A&O Shearman is now the fourth-largest law firm by revenue. While the firm's revenue has benefited from broader sector gains, it faces challenges tied to economic uncertainty and trade tensions. Internally, a cohort of associates had reportedly resisted leadership shortly before the firm joined other legal powerhouses in agreements involving legal services to President Trump—moves seen as efforts to fend off sanctions and settle federal investigations into workplace diversity practices. The firm also experienced a recent exodus in its London office, with nine lawyers, including eight associates, departing in June.A&O Shearman Pushes Start Date to January for Some AssociatesA New York state appeals court has ruled that social media companies cannot be held legally responsible for the 2022 mass shooting in Buffalo that left 10 people dead. The court reversed a lower court's decision, finding that platforms like Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and Reddit are shielded by Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which grants online platforms immunity from liability for user-generated content. The lawsuit alleged that these platforms were designed to addict and radicalize users, including the shooter, Payton Gendron.Justice Stephen Lindley, writing for the 3-2 majority, argued that holding platforms liable would threaten the open nature of the internet and contradict Congress's intent to foster innovation and limit government interference. He acknowledged the horrific nature of the shooting and the hateful content that influenced it but warned that allowing liability would cause the internet to collapse into tightly restricted message boards.Dissenting justices contended that the platforms actively pushed extremist content through targeted algorithms, suggesting that this behavior went beyond neutral hosting. Other platforms used by Gendron, including Amazon, Discord, 4chan, Snap, and Twitch, were also named in the lawsuit. Gendron is currently serving a life sentence without parole after pleading guilty to state charges, and he still faces federal charges that may lead to the death penalty.Social media companies not liable for 2022 Buffalo mass shooting, New York court rules | ReutersA federal judge in Massachusetts has reaffirmed a nationwide injunction blocking President Donald Trump's executive order that sought to limit birthright citizenship. Judge Leo Sorokin ruled that only a nationwide halt could fully protect the coalition of 22 Democratic-led states challenging the policy, rejecting arguments from the Trump administration that a narrower ruling would suffice following a recent Supreme Court decision. The executive order, signed on Trump's first day back in office in January, directed federal agencies to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children unless at least one parent was a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.Judge Sorokin found that allowing the policy to take effect even in some states would harm immigrant families and disrupt federal benefits programs like Medicaid. Plaintiffs argued it would create a confusing and unfair patchwork of citizenship rules and overwhelm states not enforcing the order. The Trump administration maintained that the Constitution was being misinterpreted, and signaled plans to appeal.Although the Supreme Court recently limited the use of nationwide injunctions, it allowed exceptions under certain conditions—exceptions Sorokin found applicable here. Meanwhile, a separate federal appeals court in California also ruled that Trump's executive order violated the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause and blocked it nationwide.US judge reaffirms nationwide injunction blocking Trump executive order on birthright citizenship | ReutersCalifornia has dropped plans to require Internet service providers (ISPs) to offer $15-per-month broadband plans to low-income residents, following pressure from both the Trump administration and major telecom companies. Assemblymember Tasha Boerner, who led the effort, said her office was warned that enforcing such a law could jeopardize California's access to $1.86 billion in federal Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) funding. The administration's revised BEAD rules prohibit states from setting explicit or implicit broadband pricing requirements.Despite earlier court wins by New York upholding a similar law, Boerner chose to pull the bill after the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) confirmed that even applying for BEAD funds could exempt ISPs from state pricing rules. Advocates and lawmakers criticized the move as a giveaway to large corporations, arguing it undermines efforts to ensure affordable internet access. Boerner had already watered down the bill in negotiations with ISPs, reducing required speeds and allowing ISPs to handle eligibility verification—both points that drew backlash from digital equity groups.Advocates argued the BEAD funding was intended for new broadband infrastructure, while the California bill focused on existing networks, meaning the NTIA's restrictions shouldn't apply. Critics also pointed out that the proposed speed standards were below the federal definition of broadband, and that delegating verification to ISPs risked privacy and access issues. While Boerner acknowledged the need for affordable broadband, she said the risk of losing billions in federal funds wasn't worth pushing the mandate. A separate Senate bill aims to encourage, but not require, ISPs to offer low-cost plans by linking them to subsidies.California backs down to Trump admin, won't force ISPs to offer $15 broadband - Ars Technica This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The trucking industry is facing rising costs due to a growing number of jury awards exceeding $10 million, commonly known as nuclear verdicts. Plaintiff attorneys are seeing greater success by using more aggressive tactics, leveraging jurors’ emotions, expanding advertising and applying best practices learned from prior trials — all of which are contributing to the rise in nuclear verdicts. In this episode of the Talking Transports podcast, Robyn Kazatsky, a partner at Lock Gordon Law Group, joins Lee Klaskow, Bloomberg Intelligence’s senior transportation and logistics analyst, to share her insights about how these verdicts are affecting the industry. Kazatsky also discusses third-party litigation funding, the push for tort reform, strategies trucking companies can use to mitigate risk, and how the impact of nuclear verdicts extends well beyond the companies directly involved.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You say you want a deposition? Plaintiff attorneys often request and are sometimes successful in deposing corporate CEOs and other chief executives. But there are many times when defense attorneys want to spare the C-suite from what can be high-risk and time-consuming exercises for someone whose knowledge or expertise may have little or nothing to do with the facts and issues in a case. In this episode, I talk with Rachel M. Lary, a litigator with a nationwide practice at Lightfoot, Franklin & White, about the Apex Doctrine—a legal principle that protects high-ranking executives from being deposed unless certain conditions are met. Rachel explains how courts weigh an executive's actual knowledge of a case, the availability of less intrusive discovery, and how judges have ruled on the doctrine around the country. (Her firm's technologist, Sam McAllister, created an interactive map showing state-by-state treatment of the Apex Doctrine. We interviewed Sam in 2023.)Listen in and you will see why Fortune 500 companies rely on Rachel to represent them as national litigation counsel. I appreciate her sharing her insights on the podcast. I also appreciate that Rachel agreed to give a video tour of her remarkably neat office, which is what she thought I requested. I have a degree in communication, and maybe I should brush up. Rachel is both knowledgeable and a good sport. As always, if you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageLinkedInIf you have comments or want to get involved in one of our projects, drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. 

VLOG July 16 Sean Combs plaintiff gives name: https://www.patreon.com/posts/diddy-dockets-by-134219761 US v. Roman Storm, victim Lin on stand https://matthewrussellleeicp.substack.com/p/extra-in-roman-storm-openings-us GENIUS Act. Gun trial; Nadine Menendez 9/11; US waste in Sudan scoop: https://www.innercitypress.com/ungate3unisfaicp071525.html Waltz litmus test: end UN censorship

This Day in Legal History: Residence ActOn July 16, 1790, the U.S. Congress passed the Residence Act, establishing the District of Columbia as the permanent seat of the federal government. The decision was the product of a political compromise between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, brokered in part by James Madison, whereby southern states would support federal assumption of state debts in exchange for locating the capital along the Potomac River. The land for the new district was ceded by both Maryland and Virginia, and the Constitution allowed for a federal district not exceeding ten miles square. President George Washington personally selected the site, which straddled the Potomac and included portions of Alexandria and Georgetown.Pierre Charles L'Enfant was tasked with designing the city's layout, envisioning broad avenues and grand public spaces to reflect the dignity of the new republic. In the early years, however, Washington, D.C. remained underdeveloped and muddy, with many of the federal buildings still under construction. Over time, most major institutions and monuments were built on the Maryland side of the river, causing concern among residents on the Virginia side. In 1846, responding to economic neglect and the declining significance of Alexandria as a port, Congress approved Virginia's request to retrocede its portion of the district. This land, now Arlington County and part of the city of Alexandria, rejoined Virginia, reducing the size of D.C. to its current boundaries.The Residence Act and subsequent development of Washington, D.C. created a unique legal and political entity—neither a state nor part of one. This status continues to affect the rights and representation of its residents, a legal debate that remains active today.An $8 billion shareholder lawsuit against Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and other current and former company leaders began this week in Delaware's Chancery Court, focusing on alleged failures to uphold Facebook's 2012 privacy agreement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The plaintiffs argue that Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg, Peter Thiel, Marc Andreessen, Reed Hastings, and others knowingly allowed Facebook user data to be harvested—specifically in relation to the Cambridge Analytica scandal that surfaced in 2018. That breach led to a record $5 billion FTC fine, which shareholders now want the defendants to personally reimburse, along with additional legal costs.The trial, presided over by Chief Judge Kathaleen McCormick, will feature testimony from several high-profile witnesses, including White House Chief of Staff Jeffrey Zients, who served on Meta's board from 2018 to 2020. Plaintiffs claim Zuckerberg profited by selling Facebook stock before the public learned of the data misuse, allegedly netting over $1 billion. Defendants deny all wrongdoing, maintaining they relied on compliance experts and were misled by Cambridge Analytica.This is the first oversight liability case of its kind to reach trial, a notoriously difficult claim under Delaware corporate law. Meta itself is not named as a defendant, and the company has declined to comment, though it has previously stated it has invested heavily in privacy protections since 2019.Facebook privacy practices the focus of $8 billion trial targeting Zuckerberg | ReutersKilmar Abrego, a Salvadoran migrant wrongly deported from the U.S. despite legal protections, is scheduled to appear in a Tennessee federal court on smuggling charges, though the future of his case remains murky. Abrego had been living legally in Maryland with a work permit and was protected by a 2019 court order barring deportation to El Salvador due to threats of gang violence. Nonetheless, he was deported in March and imprisoned there before being returned to the U.S. after federal prosecutors indicted him for allegedly participating in a human smuggling operation.He has pleaded not guilty, and his lawyers claim the charges are politically motivated—a cover for the Trump administration's mishandling of his case. They also challenge the credibility of prosecution witnesses, who are alleged co-conspirators seeking to avoid their own deportation or charges. A magistrate judge ordered Abrego released on bail, but prosecutors are appealing, arguing he poses a flight risk and should remain detained. Even if released from criminal custody, immigration officials have said they plan to detain him immediately for possible deportation.Judge Waverly Crenshaw is expected to hear arguments and potentially rule on his bail status. Abrego's attorneys have asked to delay any release until Wednesday to prevent sudden removal before he can challenge deportation. The administration has signaled it may try to deport him to a third country—possibly Mexico or South Sudan—instead of El Salvador. His case has become emblematic of broader concerns over due process in the Trump administration's aggressive immigration enforcement agenda.Returned deportee Abrego due in Tennessee court; future of smuggling case uncertain | ReutersMilbank, a prominent New York-based law firm, is representing the cities of Newark and Hoboken in a lawsuit brought by President Donald Trump's administration over their immigration policies. The federal suit, filed in May, accuses the cities of obstructing immigration enforcement by acting as “sanctuary jurisdictions.” Milbank's defense team includes notable figures like former acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal and ex-New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal, now both partners at the firm.Milbank's involvement in the case comes just months after it agreed to a deal with the Trump administration to avoid being targeted by executive orders aimed at major law firms. Trump had accused those firms of politicizing legal work and using racial diversity initiatives improperly. In response, several firms—including Milbank—committed to providing nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal services to mutually agreed-upon causes. Milbank set aside $100 million as part of its agreement, though it was not formally sanctioned.Despite that arrangement, Milbank has taken on multiple high-profile cases opposing the Trump administration. In addition to defending Newark and Hoboken, Katyal is leading two other cases challenging Trump policies, including import tariffs and alleged wrongful termination of a federal board member. The firm's role in these cases highlights its continued legal pushback against the administration, even while navigating its negotiated settlement with the White House.Law firm Milbank defends NJ cities in Trump immigration lawsuit | ReutersA piece I wrote for Inside Higher Ed this week argues that tax policy deserves a central place in the undergraduate liberal arts curriculum—not as a technical specialty but as a cornerstone of civic education. I open by reflecting on the tax legislation passed under President Trump, that is the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, noting how its complexity served political ends by shielding its full implications from public understanding. That opacity, I suggest, is not accidental—and it's exactly why we need to teach tax more broadly.In my course at Drexel University, “Introduction to Tax Theory and Policy,” I approach tax not as accounting or law but as a form of civic infrastructure. The course welcomes students from all majors, encouraging them to think about taxation in terms of fairness, power, and values. We explore how tax policy shapes economic behavior, redistributes resources, and reflects assumptions about what and whom government should support. Students analyze topics ranging from estate taxes to digital surveillance and propose their own reforms grounded in ethical and civic reasoning.By demystifying the tax code and framing it as a site of public decision-making, I aim to empower students to see themselves not just as subjects of tax policy but as potential shapers of it. Their engagement—often surprisingly enthusiastic—reveals a hunger for this kind of critical, values-based education. Ultimately, I argue that tax belongs in the liberal arts because it teaches students not just how the world works, but how it's been made to work—and how it could be remade more equitably.Tax Policy Belongs in Liberal Arts Curriculum (opinion) 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

What does it take to find the real truth in a high-stakes injury case?In this episode of The Effective Lawyer Podcast, Jack Zinda and Partner Cole Gumm walk through their real-life trial strategies—from confronting corporate negligence to handling disfiguring dog bites and trucking cases involving drug use. They share how expert witnesses, tactical depositions, and deep client trust can uncover the liability others miss.Topics Covered:    Tactics for uncovering apartment complex liability in a dog bite case    The power of expert witnesses in trucking and pediatric burn injuries    How to prepare for trial 90+ days out    Tips for mentoring new attorneys and building client trust    Mental health and work-life balance as a litigatorListen to learn how small details can lead to big wins.Have a question for Jack? Don't hesitate to reach out!jz@zindalaw.comhttps://www.zdfirm.com/

On today's program, Baylor University voluntarily rescinded their acceptance of an LGBTQ research grant after receiving pushback. The school's president says their stance on biblical sexuality has not changed. We'll have details. And, is a membership with the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability worth the cost? We talked with current and former members. Also, the adoption of A-I in church operations is now mainstream…but pastors aren't ready to use it for everything. Plus, a guide to giving to ministries helping with relief efforts in central Texas after floods devastated the area. First, a former member is suing John MacArthur's megachurch for how it handled church discipline. The producer for today's program is Jeff McIntosh. We get database and other technical support from Stephen DuBarry, Rod Pitzer, and Casey Sudduth. Writers who contributed to today's program include Bob Smietana, Kim Roberts, Tony Mator, Jim Vertigo, John Seewer, Jessica Eturralde, and Christina Darnell. Until next time, may God bless you.   MANUSCRIPT:    FIRST SEGMENT Warren:                                                        Hello everybody. I'm Warren Smith, coming to you from Charlotte, North Carolina. Natasha: And I'm Natasha Cowden, coming to you from Denver, Colorado, and we'd like to welcome you to the MinistryWatch podcast. Warren: On today's program, Baylor University voluntarily rescinded their acceptance of an LGBTQ research grant after receiving pushback. The school's president says their stance on biblical sexuality has not changed. We'll have details. And, is a membership with the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability worth the cost? We talked with current and former members. Also, the adoption of A-I in church operations is now mainstream…but pastors aren't ready to use it for everything. Plus, a guide to giving to ministries helping with relief efforts in central Texas after floods devastated the area. Natasha: But first, a former member is suing John MacArthur's megachurch for how it handled church discipline. Warren: In a complaint filed Thursday (July 3) in Los Angeles County Superior Court, lawyers for Lorraine Zielinski said she went to leaders at the megachurch in LA's Sun Valley neighborhood, where MacArthur is the longtime pastor, seeking counseling for her troubled marriage and was told her conversations would be kept confidential. According to the complaint, she told counselors she was afraid for her safety and the safety of her daughter, alleging that her then-husband was physically abusive. Her lawyers said church leaders pressured Zielinski to drop her request for a legal separation. When Zielinski tried to resign as a church member, pastors put her under church discipline for failing to follow their counsel, according to the complaint. They also allegedly told her to either come to a meeting with church pastors or details of her counseling would be made public to the congregation. Natasha: What happened? Warren: According to the complaint. “When Plaintiff did not attend the meeting, GCC made good on its threat and shared information gained through confidential communications relating to her marriage with GCC membership,” “GCC also misrepresented parts of these communications, painting Plaintiff as a bad actor in the marriage and the party at fault for the marital dispute. GCC also omitted Plaintiff's husband's desire to remarry and dissolve the marriage.” Natasha: Church members were also allegedly asked to pressure Zielenski to submit to church leaders and to reconcile with her husband, according to the complaint. Warren: Lawyers for Zielenski said the church violated her right to privacy and her right to free association, disclosed private facts, painted her in a false light, breached confidentiality and intentionally inflicted emotional distress. Grace Community Church did not reply to a request for co...

Plaintiffs allege that Plaskett knowingly participated in and helped facilitate Epstein's sex trafficking operations in the U.S. Virgin Islands. They claim she visited Epstein's New York mansion to solicit direct campaign contributions—repeatedly requesting $30,000 for her campaigns and the Democratic National Committee—and that Epstein then used his political influence to influence policies in the Virgin Islands. As general counsel for the Virgin Islands Economic Development Authority, Plaskett allegedly approved approximately $300 million in tax breaks that benefited Epstein's businesses after receiving financial and professional support, including a job at a law firm connected to Epstein's network.The survivors also contend that Plaskett leveraged her political leverage to pressure local authorities—such as customs, Coast Guard, and airport officials—to relax oversight and allow Epstein to transport women and girls between New York and the Virgin Islands without encountering legal scrutiny. The plaintiffs argue that these actions weren't isolated misjudgments but part of a calculated pattern enabling a broader trafficking enterprise, with Plaskett's contributions and interventions central to Epstein's unimpeded operation and global network.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Plaskett's attorney vows to fight 'baseless' lawsuit by Epstein victims | News | virginislandsdailynews.com

Plaintiffs allege that Plaskett knowingly participated in and helped facilitate Epstein's sex trafficking operations in the U.S. Virgin Islands. They claim she visited Epstein's New York mansion to solicit direct campaign contributions—repeatedly requesting $30,000 for her campaigns and the Democratic National Committee—and that Epstein then used his political influence to influence policies in the Virgin Islands. As general counsel for the Virgin Islands Economic Development Authority, Plaskett allegedly approved approximately $300 million in tax breaks that benefited Epstein's businesses after receiving financial and professional support, including a job at a law firm connected to Epstein's network.The survivors also contend that Plaskett leveraged her political leverage to pressure local authorities—such as customs, Coast Guard, and airport officials—to relax oversight and allow Epstein to transport women and girls between New York and the Virgin Islands without encountering legal scrutiny. The plaintiffs argue that these actions weren't isolated misjudgments but part of a calculated pattern enabling a broader trafficking enterprise, with Plaskett's contributions and interventions central to Epstein's unimpeded operation and global network.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Plaskett's attorney vows to fight 'baseless' lawsuit by Epstein victims | News | virginislandsdailynews.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Lawyer Stories Podcast Episode 229 features Marc Brown, Founder & Managing Attorney at the Marc Brown Law Firm, serving personal injury and wrongful death victims across South Carolina and Georgia. With a unique perspective shaped by years representing major insurance companies and corporations, Marc now fights for the individuals on the other side of the courtroom — the injured and their families. Since launching his firm in 2019, Marc has brought big-firm experience and dedication to a boutique, client-focused practice. Tune in to hear how Marc's journey from defending powerful entities to championing justice for the underserved has shaped his mission, mindset, and message. This is the story of a lawyer who knows both sides — and chooses to stand with the people.

It's time to celebrate the 10th Anniversary of the Marriage Equality Act! We invited back Tammy and Kim Franklin, two of original plaintiffs in the Obergefell vs. Hodges to talk about their experiences and how their lives have changed.  The Franklins were one of six couples that brought this case to the Supreme Court in 2015. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of same sex marriages and that same sex marriages will be recognized nationwide.  In this bonus episode, Tammy and Kim share their experiences and growing concerns in this current political climate.  They walk us through how their lives have changed and how much work there still needs to be done. Show Notes: www.hotflashescooltopics.com YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@HotFlashesCoolTopics Find Us Here! Website I [http://hotflashescooltopics.com/] Mail I [hotflashescooltopics@gmail.com] Instagram I [https://www.instagram.com/hotflashesandcooltopics/] Facebook : [www.facebook.com/hotflashescooltopics] YouTube I [https://www.youtube.com/@HotFlashesCoolTopics] Pinterest I [https://www.pinterest.com/hcooltopics/] Want to Leave a Review for Hot Flashes and Cool Topics? Here's How: For Apple Podcasts on an iPhone or iOS device: Open the Apple Podcast App on your device. Click on the “search” icon Type into the search bar “Hot Flashes and Cool Topics” and click on the show Towards the bottom, look for “Ratings and Reviews” Click on “Write a Review” and leave us your thoughts and comments! For Apple Podcasts on a computer: On the Apple Podcasts website, go to the search bar and type “Hot Flashes and Cool Topics” After clicking on the show, find the “Listen on Apple Podcasts” button and click on it The “Hot Flashes and Cool Topics” podcast should open on the Apple Podcasts application Keep scrolling on the page until you see “Ratings and Reviews” Click on “See All” If you want to give us a five-star rating, hover over the empty stars! If you want to leave your thoughts and comments, click on “Write a Review”!

Now that the pandemic is fading from our memories, courts are showing a renewed willingness to order plaintiffs to appear in person for their depositions, even when a plaintiff has relocated to distant places and will incur considerable expense and inconvenience if forced to travel. In this episode, Jim Garrity dissects a brand-new court ruling on the topic, explains in detail why the plaintiff in that case failed to win a protective order requiring her to travel 2,000 miles back to the litigation forum. Then he offers crucial tactical advices for both plaintiffs and defendants when fighting this battle. SHOW NOTESOrder Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order, Krishmar-Junker v. Kingline Equipment, Inc., Case No. 23-0431-KD-B, 2025 WL 1710041 (S.D. Ala. June 18, 2025) (court refused to issue protective order where plaintiff, who moved cross-country since filing her lawsuit, claimed financial and medical hardships but failed to meet her burden of a particularized showing of harm to justify relief)

In this episode (the last of Season Two), Dr. Pensa  sits down to speak with a plaintiff's attorney. However, her guest, Chad Englehardt, is not your average plaintiff's attorney. Chad is a highly lauded attorney, law professor, and advocate of Rick Boothman's Michigan Model (for more on that, listen to Episode 13 of Season Two.)  We talk extensively about CRP (Communication - Resolution) programs, patient safety, and the dysfunction of our current legal system, which re-traumatizes patients and clinicians alike. If the first rule of medicine is 'First, do no harm,' then he feels the second rule in medicine, and the first in law, should be: "Do no further harm." We also talk a bit about third party investors and litigation funding (which we have not yet covered in the podcast, but is of great importance...we'll revisit it!) During the course of our conversation, Mr. Englehardt mentions two books: "Win - Win" by Rebecca Sposita, Esq "Gain Without Pain" by Greg Hammer, MD You can reach Chad via email at chad@cmtjustice.com.  We'll be back in a few months with the start of Season Three!