Podcasts about plaintiffs

John Pollock and Brandon Thurston go through the latest headaches for Paramount and Ari Emanuel's op-ed, Janel Grant's case is officially closed, and WWE stages SummerSlam in Minneapolis.00:00:00 Start00:02:29 Ari Emanuel's op-ed regarding Paramount-WBD00:17:43 Janel Grant's case officially closed, moves to arbitration00:31:02 WWE Radio launches00:39:08 Paul Levesque on house shows in WWE00:46:30 WWE SummerSlam this weekend 00:50:27 Updated projections00:51:53 TripleMania moved to MGM Grand 00:55:00 MyAEW adds more promotions 00:58:48 Plaintiffs file letter to court in WWE merger case01:03:05 WWE & Thurston file letter re: public access questionMusic courtesy: “Panic Beat” by Ben TramerPOST WrestlingSubscribe: https://postwrestling.com/subscribePatreon: http://postwrestlingcafe.comForum: https://forum.postwrestling.comDiscord: https://discord.com/invite/Q795HhRTwitter/Facebook/Instagram/YouTube: @POSTwrestlingBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/postwrestling.comWrestlenomicsSubscribe: https://wrestlenomics.com/podcast/Patreon: https://patreon.com/wrestlenomicsSubstack: https://wrestlenomics.substack.com/Twitter/Facebook/Instagram/YouTube: @WrestlenomicsSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Plaintiffs in the Lighthiser v. Trump climate lawsuit are asking the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider their case after it was dismissed last month.

This Day in Legal History: Congress Shrinks the Supreme CourtOn July 23, 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, and in doing so did something that sounds almost unimaginable today: it shrank the Supreme Court. The Act provided that the Court would gradually contract from ten justices down to seven, as sitting justices died or retired and their seats simply went unfilled. Yesterday we talked about Franklin Roosevelt's failed attempt to enlarge the Court to overpower it; today's anniversary is the mirror image—Congress reducing the Court's size for pointedly political reasons.The politics were about President Andrew Johnson. Johnson, who had ascended to the presidency after Lincoln's assassination, was locked in a bitter struggle with the Radical Republicans in Congress over Reconstruction. Congress did not trust him, and one thing it was determined to deny him was the power to shape the Supreme Court. By legislating that upcoming vacancies would go unfilled until the Court shrank to seven, Congress effectively stripped Johnson of any Supreme Court appointments. It was court-unpacking as a weapon of inter-branch warfare—using Congress's control over the Court's size not to change its rulings directly, but to lock a distrusted president out of influencing it.The size of the Supreme Court has never been fixed by the Constitution—it's set by statute, and it has ranged from six at the founding up to ten and back down over the country's first century. After Johnson left office, Congress promptly passed the Judiciary Act of 1869 and settled the number at nine, where it has remained ever since. The significance of July 23, 1866 is that it's the clearest historical example of Congress manipulating the Court's very size for immediate political advantage—and, paired with the 1937 court-packing fight, it bookends the story of how the number nine came to feel sacrosanct even though it never actually was. The Court's independence, it turns out, has always rested partly on a political truce about not touching its structure.A Manhattan federal judge is set to weigh today whether to throw out the Justice Department's subpoenas to New York Times journalists who reported on security concerns about President Trump flying on a Qatari-donated Air Force One. This is the next chapter of a story we covered when the subpoenas first landed: they were issued July 10 by the Manhattan U.S. Attorney, and U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian has paused their enforcement pending this afternoon's hearing. The two sides want very different things. Prosecutors have asked the judge merely to put the subpoenas on hold for a couple of weeks, saying the investigation's next steps could shape his decision; the Times wants them quashed outright, arguing they're designed to harass and intimidate journalists in violation of the First Amendment. The legal backdrop is genuinely unsettled. There is no absolute reporter's privilege under federal law—prosecutors correctly note the First Amendment doesn't categorically excuse reporters from testifying in criminal investigations—but courts have long been wary of subpoenas that function as fishing expeditions to unmask sources. The significance is that this hearing is a concrete test of where that line falls, and it lands amid a broader pattern we've tracked all month of friction between the administration and the press. However Judge Subramanian rules, it will be an early data point on how much protection newsgathering gets when the government wants to know who talked.US judge to weigh New York Times subpoenas over Trump plane reporting | ReutersThe teenager at the center of a closely watched lawsuit blaming social media for his depression and anxiety has dropped his claims against Meta just days before trial. The plaintiff, a 15-year-old known in court papers as R.K.C., had originally sued four companies—Google's YouTube, Meta's Instagram, Snap's Snapchat, and ByteDance's TikTok—alleging their platforms were engineered to be addictive and harmed his mental health. YouTube, TikTok, and Snap all reached confidential settlements earlier, which would have left Meta as the lone defendant when the case went before a Los Angeles jury on July 27. Instead, R.K.C. withdrew, ending the case. Here's why this matters beyond one teenager. His was a “bellwether” case—one of a small set of representative lawsuits chosen from a huge pool of similar claims and tried first, so both sides can see how juries react and use those signals to gauge settlement values across the whole litigation. When a marquee bellwether evaporates right before trial, it sends a message, though an ambiguous one: it could reflect a quiet settlement, a weakness in this particular plaintiff's proof, or simply strategic repositioning. The significance is that the sprawling social-media-harm litigation against these platforms rolls on, but this particular test balloon won't be inflated—depriving both the companies and the thousands of other plaintiffs of a data point they were watching closely.Teen plaintiff suing Meta over mental health harms drops his claims against company days before trial | ReutersA federal judge has cast serious doubt on roughly 69,000 lawsuits claiming that Johnson & Johnson's talc products caused ovarian cancer, warning the plaintiffs they must come forward with better evidence or risk having their cases dismissed. U.S. Magistrate Judge Rukhsanah Singh in Trenton, New Jersey, zeroed in on a problem at the heart of the litigation: causation. In a mass tort like this, plaintiffs generally have to show not just that a product can cause harm in the abstract—”general causation”—but that it caused this particular plaintiff's disease—”specific causation.” Judge Singh noted that two of the plaintiffs' own expert witnesses, testifying in preparation for a set of bellwether trials, conceded they could not rule out other possible causes of the women's cancers. That's a serious admission, because it goes to whether the experts can offer an opinion that's admissible at all under the rules that make judges the “gatekeepers” of scientific testimony. If you've been listening, this should ring a bell—it's the same expert-gatekeeping battleground we saw in the Tylenol-autism case, just cutting the other direction. Here the judge ordered plaintiffs to explain, by November 19, why their cases shouldn't be tossed for lack of an admissible expert opinion tying J&J's talc to their specific cancers. The significance is that after years of litigation, settlements, and failed bankruptcy maneuvers, the whole edifice of these 69,000 claims may hinge on a question of scientific proof—and the judge just signaled the plaintiffs have a real problem.US judge casts doubt on 69,000 cases alleging J&J talc caused cancer | ReutersAnd finally, in a piece I wrote for Forbes this week, I make an argument that runs underneath a lot of the tax stories we've covered lately: the tax code is only as real as its enforcement. My core claim is that defunding the IRS doesn't actually shrink the tax code—it quietly splits it into two.Here's the framing I start with. Washington has a strange way of talking about tax enforcement. Money to help the IRS collect taxes that are already legally owed gets described as spending, waste, or bureaucratic excess—but when Congress cuts that funding and less revenue comes in, the shortfall gets treated like weather, as if it just happened. I think that's exactly backwards. Congress can write whatever rates, deductions, partnership rules, and anti-abuse provisions it likes, but without skilled auditors and functioning technology, a big chunk of those rules becomes purely aspirational.And crucially, that aspiration isn't evenly distributed. For most wage earners, there's almost no room to maneuver: your income is reported by your employer, your taxes are withheld before you ever see the paycheck, and a computer can flag a mismatch without a human ever looking at your return. But wealthier filers and large businesses often operate through partnerships, closely held entities, cross-border transactions, and complex securities arrangements that take specialized expertise and real time to unwind. So my point is that defunding the IRS doesn't create a smaller tax code—it creates two codes: a statutory, basically inescapable one for people whose income is visible, and a negotiated one for people whose finances are complicated enough to delay, obscure, or contest what they owe. Strip out the enforcement capacity, and the nominal rule stays on the books while its practical effect on the highest earners quietly weakens. That's regressive—a backdoor tax cut for the taxpayers best positioned to resist enforcement.There's a new bill, the Stop CHEATERS Act, that would restore enforcement funding, and I think its sponsors are right about the underlying problem. But I argue they should retire the “fair share” language they've wrapped around it. “Fair share” is subjective—reasonable people can argue forever about whether capital gains should get preferential treatment or whether the top rate is too high or too low, and those are legitimate legislative questions. But that's not the issue here. Congress already wrote the laws; taxpayers are already obligated to follow them. The case for funding the IRS isn't about inventing a new standard of fairness after the fact—it's about consistently administering the standards we already have. By leaning on “fair share,” Democrats risk making basic enforcement sound like a partisan redistribution project when the stronger, harder-to-dismiss argument is simply this: if Congress imposes a tax, the government should be funded well enough to collect it. Anything less isn't restraint or a considered policy choice—it's a quiet exemption for those who can afford to fight.The Tax Code Is Only As Real As Its Enforcement | Forbes 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

On this Ropes & Gray podcast, antitrust partners Mark Popofsky and Samer Musallam discuss recent cases, including Paramount, where state attorneys general and private plaintiffs have challenged deals even after federal review, highlighting the growing role of states and private parties in U.S. antitrust enforcement. They examine the risks companies face from these additional enforcement branches and offer practical takeaways for managing antitrust exposure throughout the transaction process. Tune in to learn how to navigate the evolving landscape of merger enforcement beyond federal agencies.

Washington's rent control law is facing one of its biggest legal tests yet as manufactured housing owners challenge the constitutionality of the state's rent cap in Spokane County Superior Court. Plaintiffs argue the law unfairly imposes a stricter 5% annual cap on manufactured housing communities than other rental properties, discouraging investment and worsening Washington's housing shortage. Supporters of the law maintain the rent caps protect tenants from excessive rent increases and housing instability. Also in today's episode, Seattle City Councilmember Bob Kettle is calling for significant budget reforms as the city prepares for a projected $175 million budget deficit in 2027. Kettle argues Seattle should reevaluate spending priorities, streamline government and focus on long-term fiscal sustainability rather than continuing to expand programs. Watch Washington in Focus Daily for in-depth reporting on Washington housing, local government, taxes, budgets and public policy. Washington In Focus Daily, 07.22.26 #WashingtonPolitics #RentControl #HousingPolicy #Seattle #Budget #WashingtonNews #TaxpayerAccountability #TheCenterSquare #WashingtonInFocus Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this episode, Jim Garrity explains the procedure for deposing current or former federal government employees where the federal government isn't a party to your litigation. These are commonly known as 'Touhy witnesses." And if they're important to your case, you'd better plan for their deposition very carefully. Garrity also discusses the importance of a strong backup plan, because many such deposition requests are denied by the employing agency. Important stuff to know! And great resources in the show notes, below.SHOW NOTESBecton Dickinson and Company, et al. v. United States Department of Health and Human Services et al., No. CV-26-02379-PHX-KML, 2026 WL 2042420, --- F. Supp. 3d --- (D. Ariz. July 13, 2026) (denying request for declaratory and injunctive relief against U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in APA action to force HHS to produce certain federally-employed treating physicians for deposition)Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [CM/ECF Doc. 1] Becton Dickinson and Company, et al. v. United States Department of Health and Human Services et al., CM/ECF Doc. 1, No. CV-26-02379-PHX-KML, (D. Ariz. filed April 6, 2026) (alleging claim for violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, on the grounds of alleged arbitrary and capricious agency action, where federal agency refused to produce subpoenaed witnesses for deposition)Motion for Preliminary Injunction [CM/ECF 12] in Support of Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Becton Dickinson and Company, et al. v. United States Department of Health and Human Services et al., No. CV-26-02379-PHX-KML, (D. Ariz. July 13, 2026) (motion seeking order setting aside HHS' denial of Plaintiffs' Touhy request as arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, and in excess of delegated authority; requiring Defendants to authorize the depositions of Dr. Matthew Cusick and Dr. John Young within fourteen days, subject to reasonable limitations, including remote appearance, a limited duration, government counsel's attendance, and restriction to nonprivileged factual testimony concerning Dr. Cusick and Dr. Young's firsthand knowledge of Ms. Vincent's care, including any device warnings and information available to Dr. Cusick; alternatively, remanding the matter to Defendants with instructions to reconsider Plaintiffs' narrowed request within seven days under the governing regulation and IHS Delegation Memo and to provide a reasoned written decision addressing Plaintiffs' need, unavailability, proposed limitations, and any specific disruption to IHS duties; ordering expedited production of the administrative record and expedited briefing as necessary to resolve this motion before the state-court trial; and granting such other relief as the Court deems just and proper)Response in Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction [CM/ECF Doc. 1], Becton Dickinson and Company, et al. v. United States Department of Health and Human Services et al., No. CV-26-02379-PHX-KML, (D. Ariz. Filed June 24, 2026)Exxon Shipping Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 34 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 1994) (treating request for depositions of current or former federal employees like any other discovery request)https://oig.ssa.gov/touhy-requests/ (page for Touhy requests to Social Security Administration)https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-A/part-2 (Health & Human Services Touhy Regulations)28 C.F.R. § 16.21 (Department of Justice's Touhy regulations)Covington, Ben, Closing The Touhy Gap: The APA, The FRCP, And Nonparty Discovery Against Federal Administrative Agencies, https://columbialawreview.org/content/closing-the-touhy-gap-the-apa-the-frcp-and-nonparty-discovery-against-federal-administrative-agencies/ (noting an apparent and significant difference in Touhy request successes depending on where the action was filed, not on the merits of the request)

Hosts Steve Lowery and Yvonne Godfrey interview trial lawyers Taylor Powell and Whitney Harrison about DHD Jessamine LLC v. Florence County, a Fair Housing Act case over a proposed 60-unit LIHTC affordable housing community in an unzoned “donut hole” parcel in Florence County.   CASE SUMMARY: After county officials initially supported the development, neighborhood opposition and a country club meeting preceded withdrawal of support, shifting objections (traffic, drainage, sidewalks), a special meeting to fast-track a development moratorium that was enforced before becoming law, and later rezoning to R-1 to bar multifamily housing. Plaintiffs pursued disparate treatment and disparate impact claims; the court granted summary judgment on the prima facie disparate impact prong. A jury trial featured streamlined exhibits, visual timelines, and expert testimony on disparate impact. On Nov. 5, 2025, the jury awarded $8.219M compensatory and $4M punitive damages; the case later settled for $10M.    GUEST BIOS Taylor Powell:  Originally from Charlotte, N.C., Taylor Powell brings more than a decade of legal experience to the Lesemann & Associates team. After graduating from The Citadel in 2006 with a B.A. in Criminal Justice and a Minor in U.S. History, Taylor attended Charleston School of Law and graduated in 2011. After law school, Taylor spent two years serving as the law clerk to South Carolina Circuit Judge Larry B. Hyman, Jr. in Conway, S.C. During his eight years at Lesemann & Associates, Taylor has helped his clients achieve successful results in wrongful death and catastrophic injury cases involving tractor trailer accidents, motor vehicle accidents, accidental shootings, drunk driving accidents, dram shop litigation against bars and restaurants, products liability cases against vehicle manufacturers and car dealerships, and cases involving negligent private security. Taylor has also secured significant settlements and verdicts for clients who suffered injuries resulting from improperly paved roads, dangerous homemade zip lines, dog bites, fireworks accidents, and more. Taylor has been directly responsible for securing and collecting more than $20 million in settlements on behalf of his clients. (READ MORE)   Whitney Harrison: Whitney delights in nuance, complexity, and unsettled law.  Having clerked in both of South Carolina's appellate courts, Whitney's seasoned instincts inform her appellate strategy from the start of every case.  As a key member of our trial teams, she anticipates and addresses legal issues at each stage of litigation while preserving the record for an appeal.  By treating every case as one that will involve a trial and an appeal, Whitney provides comprehensive courtroom advocacy. Whitney has tried multiple cases to verdict, as well as handled landmark cases involving civil, criminal, family, utility, and administrative law.  Firms across the state associate her to assist with complex motions, trials, and appeals.  Whitney has handled over fifty appeals—with issues ranging from constitutional challenges to corporate governance to novel law—before the Supreme Court of South Carolina and the South Carolina Court of Appeals. In January 2020, Whitney became the first woman to receive the South Carolina Bar's Trial and Appellate Advocacy Award.  The award—not given annually—“recognizes a member of the Bar who has demonstrated substantial dedication to the furtherance of the art and techniques of trial and appellate advocacy in South Carolina, outstanding and exemplary skill and conduct in the practice of advocacy, and has devoted substantial time and effort to the education and training of lawyers.” (READ MORE)   FIND A FAVORITE SPOT IN THIS EPISODE: 00:00 Podcast Cold Open 00:29 Meet The Hosts 01:13 Introducing The Guests 01:54 Taylor Powell Bio 03:04 UCLA Office And Softball 04:41 Whitney Harrison Bio 06:11 Prizewinning Pound Cake 07:11 Case Setup And Timeline 09:41 Fair Housing Case Overview 14:10 Verdict And Damages 15:08 Crafting The Opening 18:08 Explaining FHA Theories 21:06 Sponsor Break 21:51 Donut Hole Moratorium 26:56 Ordinance Readings And Enforcement 27:48 Trial Team And Appellate Strategy 29:30 Summary Judgment Strategy 31:39 Expert Testimony Impact 34:05 Humanizing The Development 35:50 Punitive Damages Surprise 39:32 Rare Jury Trial Stakes 45:02 Witness Order And Exhibits 49:40 Trial Tech And Impeachment 52:19 Klan Comment Sidebar 58:58 Closing Argument Masterclass 01:01:07 Wrap Up And Next Steps

What's up everyone, today we have the pleasure of sitting down with Cara Caruso, CEO and co-founder of Sentinel Insights, and Dustin Taylor, counsel at Troutman Pepper Locke.We'll cover:(00:00) - Cara-audio (00:53) - In This Episode (04:40) - 1 — Why Your Website Is Running More Tracking Tools Than You Know (08:17) - 2 — How a Plaintiff's Firm Turns Your Website Into a Lawsuit (17:55) - 3 — The ECPA Wave and the Privacy Policy That Sues You (20:53) - 4 — What Consent Drift Actually Looks Like (25:16) - 5 — Who Actually Owns Privacy Compliance (30:49) - 6 — The Business Case for Privacy-First Marketing (35:52) - 7 — What Marketing Ops Can Do About Privacy This Week (42:35) - 8 — Why Email Marketing Is the Next Privacy Lawsuit (48:04) - 9 — AI, Consent, and Being Forced to Delete Your Data (51:46) - 10 — Why Small Companies Get Privacy Lawsuits Too (58:42) - 11 — How to Decide What Deserves Your Energy Summary: A privacy-software CEO and a litigation defense attorney walk into a podcast and proceed to scare every marketer in the room, in the most useful way possible. Cara Caruso has scanned over 10,000 websites and found nearly 90% of them non-compliant, while Dustin Taylor has defended more than 100 companies against the exact lawsuits that follow. Together they trace how a forgotten tag from three years ago becomes a seven-figure settlement, why your own privacy policy is the document most likely to sue you, and how one month of a broken cookie banner turns into 10,000 dollars per visitor. Then they flip the whole thing and make the case for why clean, consented data actually performs better. Stick around for the part where your email open rates might be illegal and the FTC makes companies delete four years of data.About Cara Caruso and Dustin TaylorCara Caruso is the CEO and co-founder of Sentinel Insights, where she leads a platform that monitors websites in real time for consent violations and privacy exposure. Before starting the company she spent more than 25 years in data and martech, building and scaling teams across technology and financial services in both B2B and B2C. She pairs strategic planning with hands-on execution, and she's also a certified yoga instructor who has been known to bring a workshop into the office.Dustin Taylor is counsel at Troutman Pepper Locke, where he defends companies at the intersection of privacy law and marketing technology. He's defended more than 100 companies in ad-tech privacy cases involving cookies, pixels, session replay, and website chat, secured dismissals at the pleading stage in federal court, and argued in California, New York, Florida, Texas, and New Jersey. He started out with an advertising degree before law school, which makes him fluent in the martech stack in a way most litigators never are. He also publishes monthly privacy litigation reports and tracks ECPA filings with AI.Why Your Website Is Running More Tracking Tools Than You KnowMost marketing teams believe they have a clean inventory of what runs on their website. There's a tag manager, a cookie banner, a vendor list in a spreadsheet somewhere, and a general sense that someone signed off on all of it. Then someone actually scans the site, and the number comes back two, three, sometimes four times higher than anyone expected.Cara has watched this play out thousands of times. Sentinel Insights has scanned over 10,000 websites in the past year, and the pattern barely changes from one company to the next. Nearly 90% of those sites are not compliant. Every new customer gets the same uncomfortable conversation on day one.The gap between what a team thinks is running and what's actually firing comes from two places. The first is history. Somebody three years ago added a tag for a campaign that ended, then left the company, and nobody ever took it down. The team you have today inherited a stack built by people they never met, and most of those decisions were never written down anywhere. Cara calls it the ghost of marketers past, and it's sitting on almost every site she scans.The second is piggybacking. You buy one tool, drop in one script, and that single tag quietly loads four more. Each of those can load more on top. An agency hard-codes a pixel straight into a landing page because they didn't have access to the tag manager, and now your customer data flows to companies nobody on your team could name. None of it shows up in the tidy spreadsheet. All of it shows up in a scan.This is the part most marketers underestimate. The real exposure comes from the tools nobody chose on purpose, the dozen scripts running quietly in the background, each one sending customer data somewhere you've never audited. They pile up while everyone assumes the banner has it covered. No marketing team actually knows what's on its website until a scan proves otherwise, and "we reviewed it last year" is closer to a guess than a control.Why Not Knowing Is Not a Legal DefenseThe instinct, once you find those orphaned tags, is to assume they don't count against you. You didn't install them. You didn't even know they were there. Dustin spends a lot of his time correcting that assumption. These privacy laws do have a knowledge component, but courts read knowledge very differently than a normal person would. As long as the person who installed the tag three years ago knew they were installing something, the legal requirement is met. The fact that today's marketing team forgot it existed changes nothing.There's a second trap hiding inside the same problem. What marketing knew, what IT knew, and what legal knew are rarely the same thing, and that fragmentation is its own risk. Each group assumes another group is watching the stack. The court doesn't care which department dropped the ball. It only cares that someone, at some point, hit install.Key takeaway: Run a full scan of your live website this month and compare the results against your documented vendor list. Flag every tag you can't immediately explain, especially anything loading third-party scripts you never installed directly. The tools you can't account for are the ones quietly building your legal exposure, and forgetting they exist won't protect you.How a Plaintiff's Firm Turns Your Website Into a LawsuitHere's the mental model most marketing teams carry around: we're compliant until someone complains. You picture a single annoyed customer who takes the time to file something against your little startup, and you quietly decide the odds are low. Who's really going to sue over one text message or one tracking cookie? That assumption is the most expensive thing on your website, because litigation in this space doesn't start with a complaint. It starts with a scan of your site that you never see.Plaintiffs' law firms run continuous automated audits of company websites, and they're looking for far more than a typo in your privacy policy. Dustin walked through exactly what their scanners check:What loads automatically the moment someone lands on the page, before any consent is given, Whether there's a banner at all, and what it actually does, What keeps firing after a visitor opts out, Whether anything is miscategorized, like a marketing cookie quietly labeled "essential" so it can't be turned offOnce a firm finds the exposure, they find a plaintiff. The demand letter arrives, and the dollar amounts climb fast. Cara breaks the pressure into three forces bearing down on marketing teams at once:Trophy-hunting plaintiff attorneys who come after you for small amounts individually, then scale it into a class action, Brand and reputational damage that lingers long after a settlement clears, State enforcement at the atto...

On today's Legally Speaking Podcast, I am delighted to be joined by Bill Reid. Bill is the senior founding partner of Reid Collins, a former federal prosecutor, a two-time Benchmark Litigation U.S. Plaintiff Litigator of the Year, an adjunct professor atthe University of Texas School of Law, and the author of Fighting Bullies: The Case for a Career in Plaintiffs' Law. Over the course of his career, he has prosecuted precedent-setting cases and recovered billions of dollars in complex commercial litigation.This episode is not just about plaintiffs' law. It is about how the legal profession defines success, why so many talented young lawyers are funnelled down narrow paths before they really understand their options and what it actually takes to develop real trial judgment in a profession increasingly shaped by leverage, efficiency and now AI.For our UK and international listeners, think of this as a conversation about claimant-side trial work, professional formation, and whether the system is still set up to produce great courtroom lawyers.So why should you be listening in? You can hear Rob and William discussing:- Mastering the human element remains essential for trial success - Prioritising experience over prestige - The traditional legal career model is being reshaped - AI's encroachment exposes the inefficiency of the billable hour - Irreplaceable Human Skills.Connect with Bill Reid here - https://www.linkedin.com/in/williamtreidiv

Charles Star thought he'd become a union-side labor lawyer but like many law students, he followed the pull of Big Law instead. The prestige and paycheck were there, but the work left him unfulfilled. Charles walked away to pursue stand-up comedy, supporting himself as a hourly contract lawyer. Eventually he landed on the plaintiff side, where he works as a staff attorney on consumer class actions and feels connected to the work. In this episode, Charles reflects on golden handcuffs, career pivots, and what it takes to find a legal path that fits. Charles is a graduate of Columbia Law School.This episode is hosted by Katya Valasek.Mentioned in this episode:Learn more about Juno and private student loansAccess LawHub today!Learn more about Haynes Boone LLP

How many times have you noticed an expert witness for deposition, only to be told you've got to pay their fee in advance, failing which, they say, they aren't coming. As Jim Garrity explains, it doesn't have to be that way. Listen in and learn why prepayment isn't required and how to properly avoid advance payment. After all, those prepayment demands are often excessive, don't explain how the fee was determined, and of course don't guarantee the expert will even qualify as such, much less offer admissible testimony. And we've got a wealth of research for you in the show notes.SHOW NOTESEvans v. Home Depot USA, Inc., Case no. 2:25-CV-451-SPC-KRH, 2026 WL 1837154 (M. D. Florida June 25, 2026) (plaintiff's treating doctor, a non-retained expert, was set for one hour deposition, and demanded prepayment of $3,000 for the deposition; held, prepayment is generally not required, “so lack of prepaid fees would not justify refusing to attend the deposition after proper service of a valid subpoena;” further outlining the process to address a treating physician's potential nonappearance at a deposition, asking whether the deposition was subject to the courts subpoena power, and if so, whether the defendant had issued and served the subpoena, noting that the court then need not intervene until (a) the physician seeks to quash the subpoena or fails to appear, and (b) the defendant moves to hold him in contempt for failing to appear to deposition)Johnson v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., No. CV 07-1874FBJO, 2008 WL 1995117, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. May 6, 2008) (“The pertinent rule thus teaches that once Dr. Seldes has actually “spent” time responding to Spirit's questions at the deposition, he may then bill Spirit for a “reasonable” fee for that amount of “time.” Dr. Seldes therefore may not insist on advance payment, and may not set a flat fee before he knows what he will be called upon to do; he may instead charge only a reasonable hourly fee. I will not predict in advance what reasonable hourly fee Dr. Seldes may choose to request, but should a dispute arise, I will of course defer to the persuasive authority of cases such as the Garnier decision cited above and the precedent on which it in turn relied. See id. at *3-*4 (describing a range of reasonable hourly rates below $500))Conte v. Newsday, Inc., No. CV 06-4859 JFB ETB, 2011 WL 3511071, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2011) (“The rule and the case law makes it clear that the parties seeking court intervention to determine a reasonable fee for an expert deposition should do so retrospectively—that is, after the deposition has taken place. The rule clearly contemplates that a court order will be issued subsequent to the deposition, as it requires a court to order payment of a “reasonable fee for time spent in responding to discovery”)Tennant v. Handi-House Mfg. Co., Case No. 3:16-cv-1276-J-25MCR, 2017 WL 11105252 (M. D. Fla. Nov. 20, 2017) (Defendant moved for, among other things, order deferring payment for deposition of plaintiff's treating physician, who canceled the deposition because he did not receive the $3,300 payment he demanded for his two-hour deposition; held, Defendant's request to defer deposition fees of the treating physician granted, with the court “finding that prepayment of expert witness deposition fees is inappropriate under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;” noting that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(E) “does not require the prepayment of expert deposition fees; further noting that the parties agreed that the issues presented are governed by the expert fee rules, implying that a treating physician may qualify as an expert under the circumstances); Court also noted that Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(E)(i) says that unless manifest injustice would result, the court must require that the party seeking discovery pay the expert a reasonable fee for “time spent” in responding to discovery; court noted that the deposition had not yet taken place, and so seemed to emphasize that it was premature to determine the reasonableness of payment because the provision talks about “time spent” and the doctor had not yet been deposed”)Regions Bank, etc. v. Kaplan, No. 8:12-CV-1837-T-17MAP, 2015 WL 4935694 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 18, 2025) (Bank filed Motion to Defer Payments to Experts or to Determine Reasonableness of Expert Charges, where defendants demanded that the bank pay an invoice from TASA Group in the amount of $10,325.29 in advance of the banking expert's testimony, failing which the witness would not appear; bank argued that the court should defer reimbursement obligation pending the outcome of the case, in pending submission of supporting data, arguing that the Committee Notes to the 1970 amendments to Rule 26 say that the court may issue an order to pay fees as a condition of discovery, or it may delay the order until after discovery is completed.; Court noted that “other courts have denied request for advance payment because Rule 26 (small B) (4) (E) does not require it,” citing cases from Wisconsin and California for the proposition that, unlike ordinary witness fees, no rule requires that an opposing expert deposition fees be tendered to the witness in advance)Regions' Motion to Defer on Payment of Experts, or alternatively, to Determine Reasonableness of Kaplan Parties' Expert Charges and Supporting Memorandum of Law (CM/ECF Doc. 435) Regions Bank, etc. v. Kaplan, No. 8:12-CV-1837-T-17MAP, 2015 WL 4935694 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 18, 2025)Defendant Marvin I. Kaplan's Motion for Approval of Expert Witness Fees and Expenses (CM/ECF Doc. 436), Regions Bank, etc. v. Kaplan, No. 8:12-CV-1837-T-17MAP, 2015 WL 4935694 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 18, 2025)Parkland Venture, LLC v. City of Muskego, No. 09-C-0972, 2010 WL 4723411 (E. D. Wisconsin November 15, 2010) denying plaintiff's motion requiring the defendants to pay reasonable fees to the plaintiff's experts in advance of taking their depositions; court noted that while rule 26(b)(4)(C) provides in relevant part that in less manifest justice would result, the court shall require that the party seeking discovery pay the expert a reasonable fee for time spent responding to discovery, rule does not say that experts fees must be paid in advance of the deposition absent agreement to do so, and pointing out that unlike ordinary witness fees, no rule requires that an opposing expert's deposition fees be tendered to the witness in advance)Kramer et al. v. Hartford Insurance Co. of the Midwest, Case No. 8:12-cv-01824-T-17AEP, 2013 WL 12155927 (M. D. Florida April 30, 2013) (court granted Defendant's Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony of Dennis James, an expert, finding “that prepayment of expert witness fees, including Mr. James' expert witness in this action, is inappropriate under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court noted that while Rule 26(b)(4)(E)(i) says that in less manifest injustice would result, the court must require that a party seeking discovery pay the expert a reasonable fee for “time spent” [emphasis added], the Advisory Committee Notes (1970 Amendment) to Rule 26(b)(4) authorize a court to require the payment of fees and expenses as a condition of discovery, and also to delay the order until after discovery is completed. Thus, the court ordered the deposition to proceed but set a payment deadline for his fees within 50 days of the date of his deposition. The court emphasized that - while rule 26(b)(4)(E)(i) “is silent as to exactly when an expert will be paid after responding to discovery, the Court finds that a degree of reasonableness is inherent in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In the circumstances of this case, a payment deadline of 50 days was reasonable.)Harris v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 226 F.R.D. 675, 676–77 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (plaintiff's counsel abruptly terminated defense deposition of plaintiff's expert because Defendant would not pay expert witness fee at that time; court, rejecting the manner of termination is improper, said of Rule Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(4)(C) that while experts must be paid absent manifest injustice, “The rule does not state, however, that the expert's fees must be paid in advance of the deposition absent agreement to do so. To the contrary, “[u]nlike ordinary witness fees, no rule requires that an opposing expert's deposition fees be tendered to the witness in advance… Because there is no rule allowing a party to terminate a deposition for the failure to pay opposing expert witness fees in advance, Plaintiff's counsel was wrong in doing so in the instant case)Conte v. Newsday, Inc., No. CV 06–4859 (JFB) (ETB), 2011 WL 3511071, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2011) (ruling that a motion seeking prepayment for an expert's deposition was premature because the Rule “clearly contemplates that a court order will be issued subsequent to the deposition;” further saying “Nor, as discussed above, does the rule entitle plaintiff to payment in advance, citing Rule 26(b)(4)(E), which entitles an expert to a reasonable fee for “time spent” responding to discovery); citing Johnson v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., No. CV 07-1874FBJO, 2008 WL 1995117, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. May 6, 2008) (“[The expert] therefore may not insist on advance payment ....”). Rather, if the parties cannot agree to reasonable reimbursement for plaintiff's experts following their depositions, either party may apply to the Court for such a determination;” “Dr. Seldes therefore may not insist on advance payment, and may not set a flat fee before he knows what he will be called upon to do; he may instead charge only a reasonable hourly fee.”)Conte v. Newsday, Inc., No. CV 06-4859 JFB ETB, 2011 WL 3511071, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2011) (citing Broushet v. Target Corp., ––– F.R.D. ––––, 2011 WL 1750753, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar.3, 2011), and saying “Courts consider the following factors in determining whether a requested expert fee is reasonable: (1) the witness' area of expertise; (2) the education and training that is required to provide the expert insight that is sought; (3) the prevailing rates for other comparably respected available experts; (4) the nature, quality and complexity of the discovery responses provided; (5) the cost of living in the particular geographic area; (6) any other factor likely to be of assistance to the court in balancing the interests implicated by Rule 26; (7) the fee actually being charged to the party who retained him; and (8) fees traditionally charged by the expert on related matters”)Ratliff v. Baan Co., N.V., No. 1:99–CV–2455–WBH, 2003 WL 25774909, at *1 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 5, 2003) (concluding that after the expert's deposition, the expert can submit a bill to be paid for the deposition)Woodward v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., No. Civ. A. 97–2062, 1998 WL 158744, at *3 (E.D. La. Mar. 30, 1998) (denying the motion to set an expert's fee because the motion requests a flat fee to be paid in advance of the deposition without reference to “time spent” as enunciated in the Rule)Burdette v. Steadfast Commons II, LLC, No. 2:11–980– RSM, 2012 WL 3762515, at *4–*6 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 29, 2013) (allowing prepayment of expert fees because the parties apparently did not dispute paying the fee in advance)Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(E) (payment to experts)Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) (protective orders to avoid undue burden or expense)

Stupid News 6am 7-9-2026 …Sorry, but the Plaintiffs did in fact pay for window seats …Everybody Knows, Fat Birds Don't Fly …He cut off his penis and lit in on fire

In this episode of Here I Am, host Shai Davidai sits down with Jewish advocate, organizer, and "campus mom" Valerie Gerstein, who shares her firsthand experience confronting antisemitism as a graduate student at Columbia University. Valerie, a granddaughter of Holocaust survivors and lifelong Jewish community leader, enrolled in Columbia's nonprofit management master's program in her 40s in 2022, only to witness a dramatic shift on campus after October 7th. She recounts facing anti-Jewish bias in the classroom even before the attacks, including a professor who chose Yom Kippur to assign anti-Israel readings when no Jewish students were present, and details how her complaints were ignored at every institutional level. Valerie ultimately became one of the named plaintiffs in a landmark civil rights lawsuit against Columbia, which recently resulted in a settlement. She discusses the personal cost of speaking up, from losing friends to needing a bodyguard, and the wins secured through the case: scholarships for students who've lived or studied in Israel, adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism, and the appointment of a Title VI coordinator. A powerful conversation about standing proud, showing up for the next generation, and refusing to be silenced. Guest: Valerie Gerstein Consider DONATING to help us continue and expand our media efforts. If you cannot at this time, please share this video with someone who might benefit from it. We thank you for your support!https://gofund.me/30c00151c BUY MERCH!https://hereiam.threadless.com/ SUPPORT SHAI ON PATREON!https://www.patreon.com/shaidavidai/about?utm_source=campaign-search-results

This Day in Legal History: Vermont Bans SlaveryOn July 8, 1777, delegates meeting in Windsor adopted the Constitution of the Vermont Republic—and in doing so, Vermont became the first place in North America to write the prohibition of slavery into its founding law. At a moment when the newly declared United States tolerated and protected human bondage, a small, unrecognized republic on the frontier put a very different principle on paper.The relevant language was striking for its era. The Vermont constitution declared that all people are born equally free and independent, and it provided that no adult could be held as a servant, slave, or apprentice against their will—specifically, no man over twenty-one and no woman over eighteen. It was not a complete abolition; the age limits meant the document did not immediately free everyone, and enforcement in practice was uneven and incomplete for years afterward. But as a matter of constitutional text, it was the first time on this continent that a government's foundational law declared slavery inconsistent with the very idea of being born free.The context matters. In 1777, Vermont was not yet a state—it wouldn't join the Union until 1791—and it existed in a kind of legal limbo, claimed by both New York and New Hampshire and recognized by neither. That outsider status may have given its drafters room to be bolder than their contemporaries. While the framers of the national government were negotiating the compromises that would embed slavery in American law for another four generations—the three-fifths clause, the fugitive slave clause, the twenty-year protection of the slave trade—Vermont's drafters wrote the opposite conviction into their first article.The significance of July 8, 1777 is partly symbolic and partly practical. Symbolically, it established that abolition was not some later invention imposed on a reluctant founding generation, but a principle that existed at the founding itself, chosen by people who could see the contradiction between declaring all men free and holding some in bondage. Practically, Vermont's provision became an early data point in the long argument that would run through the Northwest Ordinance, the gradual emancipation statutes of the northern states, the abolitionist movement, the Civil War, and finally the Thirteenth Amendment. It's a reminder that constitutional law is not just handed down from the most powerful actors—that sometimes the boldest legal principles come from the margins, from a place that wasn't even sure it counted as a state, writing down what it believed the law ought to be.A former Milwaukee County judge, Hannah Dugan, has been sentenced in federal court after being convicted of obstructing an immigration arrest outside her courtroom—a case that became a flashpoint in the fight over the Trump administration's use of courthouses to stage immigration enforcement. Dugan, who is 67 and was an elected circuit court judge, was found guilty of obstructing a federal proceeding, though a jury acquitted her of a lesser concealment charge.Federal immigration agents came to Dugan's courthouse to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican man who was scheduled to appear before her on misdemeanor assault charges. Prosecutors said Dugan directed him out through a non-public “jury door” in an effort to help him avoid the agents waiting in the public hallway. It didn't work—Flores-Ruiz walked through a public hallway with his attorney anyway, and agents arrested him outside after a brief foot chase. But the government charged Dugan criminally for what she did inside the courthouse, and a federal jury convicted her in December.Think about the competing principles colliding here. On one side is the idea that no one, not even a judge, gets to physically obstruct federal law enforcement carrying out its duties. On the other is a real institutional worry that animated a lot of the coverage: if immigration agents stake out courthouses, people with pending cases—victims, witnesses, defendants—may stop showing up at all, which grinds the ordinary work of the state courts to a halt. Dugan's defenders framed her actions as protecting the functioning of her courtroom; prosecutors framed them as obstruction of a federal operation. The jury sided with the government on the core charge.At sentencing, the two sides were far apart. Federal prosecutors declined to recommend a specific term but argued the guidelines called for fifteen to twenty-one months in prison. Dugan's lawyers disputed that calculation and asked U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman for time served—no prison at all. The significance of the case goes well beyond one judge. It's a marker of how aggressively the administration is willing to pursue anyone perceived to interfere with immigration enforcement, up to and including a sitting judge, and it sends a message to state and local officials everywhere about the personal legal risk of getting between federal agents and their targets.Ex-Wisconsin judge to be sentenced for obstructing immigration arrest | ReutersBayer is moving to bring an end to the sprawling federal litigation over its Roundup weedkiller, following a significant win at the Supreme Court. Late last month, the Court ruled 7-2 in Bayer's favor, and the company is now trying to convert that decision into the dismissal of the failure-to-warn claims that have driven nearly a decade of lawsuits.Thousands of plaintiffs have sued Bayer alleging that Roundup, and specifically its active ingredient glyphosate, caused their non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and that the company violated state law by failing to warn them of that cancer risk. Bayer's winning argument was about federal preemption—the principle that when federal and state law conflict, federal law wins. Bayer argued that because the Environmental Protection Agency has concluded glyphosate poses no cancer risk and requires no cancer warning on the label, plaintiffs can't use state failure-to-warn law to demand a warning the federal regulator affirmatively says isn't needed. The Supreme Court agreed, overturning a $1.25 million Missouri verdict in the process.Consider why this is such a powerful tool for Bayer. A failure-to-warn claim says, in essence, “you should have told me this was dangerous.” But if the federal agency in charge has studied the product and decided no warning is warranted, then a state jury ordering the company to warn anyway would effectively be overriding the federal regulator. Preemption resolves that conflict in favor of the federal standard. The practical effect is that the single most common theory in the Roundup litigation—failure to warn—is now largely off the table in the cases this ruling reaches.The significance is real but, importantly, not total. This should let Bayer dismiss current warning-based claims and block future ones, which is exactly why the company is now pressing courts to wind down the federal litigation, and it's pairing that push with a proposed $7.25 billion class-action settlement to sweep in remaining Roundup users. But the decision doesn't make every claim disappear. Plaintiffs may still pursue theories that don't depend on a failure to warn—like defective design—and the settlement obligations remain. So this is a milestone in Bayer's long campaign to contain its liability, not the final word. It's also a notable example of how federal regulatory findings can become a shield against state tort law, a doctrine with implications well beyond weedkiller.Bayer seeks end to federal Roundup litigation after Supreme Court win | ReutersFederal judges are sounding skeptical of a California law that bans employers from forcing workers to attend so-called “captive audience” meetings—mandatory gatherings where a company shares its views on political or religious matters, most often its opposition to unionizing. The law has already been blocked by a district court, and the signs from the bench suggest that skepticism may carry through on appeal.Here's what a captive audience meeting is and why it's contested. When a union organizing drive is underway, employers have long held mandatory meetings where attendance is required and workers listen to management make the case against unionizing. Unions call these coercive; employers call them protected speech. California's SB 399 tried to ban compelling attendance at meetings covering “political matters,” a category defined broadly enough to include unionization. Judge Daniel Calabretta of the Eastern District of California blocked the law, and his reasoning is the crux of the whole fight.He gave two independent grounds, and it's worth separating them. The first is federal preemption—the same principle at work in the Bayer story. Calabretta found that the National Labor Relations Act, which governs labor relations nationwide, occupies this field and preempts California's attempt to regulate it under the Machinists and Garmon preemption doctrines. The second ground is the First Amendment: he held that the law was a content-based restriction on employer speech, singling out “political” and “religious” topics, and that it couldn't survive strict scrutiny—the most demanding test in constitutional law, which almost nothing passes. In his view, banning all speech on those topics in mandatory meetings swept far too broadly.The significance here is that this is a collision between the labor movement's priorities and employers' free-speech claims, and right now the free-speech and preemption arguments are winning in court. A number of states have passed captive-audience bans, so how the Ninth Circuit ultimately rules—California and Attorney General Rob Bonta are expected to appeal—will shape whether this entire category of worker-protection law survives. It's a reminder that even popular labor legislation has to run a gauntlet of federal preemption and the First Amendment, and that employer speech, including anti-union speech, gets substantial constitutional protection.US judges leery of California ban on workplace captive-audience meetings | 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

Investigative journalists ⁠⁠Mandy Matney⁠⁠ and ⁠Liz Farrell⁠⁠ and attorney Eric Bland break down where the four-month contempt saga stands now that proposed orders are submitted and the decision rests with the judge.  They unpack the bright spots: the deposition happened, it didn't delay the case, and how Greg Parker's team somehow claimed they needed two days for a deposition that was mostly Jim Bannister asking Mandy about things Liz allegedly said… And then they barely used any of Mandy and Liz deposition testimony in their own summary judgment motions to dismiss the case.  The crew also digs into the latest venue change supplement — which now targets Cherokee County and tries to frame Mandy's pink-clad supporters as jury-tainting intimidation.  The Beach family and Team Parker are at the Beaufort County Courthouse this week hearing motions:  - Parker motion for changing venue - Parker motion to elect Tinsley as attorney or witness - Potentially a new Parker 'motion' for gag order on selected media - Parker motion to exclude Vicky Ward + Gregg Roman as witnesses - Parker motion for summary judgement (to dismiss) - Defendants Greco/D'Cruz motion for summary judgement (to dismiss) - Defendants from Private Investigator Services Group (PISG) Motion for Rule to Show Cause (RTSC) for Gregg Roman's deposition 'dodging' - PISG motion for summary judgement - Defendants motion to quash Plaintiff subpoena of Spartanburg PD and AC Hotel Spartanburg - Beach motion for RTSC on Truist Bank - Beach motion for RTSC on Parker and counsel (alleged discovery abuse) Plus, some Taylor Swift wedding news that has Mandy eating crow on her disbelief that Madison Square Garden rumors turned out to be true. ☕ Cups Up! ⚖️ Episode References “UPDATE: 7 shot at Coligny Beach on Hilton Head during July 4 fight” - WTOC, July 4, 2026

Every personal injury firm talks about the biggest recoveries they've obtained for clients. Steven Levin thinks that's the wrong conversation. When every law firm claims impressive verdicts, the firms that stand out are the ones clients believe are authentic, deeply specialized, and willing to think differently. Steven Levin is the Founder and Senior Partner of Levin & Perconti, a litigation-focused firm with 26 attorneys and 50 staff serving clients nationwide. The firm has built a national reputation handling nursing home abuse, birth injury, medical malpractice, wrongful death, and other complex catastrophic injury cases. In this episode, Steven explains why authenticity matters more than advertising claims, why saying "no" to the wrong cases strengthens your reputation, and why specialization changes everything—from staffing to case evaluation. He also shares how AI helps plaintiff lawyers become better strategic thinkers, why defense firms may struggle to adopt it, and how belief can ultimately change the value of a case. You'll learn: Why authenticity matters when every firm advertises high-value results. Why conviction during mediation influences the value of a case. What makes AI for lawyers a strategic advantage instead of just a productivity tool. How consistent culture shapes stronger litigation teams over time. Want your digital presence to match your courtroom authority? See how the team at Rankings helps elite personal injury practices win the long game at Rankings.io. Like what you hear? Hit Subscribe! We do this every week. If you want to keep learning from the best voices in PI, join us at PIMCON 2026. Buy your tickets now! Subscribe to our newsletter and get the freshest news every Monday: newsletter.rankings.io Get Social! Personal Injury Mastermind w/ Chris Dreyer powered by Rankings.io is on Instagram | YouTube | TikTok

On this episode of the SeventySix Capital Sports Leadership Show, Wayne Kimmel interviewed Grant House, Lead Plaintiff in House v. NCAA Lawsuit.House is a professional swimmer, sports law advocate, and graduate of Arizona State University, where he earned a degree in Business Communication before completing a master's in Sports Law and Business. A former Team USA swimmer and multiple-time Olympic Trials qualifier, House has competed at the highest levels of the sport while developing a deep understanding of the intersection between athletics, business, and law.House is widely recognized as the lead plaintiff in the landmark *House v. NCAA* case, which fundamentally changed the landscape of college athletics by paving the way for revenue sharing with student-athletes. His advocacy has made him one of the most influential voices in the ongoing evolution of college sports and athlete rights.Beyond his work in the courtroom, House is passionate about athlete development and leadership. Through coaching, swim clinics, and mentoring young athletes, he continues to help the next generation reach their potential while promoting fairness, opportunity, and innovation across the sports industry.Grant House:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/granthouse/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mitochondria_house/?hl=en

Happy 250th! The bulls are bubbling up! Yentervention – it is a thing. Labor market predictions. PLUS we are now on Spotify and Amazon Music/Podcasts! Click HERE for Show Notes and Links DHUnplugged is now streaming live - with listener chat. Click on link on the right sidebar. Love the Show? Then how about a Donation? PayPal.Donation.Button({ env:'production', hosted_button_id:'JJJHP2GDEJC7J', image: { src:'https://www.paypalobjects.com/en_US/i/btn/btn_donateCC_LG.gif', alt:'Donate with PayPal button', title:'PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!', } }).render('#donate-button'); Follow John C. Dvorak on Twitter Follow Andrew Horowitz on Twitter Warm-Up - 250 Years! - We have the scorecard - Bulls are on the loose! - Kevin Hassett - what a putz - RAM JOB! Markets - Google's first day in the DJIA - a good one - SpaceX bonds already losing -Yen slips to 1986 levels - Yentervention? WHAT A PUTZ! - Trump Accounts launch July 4, with the NYSE and Nasdaq set to ring the opening bell from the Oval Office. - Program gives a $1,000 Treasury-funded investment account to U.S. children born from January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2028. - Kids under 18 can have accounts, but only newborns in that four-year window get the federal seed money. - Parents, family, employers, nonprofits, and governments can add money, with a general $5,000 annual contribution cap. - Money is invested in index funds and generally locked up until the child reaches adulthood. - Kevin Hassett pitched it as a way to teach kids about markets, ownership, saving, and compounding. His argument is that the more young people get exposed to investing early, and market ownership becomes less of an upper-income club. - However - > the government is handing out taxpayer-funded brokerage seed money while selling it as capitalism. - Also odd: the benefit may skew toward families who already know how to file forms, open accounts, and add more money. - So basically it is a forced financial-literacy experiment wrapped in a political brand name, with a socialist starter check to teach capitalism. First-Half Winners and Losers - S&P 500 finished the first half up roughly 7% to 8%, with the rally led by AI hardware, chips, memory, and data-center infrastructure. - Biggest winners were the shovel sellers: Sandisk up about 780%, Micron up about 296%, Western Digital up about 240%, Seagate up about 226%. - Overseas AI hardware ripped too: South Korea's Kospi up 123%, helped by Samsung up 169% and SK Hynix up 303%. - Semiconductor ETFs had a monster Q2: iShares Semiconductor ETF up 86.8%, VanEck Semiconductor ETF up 64.8%. - Japan's Nikkei rose about 38%; FTSE 100 gained about 5.8%. - Losers were the software/platform names that could not prove immediate AI payoff. - Microsoft was down about 24% despite being one of the biggest AI spenders. - Momentum stocks had one of their worst stretches in two decades as the Magnificent Seven slipped on capex worries. - Crypto and gold also lagged the AI-infrastructure trade. - Equity BULLS are running like it was San Fermin, Spain... MORE.... - Gold biggest quarterly loss since 2013 - Japan best quarter ever - Oil starts and ends - Kospi best quarter in 30 years - Stoxx 600 best Q in 5 years Something is going to break! - When Micro announced earnings, and we see that companies are panicking (News about existential threat to smaller tech players).. We said something is going to break - MU shares lifted to ATH on the news - big big beat - Micron's latest quarter showed a dramatic acceleration from the year-ago period, with revenue rising from $9,301 to $41,460 and EPS increasing from $1.91 to $25.11. - HUGE uptick in guidance - Apple increased pricing, Dell is increasing prices next week (17%), Microsoft raised price on XBox, HP across the board increase, Lenovo/Xiaomi increases, - NOW: Apple is lobbying the Trump administration for clearance to buy memory chips from China's ChangXin Memory Technologies Korea Goes All-In On AI Memory - Samsung and SK Hynix are backing a huge South Korea chip buildout tied to AI memory, HBM, advanced DRAM, packaging and data centers. - Samsung's plan includes hundreds of trillions of won for new fabs, including HBM facilities in Cheonan and Onyang. - SK Hynix is expanding Yongin and planning a major new chip base as it rides demand from Nvidia-linked HBM supply. - Government angle: Seoul wants domestic chip capacity treated like national infrastructure, not just corporate capex. - The state is trying to lock in supply-chain control before China, Taiwan, Japan and the U.S. pull more production into their own subsidy zones. - Market wrinkle: AI memory is hot now, but memory companies have a long history of overbuilding into strong pricing cycles. - Governments are no longer just subsidizing chips — they are helping plan semiconductor cities. RAM Job? - Samsung, SK hynix, and Micron were hit with a U.S. antitrust class-action lawsuit over alleged DRAM price fixing. - Allegation: the big three coordinated supply cuts while shifting capacity away from regular DDR3/DDR4 memory and into high-bandwidth memory for AI servers. - Plaintiffs say the three companies control roughly 90% of the DRAM market. - Conventional DRAM prices allegedly jumped about 700% over four years. - Complaint argues that in a normal commodity market, at least one supplier would usually increase production when prices spike. - Instead, the lawsuit says all three moved in the same direction at the same time. DRAM: We Have Seen This Movie Before - Yes, there was a similar DRAM price-fixing scandal in the 2000s. - DOJ investigation covered alleged DRAM price fixing from roughly 1998 through 2002. - Hynix pleaded guilty in 2005 and agreed to pay a $185 million criminal fine. - Samsung pleaded guilty in 2005 and agreed to pay a $300 million criminal fine. - Infineon pleaded guilty earlier, in 2004, and agreed to pay a $160 million fine. - Micron was involved in the investigation but received amnesty/cooperation treatment rather than the same criminal fine path. - Several executives were also charged or pleaded guilty. - State AGs and private plaintiffs later pursued civil cases tied to overpayment claims. - Difference now: the new case is not yet proven and appears focused on alleged coordinated supply restriction during the AI/HBM boom. Chevron and Microsoft - Chevron Corp signed 20-year deal with Microsoft for data center power. - Agreement supplies natural-gas fired generation for massive West Texas facility. - Project Kilby expected online 2028, ramping to 2.67 gigawatts. - Full output enough to power more than 530,000 Texas homes. - Chevron partnering Engine No. 1, final investment decision planned later. - Deal follows prior reports of exclusive long-term power negotiations. More Oil News - Drill baby Drill - Interior Department cutting federal drilling bonds by 95% to spur exploration. - Required bond drops from $500,000 to $25,000 for leases. - Bonds ensure cleanup costs don't fall on taxpayers if wells abandoned. - Policy change aims to encourage more oil and gas development. - Proposal subject to 60-day public comment after Federal Register publication. Dow 52,000 and the Tech Bounce - Dow closed above 52,000 for the first time Monday, finishing at 52,182.74. - S&P 500 gained 1.18%; Nasdaq jumped 2.07%. - S&P and Nasdaq snapped five-session losing streaks. - Alphabet rose 4.8% on its first day as a Dow component. - Tesla gained 8.5%; SpaceX rose more than 7%. - The bounce came after last week's tech selloff, with investors rotating back into mega-cap and AI names. Comcast Breaks Itself Up - Comcast plans to split media and connectivity into two separate companies. - NBCUniversal and Sky would be spun off in a tax-free deal; Comcast keeps broadband, wireless, and cable. - Completion expected within a year. - Shareholders would own both Comcast and the new NBCUniversal. - Comcast shares rose on the news; Charter also jumped as investors speculated Comcast could eventually pursue a broadband-scale deal. AI Trade Gets a Warning Label - Bank for International Settlements flagged the AI boom as a financial-stability risk. - The main concerns: elevated valuations, investor complacency, complex funding structures, and debt financing across the AI supply chain. - BIS also warned that record public debt and leveraged hedge-fund activity in sovereign bonds could amplify shocks. - Quote from BIS General Manager Pablo Hernandez de Cos: "Policy actions must reinforce each other." - The interesting part: central bankers are not saying AI is fake; they are saying the financing stack may be fragile. Inflation Back Above 4% - BEA's PCE price index rose 4.1% year over year in May. - April was 3.8%; March was 3.5%; February was 2.9%. - This keeps pressure on the Fed because PCE is the Fed's preferred inflation gauge. - Core PCE may later be revised lower because of BEA methodology changes. - Goldman estimated May core PCE could be trimmed to 3.2% from 3.4%; JPMorgan expected 3.3%. - Funny-but-real detail: part of the potential revision comes from how BEA prices portfolio management, legal services, and computer software. Jobs Report Becomes Bad-News-Is-Bad-News - June payrolls are due Thursday because markets are closed Friday for Independence Day. - The setup is awkward: strong jobs could mean stronger economy, but also higher odds of Fed hikes. - Looking back - May payrolls were hot at 172,000 versus an 85,000 forecast, with unemployment steady at 4.3%. - Remember - after the June Fed meeting, policymakers were clearly focused on inflation, not rescue cuts. Oil, Iran, and the Market's New Weird Routine - Oil stayed volatile around renewed U.S.-Iran tensions and peace-talk headlines. - Brent rose 1.6% Monday to $73.15; WTI rose 2.2% to $70.75. - Markets rallied anyway, helped by signs talks would resume and shipping routes were stabilizing. - The odd market behavior: geopolitical escalation keeps getting followed by de-escalation headlines and risk-on rallies. - This is now part of the trading pattern: weekend war scare, Monday relief rally, repeat. --- New attacks by USA on Iran happened at approx 4:30PM on Friday (markets closed) and then a halt to the fighting on Sunday - before the futures opened. Odd : Wendy's Becomes a Meme Stock - Wendy's became the latest retail-trader short-squeeze target. - Stock surged 25% last Wednesday, then gained another 9% Thursday. - Barron's said the move followed a CFO shakeup and WallStreetBets attention. - New CFO Steve Cirulis came from Potbelly and is also taking the Chief Strategy Officer title. - Wendy's had fallen 47% over the past year before the rally. - Short interest was nearly 30% of the public float, making the stock easier to squeeze. - Trian, Nelson Peltz's firm, owned nearly 15 million shares valued around $93 million. SpaceX Bonds Slip After Big Debut - SpaceX sold $25 billion of investment-grade bonds, its first major public debt deal. - Demand was huge, with roughly $85 billion to $98 billion of orders. - The 10-year tranche priced about 1.4 percentage points over Treasurys. - Bonds weakened quickly after pricing. - The 10-year yield rose near 6%, with the spread moving above 1.6 percentage points. - Longer-dated 2046 and 2056 bonds took the most pressure. - The pushback: bond buyers want more yield for a company still funding rockets, Starlink, AI/data-center spending, and Mars ambitions. - Clean read: equity investors bought the story; bond investors immediately marked it down. Yentervention - Yen weakened again, pushing toward the 162-per-dollar zone and near its weakest level in about 40 years. - Japan keeps warning it is ready for "decisive action" or to respond "at any time." - Market does not seem scared for long. - Japan already spent heavily defending the yen, including a roughly $73 billion yen-buying operation after the currency broke past 160. - U.S. rates are still high, the Fed is not rushing to cut, and the Bank of Japan is still moving slowly. - That keeps the carry trade alive: borrow cheap yen, buy higher-yielding dollars. - Japan's foreign reserves fell 5.6% in May after intervention, showing the defense is expensive.   Love the Show? Then how about a Donation? PayPal.Donation.Button({ env: 'production', hosted_button_id: 'JJJHP2GDEJC7J', image: { src: 'https://www.paypalobjects.com/en_US/i/btn/btn_donateCC_LG.gif', alt: 'Donate with PayPal button', title: 'PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!' } }).render('#donate-button-2'); THE CLOSEST TO THE PIN for SpaceX (SPCX) Winners will be getting great stuff like the new "OFFICIAL" DHUnplugged Shirt!     FED AND CRYPTO LIMERICKS   See this week's stock picks HERE Follow John C. Dvorak on Twitter Follow Andrew Horowitz on Twitter

We take a deep dive into Tyra Banks' defamation lawsuit against Netflix over the America's Next Top Model documentary; Natasha Lyonne worries us with a baffling Tribeca Film Festival appearance; Tracie explains why she thinks Jean Harlow's legend is wildly overrated; and an unhoused woman mistakes Rich's shorts for a very pretty skirt.To access video episodes, bonus episodes and our premium series WAWU check out our Patreon.Tracie's SubstackInstagramTikTok ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

What to do when an organization resists your efforts to conduct a Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition by claiming it not only doesn't currently have information on the topics, but that it never had any? As Jim urges you to do in this episode, take the deposition and force the entity's designee to say it entirely lacks knowledge on the topics. Why? Because the absence of knowledge is itself a discoverable fact. And showing that an entity took no steps to become informed on critical matters can be powerful proof of indifference, negligence, or omission. Don't miss this one!SHOW NOTES:Order Overruling Defendant's Objection To Magistrate Judge Vatti's Order Dated February 5, 2026, LaBroad v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-1102 (KAD), 2026 WL 1746249 (ruling that magistrate judge correctly determined “that the purported nonexistence of any materials regarding [defendant's training on parking lot safety] is, itself, a relevant fact on which [Plaintiff] is entitled to develop evidence via Rule 30(b)(6)”)Hepco Data LLC v. Hepco Medical LLC, 2020 WL 1870320, No. 2D19-2134 (2d DCA April 15, 2020) (certiorari granted, quashing order blocking depositions, because petitioners established through filed proffer that depositions were relevant; held, “litigants would never be able to take a nonparty deposition if all the non-party had to do to get out of it is to say that he or she had nothing to say; representations of opponent that discovery isn't relevant need not be relied on)John v. Core Brace, LLC 2021 WL 329460, No. 4:20-CV-00071-BLW (D. Idaho Jan. 29, 2021) (citing Apple. Inc., 282 F.R.D. at 263 for proposition that “A claimed lack of knowledge, by itself, is insufficient to preclude a deposition,” omitting additional citations)United States of America v. Newman, 2021 WL 1026019, No. 19-1868 (RJL) ( D. D. C. Mar. 17, 2021) (sarcastically noting government's proposed stipulation that certain evidence had not moved from its location during relevant time was an unconvincing “attempt to stipulate itself out of [having to respond to] discovery”)Klorczyk v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 3:13-CV-257 (HBF), 2015 WL 1600299, at *4-5 (D. Conn. Apr. 9, 2015) (holding that a "we-don't-know" response can be binding on the corporation at trial and prohibit it from offering evidence on those points; if a designee genuinely lacks knowledge, the designee must still be prepared to testify concerning the corporation's efforts to obtain the information and why it lacks sufficient knowledge)QBE Insurance Corp. v. Jorda Enterprises, Inc., 277 F.R.D. 676, 690 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (establishing that the lack of knowledge answer is itself an answer which will bind the corporation at trial; lack of knowledge is insufficient grounds to preclude a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition; “The conclusion that the corporation is bound at trial by a legitimate lack of knowledge response at the 30(b)(6) deposition is, for all practical purposes a variation on the rule and philosophy against trial by ambush. Calzaturficio, 201 F.R.D. at 38; Wilson, 228 F.R.D. at 531; Taylor, 166 F.R.D. at 363 (rule prevents “sandbagging” and prevents corporation from making a “half-hearted inquiry before the deposition but a thorough and vigorous one before the trial”).

In Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe, the Supreme Court held that courts may not create new causes of action for violations of international norms under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and that aiding-and-abetting liability exists under neither the ATS nor the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991. The decision limits the use of U.S. courts to pursue transnational human-rights claims absent clear congressional authorization.In Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación CIMEX, S.A. (Cuba), the Court held that the Helms-Burton Act removes sovereign immunity for Cuban agencies and instrumentalities sued for trafficking in property confiscated by the Cuban government. Plaintiffs suing those entities under the Act, therefore, do not need to separately satisfy one of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s enumerated exceptions.Join us for a discussion of these decisions, their implications, and what they reveal about the Court’s approach to statutory interpretation and separation of powers. Featuring: Prof. Julian Ku, Faculty Director of International Programs and Maurice A. Deane Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law, Hofstra University Molly Nixon, Senior Fellow in Executive Power, Cato Institute

Part 4 of Setting Precedent: The Right to Protest on Campus - a podcast miniseries that tells the whole story behind the lawsuit activists have launched against the University of Calgary and the Calgary Police in response to an encampment eviction on the campus back in May 2024.Dr. Roberta Lexier, an expert of student movements in Canada, explains why institutions like the University of Calgary are responding to peaceful protests with such hostility. She provides historical context for the shifting relationship between student activists and their, now "neoliberal corporatist" universities.She's also points to examples from campuses, and makes the case that post-secondary schools across Canada are becoming increasily intolerant of the very activists they helped create. Although the Palestinian exception weighs heavily on how universities (and Police) approach protests, Dr, Lexier talks about many other factors that play into what student movements are up against these days.If you missed the first (3) three parts - they can be listened to in any order.Part 1 featured Dr. Raheleh Tarani and her story of participating in the peaceful protest with her son one minute, and being pinned by police the next. We heard about the impact that had on her, and how she's reclaiming power through the court.Part 2: Liaising with Police - Calgary based activist Wesam Cooley talks about his role as the encampment's police liaison, and what its been like trying to hold police and other parties accountable in Alberta.Part 3: Charter Violations - Legal counsel for the nine Plaintiffs, Chris Weibe, on the merits of the case, what a victory would mean, and what its like going after the state on behalf of activists.Hosted by: Jessa McLean and Santiago Helou QuinteroCall to Action: DONATE TO THE LEGAL FUND FOR THE PLAINTIFFSRelated Episodes: Student Hunger Strike - Its Only a Matter of Time (Apr 2025) UBC & UBCO student activists talk about their hunger strike and other efforts to have their University divest from weapons manufacturers. Holding Institutions Accountable (Oct 2025)More Resources: More of our content is available on our SUBSTACK.All of our content is free - made possible by the generous sponsorships of our Patrons. If you would like to support our work through monthly contributions: PatreonFollow us on Instagram or on Bluesky

Bret Weinstein speaks with attorney, Bobbie Anne Cox on the subject of election laws, voter fraud, and the political landscape in blue states. But first they honor the legacy of their friend, Warner Mendenhall, in discussing the Brooke Jackson case and fraud in Pfizer Trials.Find Bobbie Anne Cox on X at https://x.com/Attorney_Cox and her Substack at https://attorneycox.substack.com. *****Sponsors:Xlear: Xylitol nasal spray that acts as prophylaxis against respiratory illnesses by reducing the stickiness of bacteria and viruses. Find Xlear online, or at your local pharmacy, grocery store, or natural products store.Vanman: Go to https://vanman.shop/darkhorse26 and use code DARKHORSE26 for 15%  off your first order.SaunaSpace: Dark Horse listeners get an exclusive 10% off sitewide at http://sauna.space/darkhorse - now through June 21, every sauna purchase includes a FREE PureLayer bundle featuring an organic bamboo mat cover and three stool covers.*****Join DarkHorse on Locals! Get access to our Discord server, exclusive live streams, live chats for all streams, and early access to many podcasts: https://darkhorse.locals.comCheck out the DHP store! Epic tabby, digital book burning, saddle up the dire wolves, and more: https://www.darkhorsestore.orgTheme Music: Thank you to Martin Molin of Wintergatan for providing us the rights to use their excellent music.*****Mentioned in this Episode:Brownstone Institute https://brownstone.org/ In Memory of Warner Mendenhall https://imahealth.org/in-memory-of-warner-mendenhall Brook Jackson's fight against Pfizer https://www.covidlawcast.com/p/brook-jacksons-fight-against-pfizerUNITED STATES OF AMERICAex rel. BROOK JACKSON,Plaintiff,vs.VENTAVIA RESEARCH GROUP, LLC,et al.Defendants https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24362542-2023-12-19-jackson-opp2mtd-final-as-filed/H.R.5546 - National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/5546 National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation HHS, CDC Announce New ACIP Members https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/hhs-cdc-announce-new-acip-members-sept-2025.html CPPAC 2026: Bobbie Anne Cox https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p3YItoDArs When Judges Go Rogue https://attorneycox.substack.com/p/when-judges-go-rogue When Judges Go Rogue - Bobbie Anne Flower Cox - The Brownstone Show, Episode 15 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVZTHV-bZN8SAVE Act https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/22Support the show

In the case of Jane Doe v. Leon Black (1:23-cv-06418-JGLC), the parties have submitted a joint letter regarding a discovery dispute over Defendant Leon Black's request to quash or modify deposition subpoenas. These subpoenas are intended for three of Mr. Black's attorneys and his wife. The request was made pursuant to Rule 4(k) of Judge Clarke's Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases.Defendant has requested an informal conference to address the matter, as provided under Rule 4(k). However, Plaintiff does not agree that such a conference is necessary. This disagreement highlights a procedural conflict regarding how to proceed with resolving the subpoena dispute.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.602764.166.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Welcome to episode 335 of Grow Your Law Firm, hosted by Ken Hardison. In this episode, Ken sits down with Rachel McCarthy, Executive Director of The Milestone Foundation, a nonprofit organization that provides low-cost pre-settlement and post-settlement funding to plaintiffs across the country. Rachel shares how the Foundation was created to offer an alternative to high-interest funding models and help injured individuals navigate financial hardship while pursuing their legal cases. The conversation focuses on the role plaintiff funding plays in access to justice and how the right funding structure can benefit both plaintiffs and attorneys. Rachel explains how the nonprofit model works, why the Foundation offers simple interest rates significantly below many traditional providers, and how funding can help plaintiffs avoid settling cases prematurely due to financial pressure. She also discusses the importance of attorney involvement in the process and why firms should evaluate funding options carefully when guiding clients. What you'll learn in this episode: How Nonprofit Plaintiff Funding Works - How the Milestone Foundation provides pre-settlement and post-settlement funding - Why the nonprofit structure allows for lower simple interest rates Why Fair Funding Matters - How high-interest funding can negatively impact plaintiffs and settlements - Why lower-cost funding can improve financial stability during litigation The Connection Between Funding and Case Outcomes - How financial pressure can force plaintiffs into early settlements - Why funding can help attorneys fully pursue case value Evaluating Funding Options for Clients - Why attorneys should understand the terms and costs of funding providers - How different firms may negotiate different rates for clients Why Litigation Timelines Are Increasing - How more personal injury cases are moving into litigation - Why insurance company delays can extend case timelines and increase pressure   Resources:    Website: themilestonefoundation.org LinkedIn: linkedin.com/company/the-milestone-foundation Facebook: facebook.com/TheMilestoneFdn Instagram: instagram.com/themilestonefoundation Additional Resources:    https://www.pilmma.org/the-mastermind-effect https://www.pilmma.org/resources https://www.pilmma.org/mastermind

In this episode of Experts Unleashed, I sit down with Lennon Wright, a Houston personal injury attorney who has been practicing law for 48 years — 100% on the plaintiff side, never once defending an insurance company. Board certified in personal injury trial law since 1982, AV rated since 1984, and a magna cum laude graduate of the University of Houston Law Center, Lennon has built a career around cases other attorneys say can't be won. He has twice changed Texas law in favor of injured victims — a distinction held by almost no one practicing today. We go inside the cases that took 8, 12, and 15 years to resolve, the one deposition question that unlocked a recovery everyone said didn't exist, the critical difference between admitted and non-admitted insurance carriers that most lawyers never think to look for, and what 48 years of plaintiff-only work has taught him about perseverance, the Texas Supreme Court, and why he's never once been tempted to switch sides.   

DOCKET ALERTS:   Doofus of the Day: George Santos, who is clearly trying to get himself back into jail. NPR reported that the former congressman bet against his own appearance at the State of the Union in February. After NPR reported that Kalshi had frozen his accounts and referred him to the CFTC and DOJ, Santos called up journalist Bobby Allyn and threatened him with "a gun in your face."   Also seeking a pardon: Sam Bankman-Fried.   Judge Leo Sorokin in Massachusetts blocked Trump's attempt to tax H-1B visas out of existence by imposing a $100,000 "fee."   MAIN SHOW:   Trump's lawyer Alejandro Brito is finding new and creative ways to piss off the judge in Trump's trollsuit against the BBC.   The DOJ is broken! Today's examples include: The DOJ telling the DC Circuit that it would be just fine for Trump to bulldoze the Statue of Liberty. A judge in Rhode Island referring DOJ lawyers for attorney discipline and sanctions. And a story from the New York Times about all the prosecutors who got pushed out because they wouldn't indict Trump's enemies.   Plaintiffs are trying to stop Donald Trump from hosting a UFC fight on the White House lawn.   SUBSCRIBER BONUS: The Department of Defense reduced the number of recognized religious faiths from 211 to 31 — they kept all the good non-woke ones, it's fine. I wrote about George Santos. Then he made a violent threat and lied about it https://www.npr.org/2026/06/04/nx-s1-5846966/george-santos-kalshi-threats   California v. Noem [H-1B visas] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72031571/state-of-california-v-noem/   Trump v. BBC https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72040010/trump-v-british-broadcasting-corporation   How the Drive to Find a Conspiracy Against Trump Rocked the Justice Dept. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/08/us/politics/justice-department-trump-patel-conspiracy.html   Douglas v. National Park Service (UFC) [docket via CourtListener] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.293217/gov.uscourts.dcd.293217.3.1.pdf   Forbes, "Trump Says UFC Arena Could Be Permanent At White House—Everything We Know About The Upcoming Event"  https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2026/06/04/trump-says-ufc-arena-could-be-permanent-at-white-house-everything-we-know-about-the-upcoming-event/   Pete Hegseth on the chaplain corps https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4444113/hegseth-announces-reforms-to-chaplain-corps/   Sean Parnell announcement re: DOD religious codes [via X.com] https://x.com/SeanParnellASW/status/2062964159222874227   Pew Research Center Religious Landscape Study https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/02/26/religious-landscape-study-executive-summary/   Military.com, "DOD Officially Drops 180 Faiths From Military's Recognized Religion List" https://www.military.com/dod-officially-drops-180-faiths-from-militarys-recognized-religion-list   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod

This Day in Legal History: Madison Introduces the Bill of RightsOn this day in 1789, James Madison rose from his seat in New York's Federal Hall — then the temporary capital of the new federal government — and gave the speech in which he introduced a list of amendments to the Constitution that we now know as the Bill of Rights. Madison had been, until quite recently, a skeptic of attaching a bill of rights to the federal Constitution: he had argued at the Constitutional Convention and in The Federalist that the structure of enumerated and separated powers was a better protection of liberty than a “parchment barrier” of textual rights, and he worried that any enumeration would be read to imply that whatever was not enumerated was not protected. What changed his mind was politics. The Antifederalist opposition in several states had made ratification conditional on amendments protecting individual rights, and Madison — by then a member of the First Congress — concluded that introducing such amendments himself was the surest way to defuse a broader constitutional convention movement that might unravel the work of 1787. The list he proposed on June 8 was longer and somewhat different from what eventually became the Bill of Rights; the House debated it through the summer, passed seventeen amendments in August, the Senate reduced them to twelve in September, and ten of those — the ones we now call Amendments I through X — were ratified by the states on December 15, 1791. June 8 is the date a reluctant convert stood up and made the case that has carried American constitutional law ever since: the proposition that the government's structural restraint is necessary but not sufficient, and that the rights of speech, conscience, due process, and the rest deserve to be written down where everyone can read them.Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island on Friday vacated four U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services policies that had, since late last year, frozen work permits, green-card adjudications, naturalization, and asylum claims for nationals of roughly 39 countries on the second Trump administration's travel ban list. The case, Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS, No. 1:26-cv-00132, was brought by a coalition of immigrant-service organizations and labor unions. Judge McConnell held that all four policies — a “Benefits Hold” freezing affirmative benefits for travel-ban country nationals, a Global Asylum Hold halting asylum processing across the board regardless of country of origin, a Comprehensive Re-Review Policy requiring USCIS to re-examine previously approved benefits, and a separate adjudicator-instruction policy treating travel-ban country origin as a negative factor — are unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act. The legal hook is familiar APA territory: the agency, McConnell concluded, failed to provide a reasoned explanation for the freezes and failed to account for the substantial reliance interests of hundreds of thousands of pending applicants. What makes this ruling stand out is the remedy. Other district courts that had blocked these policies in the last six months issued preliminary injunctions limited to named plaintiffs; McConnell vacated the policies themselves, which under standard APA practice means they cease to operate nationwide. That puts USCIS in the position of either rescinding the policies, going back to the drawing board with proper rulemaking, or appealing to the First Circuit and trying to get the vacatur stayed. Expect movement on all three fronts this week.US Judge Strikes Down Trump Policies Targeting Immigrants From 39 Countries | US NewsU.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia entered a temporary restraining order on Friday blocking the Trump administration's $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” from disbursing any money while the underlying lawsuit proceeds. The fund — created by executive order earlier this year and funded out of a settlement the administration brokered in the Trump-IRS litigation we covered in early June — was meant to compensate people the administration described as victims of the Biden Justice Department's “weaponization” of federal law enforcement, with the first contemplated payments going to defendants and witnesses from the January 6 prosecutions. Plaintiffs include former DOJ attorney Andrew Floyd and other former federal prosecutors who argue, in essence, that the fund is an unauthorized expenditure of public money: Congress never appropriated it, the settlement that supposedly funds it is itself under judicial review for whether the United States was actually adverse to the President in his personal capacity, and the program's payout criteria are based on political characterizations of past prosecutions rather than any neutral standard. Judge Brinkema's order, narrowly drawn to “ensure that no funds are irreversibly disbursed,” set a June 12 hearing on whether the freeze should be extended into a preliminary injunction. By the end of last week the situation had escalated further: on June 5 the Justice Department told two federal judges, in writing, that it would stop work on the fund altogether and that the lawsuits challenging it are now moot. That representation will be tested at this Friday's hearing, because the plaintiffs are not satisfied with a unilateral DOJ promise and want a binding court order before they go away. Watch for what Brinkema does with that disagreement on Friday.Justice Department says it will stop work on $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund” after judge's ruling | CBS NewsA divided Seventh Circuit panel on Friday upheld Indiana's law restricting who may attend an execution at the Indiana State Prison, holding that the First Amendment does not give reporters a right of access to be present at the execution itself. Judge Michael Scudder wrote the 2-1 majority. The plaintiffs — the Associated Press, the Indiana Capital Chronicle, Gannett, WISH-TV, and TEGNA, represented by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press — had argued that the long line of Supreme Court cases recognizing a First Amendment right of press and public access to criminal proceedings, from Richmond Newspapers forward, extends to the carrying out of capital sentences, particularly given Indiana's recent resumption of executions after a long pause and a 2024 statute that omitted journalists from the list of permitted witnesses. The panel disagreed. The majority emphasized that Indiana's witness list — the warden, execution staff, the prison physician, a chaplain, the prisoner's spiritual adviser, up to eight family members of the victim, and up to five unspecified additional witnesses — leaves journalists free to interview those who did attend, report on every other aspect of the proceeding, and comment on the state's choice to impose or carry out the sentence, and that there is no constitutional difference between watching the execution and reporting on it secondhand. The opinion's most striking passage, candidly weighed against the press claim: allowing “uninvited strangers with no immediate connection to the underlying crime” to watch a prisoner die “risks offending the dignity of their final moments.” The dissent argued the press's structural role in informing public deliberation over the death penalty depends on first-hand observation. The split sets up a possible petition for rehearing en banc and, in the longer run, a circuit-split-ready vehicle if other circuits go the other way.7th Circ. Says Ind. Can Bar Press From Attending Executions | Law360 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 this episode, I speak with Rachel McCarthy, Executive Director of the Milestone Foundation, about a challenge that often sits quietly in the background of personal injury litigation: how injured plaintiffs manage financially while waiting for their cases to resolve.Litigation can take months or years to reach a settlement or verdict. During that time, plaintiffs may face mounting medical bills, housing expenses, transportation costs, and lost income. Financial pressure can create significant hardship and, in some cases, influence settlement decisions. Rachel explains how the Milestone Foundation was created to address this issue through a nonprofit model that provides low-interest, non-recourse advances designed to help plaintiffs cover essential living expenses while their cases proceed.We discuss how plaintiff funding differs from litigation finance, why many attorneys remain skeptical of the industry, and what makes nonprofit funding models different from traditional providers. Rachel also explains the mechanics of simple versus compounding interest, the importance of understanding funding agreements, and the questions attorneys should ask before recommending funding options to clients.In addition, we explore emerging regulatory efforts, including new state-level consumer protection measures, and discuss the broader access-to-justice implications of helping plaintiffs withstand the financial pressures that can arise during lengthy litigation.Whether you are a plaintiff attorney, litigation professional, consumer advocate, or simply interested in how economic realities intersect with the civil justice system, this conversation offers valuable insight into a topic that affects thousands of litigants every year.Jump in to hear Rachel's perspective on ethical plaintiff funding, consumer protection, and how financial support can help plaintiffs and their attorneys see cases through to a more appropriate resolution.Tom HagyHost of The Emerging Litigation Podcast______________________________________Thanks for listening! If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps. If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more. Tom on LinkedInEmerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedInEmerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site 

This is Part 3 of our series that tells the whole story behind the lawsuit activists have launched against the University of Calgary and the Calgary Police in response to an encampment eviction on the campus back in May 2024.Legal Counsel for the nine Plaintiffs, Chris Weibe joins us to talk about the merits of the case, and just how people's Charter Rights were violated. We ask him what a victory in this case would look like, for the Plaintiffs AND other activists facing similar situations. Weibe also gives some insight on what its like going after the state on behalf of activists.Be sure to also check out...Part 1: Raheleh's Story - Dr. Tarani tells her story of participating in the peaceful protest with her son one minute, and being pinned by police the next. We heard about the impact that had on her, and how she's reclaiming power through the court.Part 2: Liaising with Police - Calgary based activist Wesam Cooley talks about his role as the encampment's police liaison, and what its been like trying to hold police and other parties accountable in Alberta.Hosted and by Jessa McLean and Santiago Helou QuinteroCall to Action: DONATE TO THE LEGAL FUND FOR THE PLAINTIFFSOther Related Episodes:Student Suppression by Any Means with Jeremy Appel (March 2025)Student Encampments (May 2024) a look at their demands for divestment, the responses from the Universities, the police and the public.More Resources: Calgary Police, City of Calgary and University of Calgary sued by demonstrators - via DrugDataDecoded.ca(REFERENCED) Statement of Claim: May 2026More of our content is available on our SUBSTACK.All of our content is free - made possible by the generous sponsorships of our Patrons. If you would like to support our work through monthly contributions: PatreonFollow us on Instagram or on Bluesky

5.26.2026 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: Trump Redistricting Defeat. NAACP Sports Boycott Expands. Clarence B. Jones Remembered. _ For free and unbiased Medicare help, dial (724) 264-8281 to speak with my trusted partner, Chapter, or go to https://askchapter.org/roland Paid Partnership _ Donald Trump’s effort to pressure Republican-led states into redrawing congressional maps ahead of the midterm elections suffered two major setbacks Tuesday as efforts in Alabama and South Carolina were rejected. The rulings represent a significant blow to ongoing attempts to weaken Black voting power in Southern states through aggressive redistricting strategies. Plaintiffs involved in the Alabama case join Roland Martin Unfiltered to explain why they believe the fight over congressional maps has become one of the most important civil rights battles in America today. The Congressional Black Caucus is now calling on Corporate America to publicly defend voting rights and equal representation following the Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Louisiana v. Callais. CBC members sent letters urging corporations to stop remaining silent while Black political power faces coordinated attacks across multiple Southern states. Lawmakers argue that companies once eager to promote diversity and civic engagement are now retreating under political pressure while voting protections continue to erode. The NAACP’s growing sports boycott campaign is also placing additional pressure on states accused of advancing voter suppression efforts. The organization is urging Black athletes and fans to reconsider supporting public colleges in states that continue attacking voting rights and dismantling protections for minority voters. Activists say the Supreme Court’s 6-3 Louisiana v. Callais ruling significantly weakened the Voting Rights Act and intensified the urgency behind the boycott movement. The nation is also remembering the life and legacy of Clarence B. Jones, the legendary civil rights attorney and strategist who helped organize the 1963 March on Washington and assisted in drafting Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s historic “I Have a Dream” speech. Jones died May 22 at a California assisted living facility at the age of 95. From 1960 to 1968, he served as King’s legal counsel and one of his closest advisers, helping shape major strategic decisions throughout the Civil Rights Movement and standing alongside King during some of the most pivotal moments in American history. #RolandMartinUnfiltered #BlackStarNetwork #VotingRights #NAACP #CBC #Redistricting #Trump #BlackVotersMatter #ClarenceBJones #CivilRights #Mindset #Mindsetshift #MindShiftRevolution Black Star Network Partner: Chapter For free and unbiased Medicare help, dial (724) 264-8281 to speak with my trusted partner, Chapter, or go to https://askchapter.org/roland *Paid Partnership* Chapter and its affiliates are not connected with or endorsed by any government entity or the federal Medicare program. Chapter Advisory, LLC represents Medicare Advantage HMO, PPO, and PFFS organizations and stand alone prescription drug plans that have a Medicare contract. Enrollment depends on the plan’s contract renewal. While we have a database of every Medicare plan nationwide and can help you to search among all plans, we have contracts with many but not all plans. As a result, we do not offer every plan available in your area. Currently we represent 50 organizations which offer 18,160 products nationwide. We search and recommend all plans, even those we don’t directly offer. You can contact a licensed Chapter agent to find out the number of products available in your specific area. Please contact Medicare.gov, 1-800-Medicare, or your local State Health Insurance Program (SHIP) to get information on all of your options. ____ Download the Black Star Network app at http://www.blackstarnetwork.com! We're on iOS, AppleTV, Android, AndroidTV, Roku, FireTV, XBox and SamsungTV. The #BlackStarNetwork is a news reporting platform covered under Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of Entertainment Law Update, Gordon Firemark and Tamera Bennett break down major developments in entertainment, media, copyright, trademark, and AI law — including The Onion's attempt to take over Infowars, new fair use rulings, Taylor Swift's anti-deepfake … Read the rest The post Parody, Pastiche & Problematic Plaintiffs – Entertainment Law Update – Episode 191 appeared first on Entertainment Law Update.

A review of Kerry Lutz v. Town of Palm Beach challenging QR-code parking stickers and municipal compliance with traffic-device standards. • Case filed April 23 in S.D. Fla. • Plaintiff moved to take judicial notice of sticker facts • MUTCD adopted into Florida law governs device specs • Plaintiff cites 2004 AG opinion and June 2025 FDOT memo • Evidence includes municipal websites and street photos • Vendor ecosystem centered on One Parking is fragmented • Data-privacy and vendor-accountability concerns raised • Issue: privatization of notice and enforcement     Find Kerry Here: https://kerrylutz.com Get the book here:  No Parking    

In this episode of Experts Unleashed, I sit down with Pedro Krompecher, managing partner of Krompecher Law Firm in Raleigh, North Carolina — the attorney known to his community as Abogado Pedro. Pedro played professional soccer in Belgium, nearly dropped out of law school, spent close to a decade defending hospitals, nursing homes, and large corporations, and built one of the most effective plaintiff trial practices in the Carolinas. We get into what the defense side actually teaches you about winning on the plaintiff side. We talk about his three-dot rule — why plaintiff lawyers who connect twelve dots lose, and plaintiff lawyers who connect three win. We break down the double fatality case he settled on a Thursday before Monday trial by uncovering a buried sensor report showing 170 harsh driving events the defense never saw coming. We talk about what it actually takes to be a plaintiff trial lawyer — risk appetite, competitiveness, a chip on your shoulder — and why most successful trial lawyers were serious athletes. And Pedro shares the one thing about himself that you would never expect from someone who stands in front of juries for a living.   

This is Part 2 of our series that tells the whole story behind the lawsuit activists have launched against the University of Calgary and the Calgary Police in response to an encampment eviction on the campus back in May 2024.Activist and Plaintiff, Wesam Cooley, joins us to talk about the night in question, specifically his role as the encampment's police liaison, and the interactions that led up to sudden escalation of violence. He also talks about what its been like trying to hold police and other parties accountable in Alberta, and what he expects to get out of all of this.Part 1 featured Dr. Raheleh Tarani and her story of participating in the peaceful protest with her son one minute, and being pinned by police the next. We heard about the impact that had on her, and how she's reclaiming power through the court.Up Next (Part 3): An interview with legal counsel Chris Weibe on the merits of the case, what a victory would mean, and what its like going after the state on behalf of activists.Hosted and by Jessa McLean and Santiago Helou QuinteroCall to Action: DONATE TO THE LEGAL FUND FOR THE PLAINTIFFSOther Related Episodes:Student Suppression by Any Means with Jeremy Appel (March 2025)Student Encampments (May 2024) a look at their demands for divestment, the responses from the Universities, the police and the public.More Resources: More of our content is available on our SUBSTACK.All of our content is free - made possible by the generous sponsorships of our Patrons. If you would like to support our work through monthly contributions: PatreonFollow us on Instagram or on Bluesky

The case has been tried and appealed a few times and the 5th Circuit finally said the Plaintiff is entitled to compensation under the Texas state constitution. https://ij.org/

Plaintiffs' antitrust attorney Ryan Downton's five-in-five legal strategy, Pac-12 finances and more.We would love to know what you think of the show and you can let us know on social media @D1ticker.If you are not subscribed to D1.ticker, you can and should subscribe at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.d1ticker.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

Thurston County Superior Court Judge John Skinder rejected a lawsuit targeting House Bill 1296, Washington's rewritten parental rights law. Plaintiffs — including school board members and parents — argued the law limits transparency and interferes with parent-child relationships. The ruling is expected to be appealed, and voters will weigh in on a ballot initiative this November. https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/judge-rejects-lawsuit-against-rewrite-of-wa-parental-rights-law/ #HouseBill1296 #ParentalRights #WashingtonState #PublicSchools #Education #Politics ---

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW! The individual plaintiff behind the explosive Virginia gun ban lawsuit joins Armed American Radio LIVE to break down the legal battle that could reshape the future of the Second Amendment nationwide. John Crump — AmmoLand writer, Virginia resident, and named plaintiff in the newly filed lawsuit — explains why gun owners in Virginia are fighting back against what he calls “tyrannical” and “draconian” anti-Second Amendment laws. The discussion dives deep into the constitutional strategy behind the lawsuit, the political climate in Loudoun County, Virginia, and why this fight could become one of the most important 2A legal battles in America. The conversation covers: • Virginia gun ban lawsuit• Second Amendment legal strategy• Virginia Constitution gun rights protections• Loudoun County politics and gun control• AR-15 bans and SCOTUS implications• Harmeet Dhillon and DOJ involvement• Heller and Bruen Supreme Court precedents• Constitutional rights vs election politics• Gun rights activism in Virginia• Anti-gun legislation and legal challenges• Virginia Democrats and firearm restrictions• Why gun owners are fighting back NOW

Agriculture Department employees are suing Secretary Brooke Rollins over what they are calling “coercive” religious messaging. The lawsuit comes in response to an Easter message that Rollins sent to 100,000 department employees. Plaintiffs say her email implies an “in-group” religion at USDA and that those who don't agree may face “negative consequences.” Here with more, Federal News Network's Drew Friedman.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

We Like Shooting - Ep 662 This episode of We Like Shooting is brought to you by: Midwest Industries (Code: WLSISLIFE) Die Free Co. (Code: WLSISLIFE) Bowers Group (Code: WLS) Otis Technology (Code: WELIKESHOOTING15) Flatline Fiber Co (Code: WLS15) Text Dear WLS or Reviews +1 743 500 2171  Public   Show Titles   GOA GOALS Aug 1-2 in Iowa. https://goals.goa.org/ GunCon.net Tickets on sale now. Use code AGENCY171 GEAR CHAT [XTech Tactical] LDR2000 B1 The LDR2000 B1 is a magazine speed loader designed specifically for the Smith & Wesson Bodyguard 2.0 .380 ACP micro-compact pistol, addressing the stiff single-stack magazines' loading difficulties by making the process faster, easier, and thumb-friendly. It slips easily over factory or aftermarket .380 magazines, allowing users to load rounds smoothly with minimal effort using just a finger and thumb, while protecting magazine feed lips, preventing ammunition damage, and reducing hand strain. Key features include loading magazines in 30 seconds or less, compact and lightweight design for easy carrying, durable injection molded polymer construction, and a utility patent pending. [Mitchell Defense] DualCool CP1 Handguard (Nick) The DualCool™ CP1 Handguard is the first 3D-printed, dual-layer AR-15 handguard engineered for extreme thermal control, built with CP1 alloy and featuring an air-gap core that slows heat transfer to keep the outer shell cool longer and cooling faster between shots. It includes integrated grip texture 3D-printed into the alloy for maximum control without compromising M-LOK or Picatinny function, along with reinforced M-LOK slots and a full-length Picatinny top rail.0 BULLET POINTS PSA: You absolutely can get your EFT from those “services.” (Nick)   Note (Nick) Match Recap GUNDERWEAR Concealed Carry Underwear GUNDERWEAR is a patented underwear product designed to improve comfort for concealed carry, particularly appendix carry, by integrating padding as a barrier between the body and gun/holster. Developed by Tyler Abadie, it prevents rubbing, stabbing, and irritation during prolonged wear in activities like security work, driving, and daily tasks. Available for men and women, it has received positive feedback from civilians and professionals in law enforcement and military. GUN FIGHTS No one stepped into the arena this week. WLS IS LIFESTYLE Imported Story https://www.instagram.com/reel/DYHcS-OuFv1/?igsh=bjJhank2dG02dHJw GOING BALLISTIC Bergmann-Schoch v. Davenport: New Jersey's Hollow-Point Ammunition Ban Challenged Under Second Amendment A lawsuit in New Jersey challenges the state's prohibition on hollow-point ammunition as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. Plaintiffs argue the ban creates a Catch-22 by allowing only full metal jacket rounds while denying the right to ‘military arms.' The state's motion to dismiss is rebutted, dismissing historical analogies as rooted in racial prejudice. Hawaii Legislature Adjourns Sine Die: Defeat of Anti-Gun Bills HB2062, SB2503, SB2517, SB2575, SB2576, SB2720 The Hawaii State Legislature adjourned sine die on May 8, 2026, resulting in the defeat of several anti-gun bills aimed at expanding red flag laws, funding gun buybacks, elevating penalties, broadening prohibited persons lists, and creating a firearm injury restitution fund. These measures raised due process concerns by potentially suspending Second Amendment rights via civil proceedings and imposing felony penalties without full evidentiary hearings. NRA-ILA credits NRA members and supporters for contacting lawmakers to secure this victory. NBC News Report on Kyle Rittenhouse Spider Bite (Kenosha, Wisconsin Case) NBC News tweeted about Kyle Rittenhouse's hospitalization from a venomous spider bite, framing his 2020 Kenosha, Wisconsin self-defense shootings as ‘opening fire at a 2020 civil rights rally.' The Bearing Arms article criticizes this as biased misrepresentation, omitting the riot context and Rittenhouse's acquittal on self-defense grounds. It argues this exemplifies media disinformation against gun owners and Second Amendment supporters. Mississippi DeSoto County Billboard: ‘Firing Squad Is Legal. Think Twice' A billboard in DeSoto County, Mississippi, next to I-55 warns would-be criminals that ‘Firing Squad Is Legal. Think Twice.' DeSoto County District Attorney Matthew Barton states it promotes aggressive prosecution of violent criminals entering the state. The message emphasizes that Mississippi does not coddle violent crime and firing squad executions are legal there. Harmeet Dhillon: The Term ‘Assault Weapons' Is ‘Just a Made-Up Category' Harmeet Dhillon describes ‘assault weapons' as a made-up category and epithet applied to effective and popular firearms like the AR-15. The term originated from Democrats in the 1990s for a federal ban from 1994 to 2004, which a study found did not reduce gun crime or violence lethality. Discussion references national federal policy and Denver's local ban. United Gun Shop v. Capital One and Melio (Maryland) United Gun Shop, a Maryland FFL gun dealer, filed a lawsuit against Capital One and Melio after being denied access to Capital One's bill-paying service, citing the business as a ‘restricted industry.' Payments worked from December 2024 until March 2025, followed by deplatforming and formal denial in March 2026. The suit invokes President Trump's August 2025 Executive Order ‘Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans,' addressing discrimination against lawful firearm businesses. REVIEWS Review: A in your face 5 squares. I disagree what a lot of what they say, but damnit if I also dont find myself agreeing with a lot of what they say. Always entertaining, rarely boring, definitely infuriating – especially when Aaron digs in on something. And one of the few places where the advertisers are actually vetted, with actual use experience reviews, and honesty when things go down. Review: FedsRGay 5 stars. A sad sack Jew, a retard with anger issues, a man with a blownout Anus, a communist thumb and their slightly weird uncle from Colorado walk into a podcast studio. This is not a joke about the special Olympic's or the Democratic Party! This is the cast of the number one rated gun podcast on the firearms radio network! This dumpster fire is wildly entertaining and sometimes even educational. Occasionally they have cool sponsors on the show that seem slightly less retardy. Quality entertainment overall. I give it a solid 5 squares. PS: Jeremey is not a cunt. But AA ron is. PPS: I wrote this review once before but baguettes on iTunes didn't publish it. PPPS: no notes PPPPS: I love you guys, say it back Review: Anonymous Coward from Wisconsin I left a review Before we let you go – JOIN GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA We'd love if you supported the show, join Agency 171 at agency171.com. Lot's of prizes, rewards and kick ass swag. No matter how tough your battle is today, we want you here fight with us tomorrow. Don't struggle in silence, you can contact the suicide prevention line by dialing 988 from your phone. Remember – Always prefer Dangerous Freedom over peaceful slavery. We'll see you next time! Nick – @busbuiltsystems | Bus Built Systems Jeremy – @ret_actual | Rivers Edge Tactical Aaron – @machinegun_moses Savage – @savage1r Shawn – @dangerousfreedomyt | @camorado.cam | Camorado

This Day in Legal History: Christmas is Canceled in MassachusettsOn May 11, 1659, the Massachusetts Bay Colony passed a law making it illegal to celebrate Christmas. The law imposed a fine of five shillings on anyone who observed the holiday by feasting, taking the day off from work, or engaging in other forms of celebration. To modern readers, this can sound like a strange kind of anti-holiday law, but it reflected the religious and legal culture of Puritan New England. Many Puritans rejected Christmas because they believed it had no clear biblical foundation and was associated with Catholic tradition, disorderly public behavior, and old English customs they considered improper. In their view, the law was not merely about stopping a party; it was about enforcing a disciplined religious society.The colony's leaders used law as a tool to shape public morality, religious practice, and daily life. This was common in early colonial legal systems, where civil authority and religious authority were often closely connected. The Christmas ban also shows how different early American ideas of “religious liberty” could be from later constitutional understandings. Rather than protecting a broad right to celebrate or worship differently, the Massachusetts Bay Colony often used law to preserve a particular religious order. The five-shilling fine was not enormous, but it was meaningful enough to signal that Christmas observance was legally disfavored.The law remained part of a broader colonial effort to regulate conduct that officials believed threatened communal discipline. Over time, attitudes toward Christmas changed, especially as New England became more religiously diverse and less strictly Puritan. The episode stands as a reminder that American legal history includes not only the expansion of rights, but also earlier moments when law was used to suppress customs now considered ordinary.The legal industry added 2,400 jobs in April, bringing total sector employment to about 1.24 million, according to seasonally adjusted data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. That was a rebound from a small decline in March and placed legal employment slightly above both March and February levels. Compared with the same time last year, the sector had 20,800 more jobs. The legal sector numbers include lawyers, paralegals, and other legal-related professional roles.The rebound follows a long stretch of legal industry growth that was interrupted by March's dip. Two major firms recently announced job cuts: McDermott Will & Schulte is trimming a small number of associates, while Allen Overy Shearman Sterling is reducing roles in its business services team. Across the broader U.S. economy, employers added 115,000 jobs in April, while the unemployment rate stayed at 4.3%.Legal Industry Bounces Back, Gaining 2,400 Jobs In April - Law360Virginia's Supreme Court struck down a Democratic-backed congressional map that had been designed to improve the party's chances in four Republican-held U.S. House districts. The court ruled 4-3 that Democratic lawmakers failed to follow the proper process when they moved quickly to put the redistricting plan before voters. The map had been approved by voters in an April special election, but Republicans challenged the measure, arguing that the required intervening election had not properly occurred before the second legislative approval. The court's majority agreed, emphasizing that more than 1.3 million early votes had already been cast by the time lawmakers first approved the proposed constitutional amendment.Democrats criticized the ruling as overriding the will of voters, while Republicans celebrated it as a major win ahead of the midterm elections. Virginia Democrats said they would seek emergency review from the U.S. Supreme Court. The ruling could make it harder for Democrats to regain control of the U.S. House, where Republicans hold a very narrow majority. The dispute is part of a broader national fight over mid-cycle redistricting, with both parties seeking favorable maps before the November elections. Republican-led states in the South are pursuing their own redistricting efforts after a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision weakened a key part of the Voting Rights Act. Election analyst Kyle Kondik said the Virginia ruling improves Republican odds, though broader political conditions could still affect the outcome in November.Virginia court tosses Democratic map, dealing major blow to party's midterm hopes | ReutersInstructure, the company behind the Canvas learning management platform, is facing at least seven proposed class actions after disclosing unauthorized activity in its system. Canvas is widely used by schools and universities to manage coursework, grades, assignments, and communications. Instructure first announced the incident on May 1, then later reported more unauthorized activity connected to the same breach and temporarily took Canvas offline. The company has since restored much of the platform, but its Free-for-Teacher accounts remain disabled because Instructure believes a vulnerability there may have been exploited.The lawsuits, filed in Utah and New York federal courts, accuse Instructure of failing to adequately protect personal information belonging to students, teachers, and staff. The data allegedly at risk includes names, email addresses, student ID numbers, private messages, enrolled courses, and confidential communications with teachers. The complaints say the hacking group ShinyHunters claimed to have accessed information tied to more than 275 million users.Plaintiffs argue Instructure should have used stronger safeguards, including better encryption, access controls, employee training, monitoring, and protocols for handling sensitive data. They also claim affected users now face loss of control over their information and a heightened risk of identity theft. One New York plaintiff also sued KKR, which acquired Instructure in 2024, and argued the breach was foreseeable in light of earlier major attacks on education software companies. Instructure has said it is investigating, communicating with affected customers, and strengthening protections around access, permissions, token management, monitoring, and related workflows.EdTech Platform Canvas Accused Of Lax Security After Breach - Law360The Trump administration appealed a U.S. Court of International Trade ruling that rejected its use of a 1970s trade law to impose a 10% global tariff. The court ruled 2-1 that Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 was not designed to address trade deficits caused by the United States importing more goods than it exports. The decision only blocked the tariffs as applied to the three plaintiffs who sued: two small businesses and the state of Washington. Even though the tariffs were temporary and set to expire in July unless Congress extended them, the ruling marked another legal setback for the administration's broader tariff agenda.The case followed a separate Supreme Court decision that invalidated earlier Trump tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. After that loss, the administration turned to Section 122 as a replacement authority for a 10% import tariff. President Trump criticized the trade court's ruling, while U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the administration expected to win on appeal. The dispute could lead to another major fight over tariff refunds, potentially involving billions of dollars. The timing is also significant because the ruling came shortly before Trump was scheduled to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping to discuss trade tensions.The administration is separately pursuing broader tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act, which addresses unfair trade practices and has survived past legal challenges.Trump administration appeals latest court loss on tariffs | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Salmon P. Chase DiesOn May 7, 1873, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase died, ending one of the most unusual legal and political careers in American history. Chase had been an antislavery lawyer, a U.S. senator, governor of Ohio, Abraham Lincoln's secretary of the Treasury, and then Chief Justice of the United States. He was also one of the many talented and ambitious men around Lincoln who did not begin as an admirer of him. Before Lincoln became president, Chase had encountered him as a lawyer and reportedly did not think much of him, viewing him as a rough western attorney rather than a national figure. After Lincoln defeated him for the Republican nomination in 1860, Chase had reason to believe a summons to the White House might be an occasion for Lincoln to enjoy the victory. Instead, Lincoln offered him one of the most important jobs in the government: secretary of the Treasury.It was a revealing moment in Lincoln's political genius, because he was willing to place a rival who had underestimated him in a position of enormous responsibility during the Civil War. Chase helped finance the Union war effort and became closely associated with the creation of a national banking system and the issuance of paper currency. In 1864, Lincoln elevated him again by appointing him Chief Justice of the United States.As Chief Justice, Chase presided over the 1868 impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson, a major constitutional test of presidential power and congressional authority. Near the end of his life, Chase dissented in the Slaughter-House Cases, one of the first major Supreme Court interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court's majority read the Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause narrowly, limiting a provision that many had hoped would become a strong source of federal protection for civil rights. Chase's dissent placed him on the side of a broader understanding of Reconstruction's constitutional promise. His death mattered not only because of the offices he held, but because it came at a moment when the Supreme Court was deciding whether the Civil War amendments would transform American law or be read down almost as soon as they were adopted.Apple customers have asked a California federal judge to preliminarily approve a proposed $250 million settlement over claims that Apple overstated the artificial intelligence features available on the iPhone 16. The proposed class includes people who bought any iPhone 16 model or certain iPhone 15 models between June 10, 2024, and March 29, 2025. The customers allege Apple advertised enhanced Siri capabilities as part of its Apple Intelligence rollout even though those features were not yet available. Under the settlement, eligible class members who submit valid claims would receive $25 per device, with payments possibly rising to $95 per device depending on participation. Apple is also expected to provide additional Siri-related Apple Intelligence updates in the future at no extra cost.The plaintiffs said settlement made sense because AI-related consumer claims are still legally novel and would carry risk if the case continued. Apple had argued that its marketing was not deceptive because it had already released many Apple Intelligence features and had disclosed that other features would arrive over time. The case began in March 2025 and later became part of a consolidated set of related lawsuits in the Northern District of California. The parties conducted discovery, consulted experts, and participated in three full-day mediation sessions before reaching the proposed deal. Plaintiffs' lawyers plan to seek up to $70 million in fees, plus up to $600,000 in expenses. The settlement does not resolve separate securities or shareholder cases claiming Apple misled investors about the timing of the Siri rollout. Apple said it settled to remain focused on developing products and services, while maintaining that it has already introduced numerous Apple Intelligence tools.Apple Reaches $250M Deal Over Claims It Overhyped IPhone AI - Law360Bayer has agreed to acquire Perfuse Therapeutics, a San Francisco biopharma company, in a deal worth up to $2.45 billion. The transaction gives Bayer full rights to PER-001, a drug candidate in phase-two clinical development for glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy. Bayer will pay $300 million upfront, with the rest tied to development, regulatory, and sales milestones. Perfuse focuses on treatments that improve blood flow to the retina, with the goal of addressing conditions that can lead to blindness. Bayer said the acquisition strengthens its ophthalmology pipeline and supports its effort to develop new therapies for serious eye diseases.The deal is being handled legally by Baker McKenzie for Bayer, with partners Alan Zoccolillo, Oren Livne, and Jieun Tak leading the team. Goodwin Procter is advising Perfuse. The transaction still needs antitrust clearance and approval from Perfuse shareholders. Bayer is being advised financially by BofA Securities, while Centerview Partners is advising Perfuse. Bayer and Perfuse said glaucoma could affect about 112 million people by 2040, while diabetic retinopathy could affect 160 million people by 2045.Baker McKenzie-Led Bayer To Buy Perfuse For Up To $2.45B - Law360 UKThe California Supreme Court is considering whether drugmakers can be held legally responsible for stopping development of a potentially safer drug while continuing to sell an already-approved medication. The case involves Gilead Sciences and roughly 24,000 HIV patients who took drugs containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, or TDF. TDF-based drugs received FDA approval in 2001, but they were associated with possible kidney and bone side effects. Gilead later began developing a related drug, tenofovir alafenamide fumarate, or TAF, which patients say had fewer side effects. The company stopped developing TAF in 2004, arguing that it was not different enough from TDF to justify further investment.The patients claim Gilead delayed TAF for business reasons, including to protect TDF sales and time TAF's release around the expiration of TDF patents. Gilead argues that allowing the negligence claims to proceed would punish companies for researching possible improvements and could discourage innovation. The company says the lower court rulings effectively create a “duty to innovate,” even when the drug already on the market is not alleged to be defective. The patients respond that the case is not about forcing endless research, but about whether Gilead unreasonably delayed a safer alternative for profit. A ruling for the patients could expand product-liability exposure for pharmaceutical companies, while a ruling for Gilead could limit claims based on decisions not to commercialize drugs still in development.California's highest court to consider whether drugmakers have ‘duty to innovate' | 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

Pete Hegseth lied to Congress while 175 dead kids cooled in the rubble. Trump lost to Iran. Comey got indicted for a tweet. The Defense Secretary is a fascist with crusader tattoos. None of this is hyperbole. It's the record. *In this episode:* • Hegseth caught lying under oath about the war with Iran • A Tomahawk killed 175 children in an elementary school • His own mother called him a serial abuser — in writing • Trump threatens to yank 35,000 troops from Germany • Comey indicted by Trump's hand-picked prosecutor • Seth Moulton names the war crime: "no quarter" Key figures: Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump, James Comey, Adam Smith, Seth Moulton, Friedrich Merz, Todd Blanche

My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 174 of our podcast IP Fridays! In today's interview, Ken Suzan interviews Brian McGinnis, partner at Barnes & Thornburg and co-chair of the firm’s data security and privacy practice, about why companies need to stop treating data privacy as a compliance burden and start treating it as a core business asset. McGinnis argues that data is either a managed asset or an unmanaged liability, with no middle ground. But before we jump into this interview, I have news for you! The EPO saw a Record Year with 200,000+ Patent Applications in 2025: German filings dropped 2.2% while China grew 9.7%, overtaking Japan for the first time. Germany remains Europe’s top patent nation but loses ground globally. SMEs and universities now account for nearly half of all Unitary Patents granted to European innovators. News from the UPC Court of Appeal: Non-Technical Features Count for Inventive Step. An April 17 ruling clarifies that all claim features must be evaluated in their combined effect, including non-technical ones. Companies with software-related or mixed-technology inventions pending at the EPO or UPC should reassess recent inventive step objections at the UPC in light of this decision. Nokia Withdraws UPC and Munich Suits After Global FRAND Settlement; Following a global FRAND rate-setting decision by the UK High Court, Nokia withdrew parallel suits against Warner Bros. and Paramount at the UPC and in Munich. One UK ruling resolved litigation spanning Germany, the UPC, the US, and Brazil simultaneously. China Abandons Anti-Suit Injunctions in SEP Disputes: After a WTO arbitration ruling from July 2025, China withdrew its practice of blocking SEP holders from filing suits abroad. The EU Commission continues monitoring compliance, since the former policy was largely informal rather than codified in statute. The Trump Administration has put 100% Tariffs on Imported Patented Pharmaceuticals: Based on Section 232, the Trump administration imposed 100% tariffs on patented drugs and biologics effective April 2, 2026, with a 120-day transition period until July 31. EU member states face a reduced rate of 15%. Generics and biosimilars are explicitly excluded. China Rejects 1.27 Million Trademark Applications in Three-Year Crackdown: China’s CNIPA rejected over 1.27 million trademark applications and invalidated more than 3,300 marks, targeting so-called edge-ball marks designed to mislead consumers about product quality or origin. The announcement was made at an official press conference on April 23, 2026. Now let's jump into the interview with Brian McGinnis! Brian McGinnis is a partner at Barnes & Thornburg and co-chair of the firm’s data security and privacy practice. In this episode of IP Fridays, he argues that companies treating data privacy as a compliance burden are missing the point entirely and leaving significant value on the table. Data Is Either an Asset or a Liability Most companies still treat their data as invisible and costless. They do not manage it the way they would manage a patent portfolio or a trademark. That, McGinnis argues, is a fundamental strategic error. Data is either a managed asset or an unmanaged liability. There is no middle ground. When companies invest in understanding what data they collect, how it is used, and who has access to it, they unlock opportunities to drive real revenue and growth. Done right, a data governance program is not a cost center. It is a foundation for trust, operational efficiency, and competitive advantage. One Program, Not Twenty With more than 20 US state privacy laws now in effect, and major economies worldwide introducing their own frameworks, building separate compliance programs for each jurisdiction is neither practical nor smart. McGinnis recommends a single, comprehensive governance framework designed around the core purpose and intent of privacy law, flexible enough to absorb new requirements as they emerge. Companies that threw together a quick program when California’s CCPA came into force in 2020 are now overdue for an upgrade. The goal is to move from reactive compliance to a mature, proactive program that positions the company ahead of the regulatory curve rather than perpetually catching up. Website Tracking Tools: An Underestimated Risk One of the fastest-growing areas of privacy litigation involves tracking technologies built into company websites: pixels, session replay tools, analytics scripts, and chat widgets. Legal teams are often entirely unaware of what IT or marketing has deployed. That gap is expensive. Plaintiffs’ attorneys are applying 1970s-era telephone wiretapping statutes, including the California Invasion of Privacy Act, to argue that collecting any personal information, including IP addresses, before a user has consented constitutes illegal interception. Demand letters are being sent at industrial scale, with settlements typically running between $10,000 and $20,000 per case. What makes this particularly difficult is that a company can be fully compliant with statutory privacy law and still face these wiretapping claims, because the legal theory turns on the timing of data collection rather than the existence of a privacy notice. Vendor Contracts: The Hidden Exposure Marketing and technology agreements are another major source of unmanaged data risk. When a company deploys a third-party tool that handles personal data, the underlying contract needs to define precisely who owns that data, what the vendor is permitted to do with it, and what obligations flow down to any sub-processors involved. McGinnis draws a direct parallel to IP licensing: owning valuable data and then handing it to a vendor under a poorly drafted agreement is the equivalent of signing a bad IP license. Data processing agreements need to cover ownership, use restrictions, sub-processor obligations, breach notification timelines, audit rights, and deletion obligations. Many companies simply do not have these terms in place. Without them, a vendor who suffers a breach of non-personal business information has no contractual obligation to disclose it. Consumer Rights Requests: Process Matters Privacy laws give individuals the right to access, correct, delete, and opt out of the use of their personal data. Responding to these requests effectively requires pre-built processes, trained staff, and the technical ability to locate and act on individual data across all systems and sub-processors. Most companies, before engaging in formal data mapping, are not in a position to do this reliably. Staff failing to recognize a deletion request as a legal data subject request and routing it through a standard customer service queue instead is one of the most common failures McGinnis sees. The consequences can include regulatory complaints and class action lawsuits, particularly when a company continues to send emails to someone who has already requested deletion of their data. A newer risk involves Global Privacy Controls: browser-level opt-out signals that regulators and courts are now treating as legally binding deletion and non-collection requests. Companies receiving these signals daily without acting on them face growing exposure under several state laws. AI Governance: Policy Before Tools Generative AI tools are now embedded across business functions, from contract review and customer service to content creation and internal search. McGinnis is direct: every company needs an AI acceptable-use policy, and the absence of one is not a neutral position. Without clear rules, employees will use unapproved or publicly available tools regardless, feeding proprietary and sensitive information into open models with no control over how that data is used or retained. He draws a precise parallel to patent law. Posting proprietary information into an open AI system carries the same risk as publishing it publicly, potentially destroying patentability. The distinction between closed, organization-specific AI systems and open, publicly accessible ones is something employees need to understand explicitly. Making compliance easier than non-compliance is the practical goal. The Regulatory Outlook: More Laws, More Enforcement McGinnis expects the regulatory landscape to continue expanding. The EU AI Act is already setting the direction, and several US states have introduced or are developing AI-specific legislation. The pattern mirrors what happened with data privacy: Europe leads, US states follow in a patchwork, and federal legislation remains uncertain. Enforcement of existing privacy laws is also intensifying. GDPR has been in force since 2018, CCPA since 2020, and regulators are now past the period of extended tolerance for companies that are still catching up. Companies with immature compliance programs should expect less patience from regulators going forward. McGinnis closes with a clear point of view: if you have to comply anyway, get credit for it. A well-built governance program is a trust signal to customers, a sales asset, and a foundation for responsible AI use. Compliance done right is not a tax. It is a differentiator. The Full Transcript: Ken Suzan: Our guest today on the IP Fridays podcast is Brian McGinnis. Brian is a partner with Barnes and Thornburg and a founding member and co-chair of the firm’s data security and privacy law practice group. Brian serves as a member of the intellectual property department and the internet and technology practice. Brian is a Chambers Global and national ranked privacy and data security attorney, a certified information privacy professional, and the firm’s chief privacy officer. Brian brings nearly two decades of experience at the intersection of law and technology. Brian advises on a wide range of technology-driven legal matters, including privacy and data security, intellectual property, artificial intelligence, corporate transactions, software, and internet law. His deep understanding of privacy and technology law enables him to guide clients through rapidly evolving regulatory and operational challenges. Welcome Brian to the IP Fridays podcast. Brian McGinnis: Hey, thanks Ken. I appreciate it. Great to be here and thanks for having me. Ken Suzan: Excellent. Brian, the C-suite tends to treat data privacy as a compliance tax, something to hand off to legal and forget about. But when you see how companies actually get into serious trouble, what’s really going on? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, well, it’s a great place to start Ken and looking forward to the conversation today covering some of these privacy issues and AI issues, which I found in my own practice is really bled into the straight privacy stuff. Companies can’t really handle these things in a silo anymore. It’s really about managing and coming together as a coherent program for governance for the organization. I think if you do that right, the good news is we can become revenue generators and show growth for the company and not just compliance centers and a compliance tax. But I think the core problem that we face in working with most companies is that a lot of companies still treat their data as invisible, costless. They don’t treat it, in other words, like they would a patent portfolio or trademark or other IP portfolio. It’s just not managed as an asset in the ways that we’ve seen more sophistication around IP. And it really should be. Data is either a managed asset for the company or it’s an unmanaged liability. There’s really not an in between. And so for those companies that haven’t gotten their arms around all this data and what can be done with it, I think they’re really missing an opportunity. Having an understanding of what data the organization is collecting, how it’s being used, and having the proper governance around it really unlocks a lot of opportunity for use of that data in new ways — ways that can drive revenue and growth for the company. So I approach privacy not just about compliance, not just about avoiding penalties or doing it because some law out there says that we have to do it. It’s really about knowing and controlling one of the company’s core assets. And if you’re not doing that, you’ve got unmanaged data that you’re not getting value out of and that potentially could be a huge liability for the company. Managed well, it really supports trust, efficiency, and growth of the organization. Otherwise, I think it’s a missed opportunity. Ken Suzan: Yes, well said. Now let’s talk about state laws. With 20-plus state privacy laws now in effect, how should companies build a program that actually works across the board without starting over every time a new state law kicks in? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, so the first answer is don’t build 20 separate programs. This really goes back to having a comprehensive, sophisticated, well thought out program that really takes into account not only the 20 state laws, but obviously we’ve got international exposure with laws like GDPR and upcoming privacy laws internationally. Most of the larger economies in the world have some form of laws around privacy and AI. So you can’t really anymore build programs that account for the one, two, three, four, five different laws that in the past we had experience with — where you could just treat California as its own thing, treat New York as something else, and treat Europe as something else. The laws and the pace of these have really forced companies into having comprehensive programs. I don’t expect to see fewer laws. You’re only looking at potentially additional state laws, additional federal laws here in the US, and then certainly additional laws throughout the world. So a lot of the strategy these days is not only where are we today with these laws, but how do we set up our governance program in a way that really cuts to the core of the purpose and intent behind these laws so that we can be better prepared when new laws come about in the future. Historically, at least in the US, most companies just haven’t had laws that force them into compliance postures. As these laws have started to come along, a lot of companies have been playing from behind and saying, oh, the California Consumer Privacy Act, I just read about it and it goes into effect next week — let’s throw something together and call that our compliance program. We’ve now got years of these laws being in place, CCPA came into effect in 2020, and what we’re seeing much more of are companies looking to get more sophisticated in their programs and stop feeling like they’re always rushing to catch up. The goal is to level up their program, going from level one — constantly playing from behind — to level two and then level three, so that they really feel like they’re on top of it and have a sophisticated program that not only accounts for all the various privacy requirements that come at them, but also positions them to take advantage of the data and all the things that come along with having a good governance program. Ken Suzan: Brian, there’s an explosion of litigation targeting something most companies barely think about — the tracking tools baked into their own websites: pixels, session replay tools, analytics scripts, chat widgets, the list goes on and on. What’s happening, Brian, and what should companies do? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, and I think a lot of companies — the executives, the business teams — don’t even realize a lot of these tools are on their sites. IT deployed them years ago, the web team deployed them, marketing teams are constantly using them and certainly have a good understanding of it. But in a lot of cases, legal has never touched them and has no idea what’s happening on the website. We also see a lot of cases of companies who, even if they’re generally aware these tools are in use, aren’t aware what other teams are putting on the site or what those pieces of technology are tracking. And that gap can be really expensive. What we’re seeing right now — and this has been a trend for a number of months now and is really continuing to pick up steam — is a series of what I call gotcha lawsuits, where you have some enterprising plaintiffs’ counsel who have taken a look at some 1970s-era telephone wiretapping laws, including a law called CIPA, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, passed in the 70s with the idea that you shouldn’t be able to wiretap people’s telephone conversations. They’ve taken that and applied that theory to the internet. The way it works is: if a website has some sort of cookie, pixel, or other tracking technology on it that collects personal information about an individual — and that can be as simple as an IP address and device ID — and if that collection occurs as soon as the individual shows up at the website, prior to them being able to have notice provided to them or opt in and consent to that collection, then the theory under these lawsuits is that it constitutes wiretapping. We see a lot of this with the Meta pixel, with LinkedIn pixels, and the like. What they’re doing is effectively showing up and suing, threatening to sue, trying to take you to arbitration, depending upon what’s included in the company’s existing privacy notice. If you don’t have a cookie banner, if you don’t have a cookie notice, if you’re not getting opt-in on these things, they’re leaning on those failures and effectively trying to force you into a position where you are forced to make a settlement. Because the cost to litigate one of these to their conclusion would be expensive, whereas a lot of these cases will settle for $10,000 to $15,000 somewhere in that range. They’ve got technology crawling the internet looking for websites that don’t have these risks covered, sending demand letters and then collecting settlements, $10,000 to $20,000 at a time. It’s been very profitable for them and a very dangerous thing for our clients. And it’s a bit unusual because you can be fully compliant with the statutory privacy laws that require notification of the use of tracking technologies and cookies and banners — and still be subject to these lawsuits because of the wiretapping arguments being made. The timing wherein the data is collected from the individual could still subject you to these lawsuits. So it’s a tricky problem, one that I hate seeing companies get hit with and one that we spend a lot of time helping companies avoid. Ken Suzan: Yes, let’s talk about contracts, Brian, because I know you work with contracts probably on a daily basis. A lot of data risk lives inside vendor and technology agreements — the contracts companies sign with marketing platforms, analytics providers, cloud infrastructure, and SaaS tools. What should those agreements actually contain? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, so there’s quite a lot of things. You’ve got a world where marketing is constantly under pressure to learn more about their customers. The way they can do that is through any number of different tools and data gathering techniques, and we have all this technology available to help marketing and sales do better at their jobs. But we, at least in this country, got to a position where people really felt like they lost control of their information and their data. And so these privacy laws came along and really started to provide more rights to individuals — to have an understanding of what data exists within various companies that they do business with, who they’re sharing it with, trading it with, selling it to for advertising purposes; to have the right to opt out; the right to delete their information. Not checking through the agreements by which these teams are implementing these tools is a huge issue for companies. As part of an overall compliance program, having some kind of process where people who are aware of the growing numbers of privacy laws are reviewing these marketing contracts to make sure they are aligned with that program and aligned with those laws is absolutely critical. To talk about IP, given the IP Fridays audience: it’s kind of the equivalent of having really bad IP licenses. In other words, you own and control this information and data, and you need to control what the other side can do with one of your most valuable assets — or you’ve effectively given it away. So thinking about it in that way could be useful. In terms of more specifics: a big one is ownership of the data. The agreement itself may or may not have anything that addresses data. If there’s personal information involved, you probably need what we call a data processing agreement or addendum — a DPA — that specifically controls what that third party is able to do with that data, how they’re able to use it, whether they’re able to share it, whether they’re able to get value out of it on their own, or if they’re only allowed to be what we call a service provider, just providing services to the business that hired them. There needs to be explicit prohibition on retaining, using, and disclosing personal information for any purpose other than performing the exact services in the contract. Whether or not they’re permitted to sell or share data under CCPA terms is another key point. Certification that the provider will comply with any restrictions and security requirements you have on your data, and making sure those obligations flow down to any sub-processors they might use. You hire Company A, but Company A works with Company B and C to provide parts of their service. You’re effectively responsible for the protection of personal information throughout its lifecycle. A couple of other key provisions: breach notification triggers and timeline. It’s very possible under a lot of agreements that one of your vendors can suffer the world’s worst hacker breach and have no legal obligation to tell the company that hired them about it — unless there’s personal information involved. State data breach laws apply to personal information, not to other types of sensitive business information. Unless you have a contract that explicitly requires notification, there’s a good chance that vendor may not want to disclose it. And then other things like audit rights and deletion obligations go in there as well. Ken Suzan: Certainly a lot to cover. Let’s talk about privacy laws and consumer rights. Privacy laws give consumers real rights — to access their data, correct it, delete it, and opt out of how it’s being used. Most companies have a process for this on paper. What does it actually take to get it right, and what happens when it breaks down? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, it takes pre-planning. It takes a process. Some companies receive many more of these requests than others — some B2B companies receive none or a couple per year, while companies heavily involved in marketing to consumers might receive tens or hundreds a day. To be able to respond to these effectively and efficiently requires some forethought. It requires policy and procedure internally to be set up, and it requires the education of the team. Some of the common ways we see this go wrong: staff isn’t trained to know the difference between what we call a DSR — data subject request — versus a regular customer service inquiry. Maybe somebody submits what would be construed by law to be a deletion request and you just put it into your normal customer service response flow — and then you’re potentially missing timelines and the like. There also need to be systems in place to respond in accordance with the individual’s rights. Somebody submits a request saying, you have my information — what information do you have about me? Can your company determine that right now? Can you look through all your systems and down the line to all the processors and sub-processors you’ve worked with and hired, and identify what information you have about that individual? Most companies, until they engage in a governance program and data mapping, are at a real disadvantage to be able to do that. Why is that a problem? Because two weeks from now your company could be sending emails to the individual who just told you to delete their data, and they get really upset. That’s when they go and complain to regulators or start class action lawsuits. The lack of planning can be really, really expensive for a lot of companies. Making sure you’ve got some kind of process to understand what’s coming in, that the people receiving those requests know the difference between a regular customer service request and a data subject request, and that it gets to the appropriate parties for action — all of that is really, really key. Another one that we’re seeing pop up is what we call GPC, or Global Privacy Controls. It used to be that people would say “do not track” in their browser and most companies would ignore those signals. Now we’ve got advancements in law and browser technology where the browser you’re using to visit a company’s website sends a signal saying, opt me out of this. Regulators and courts are construing those as deletion requests, as opt-out requests that companies are now required to respond to. If your company hasn’t gone through an exercise to understand that, and is probably receiving GPC opt-out requests on a daily basis without acting on them, there’s some exposure there. At the end of the day, a lot of this really is about getting the appropriate people from across the organization — really each department — around a table, figuring out what data you collect, how you use it, who you share it with, where it comes from. That starts the process of your data map. Then you set about mapping that to the various legal requirements and figuring out how to respond, how to make it easy for people to exercise their rights so they’re not complaining, not suing, not going to regulators. Letting these squeaky wheels out of the process — the ones who don’t want you to be processing their information any longer — is really key. Ken Suzan: Let’s switch gears a bit and talk about AI. I know we’re hearing about it every day. Generative AI tools are now embedded in how companies work — contract review, customer service, content creation, internal search. Before employees start using these tools with customer data, confidential business information, or proprietary content, what has to be in place first? Brian McGinnis: Yeah. I think we’re long past the days when companies provided individuals access to corporate technology — computers, devices, and the like — without having some kind of acceptable use policy that governs that. We don’t want you downloading stuff that could harm our network or create security issues. We don’t want you using our technology in certain ways, whether that’s a BYOD policy or just general use of company internet or company devices. An AI acceptable use policy is really a continuation of those. Every company needs to have an AI acceptable use policy. Period. In my opinion, things like that are as important as the fire escape policy out in the hallways for these companies. I can tell you with absolute certainty: if your organization has not provided rules to your employees and personnel about the use of AI, what they can and can’t use — or if you’ve said you can’t use any AI — the personnel is still using AI. They’re just not using any approved tools. They’re probably using their own private tools that they subscribe to, or even worse, tools they don’t pay for, in which case they’re putting company information into a wide open public model. The more companies can do to think through this ahead of time, reduce it to policy, and then train and educate people on that company’s particular policy, the better. You need to make it easier for people to comply than not comply. An acceptable use policy should talk about: here’s how we can and can’t use it, here’s the data that should and should not go into the system, here’s some proper uses of AI, here’s some data that’s on the fringe that we need to keep out — more sensitive information, proprietary information, etc. Making sure you’re funneling and educating people about the difference between closed systems and open systems. In other words, this is a tool that only looks at our organization, only uses the data within a certain box, and is not publicly available — the AI system is not training on our data. You have more leeway to put more sensitive information into those types of systems than you do with open systems which potentially lose control of your data. It’s almost like a patent consideration in terms of keeping information secret. If something potentially has some patentability that you want to seek to file in the future, you can’t just go out and post it publicly and use public search engines and all this other stuff at the risk of exposing it. Similar concepts here — really getting a handle and control over what tools people can use and providing some education to them about how the company wants to think about what’s acceptable and what’s not in those uses is really the key starting point. Ken Suzan: Very useful information. Indeed, we’re coming towards the end of today’s episode. One final question for you, Brian. Where do you think we’ll be two years from now in this developing field, and how best for companies to stay ahead of the curve? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, this kind of takes us full circle, Ken. I think it’s kind of back to the beginning comments about the privacy space — and we’ve only got more of these laws coming. It’s still a developing field. We’re still really in the early days of enforcement. I mean, GDPR has been around since 2018, CCPA in the US really kicked us off in about 2020, and so there’s been a settling-in period as companies adjust and get used to having these laws and get compliance programs in place at various levels — from not at all prepared to highly sophisticated. We’re still pretty early on in terms of enforcement of these things. We’re already starting to see enforcement of more egregious violations of these various laws, and we’ll only continue to see more enforcement as the laws exist currently and as they continue to come along. The days of not having to pay attention to this are kind of over. And I always tell clients: if you’re going to have to do these things, you’re going to have to be compliant — you might as well get credit for it. By which I mean, let’s put all the policies in place, let’s do all the compliance activities, let’s have a sophisticated governance program, but then let’s also use that as a sales tool, as a way to help grow the company, as a way to sell new products and gain trust and earn trust with our customers — so that they know when they’re doing business with us, or when they’re giving us information, or when they’re using our AI tool, that we respect that and are going to take care of their information and have the structure in place internally to be able to do that. With respect to AI, what I’m seeing is very similar to what we have seen with the growth of privacy law — again led by Europe, with the EU AI Act in this case. Now you’ve got a handful of states in the US that already have AI laws, and others that are interested in continuing to roll those out. There’s friction with the federal government around whether there’s going to be a comprehensive law there. Like the privacy space, you’ve got varying factions — some of which want to develop really quickly with very little guardrails, others which say we’re threatening the future of humanity if we don’t get those guardrails in place. I think ultimately, at least in the US, we’re going to end up with another patchwork of AI laws for the foreseeable future that we’ll have to navigate. So really having a company position, a company philosophy of how do we handle all these various laws, how do we treat people’s data, how do we get our arms around it, how do we respond to whatever legal rights they currently have, and what principles do we put in place so that we can adapt for the future — and then, once we’ve done those things, how do we actually get value out of this and move the business forward. So it’s not a compliance tax, but a benefit to the business. That’s the end goal here, and I think the North Star for us. Ken Suzan: Fantastic, Brian. This has certainly been a very comprehensive interview. Really appreciate you taking the time to talk about it with us here on the IP Fridays podcast. Brian McGinnis: Happy to do it, Ken. Thanks for asking me and good to see you. Thank you.

John is joined by Shon Morgan and Jack Baumann, both partners in Quinn Emanuel's Los Angeles office. They discuss the growing legal tension surrounding the aggregation and commercialization of publicly available information. It focuses on when compiling public data into structured, searchable databases creates a protectable property interest, and when such activity exposes companies to legal risk.One recent series of cases involves disputes over whether entities that invest substantial resources to digitize, index, and organize public records may prevent others from accessing and reusing that enhanced data. In these cases, courts often recognize a distinction between underlying public records, which remain freely accessible, and value-added compilations created through private investment, which may be entitled to protection.A team led by Jack recently won one of these cases on behalf of Ancestry.com, a genealogy company that invested heavily in digitizing and organizing historical public records. Ancestry partnered with state records archives to convert paper and microfiche records into digital formats, adding searchable indexes and metadata that transformed otherwise difficult to use materials into accessible databases. Although the underlying records remained public and available to anyone willing to retrieve them manually, the company's financial and technical investments significantly enhanced the utility of these public records.The dispute arose when an individual sought to obtain not the original public records, but the company's digitized and indexed versions, through a public records request for Ancestry's work directed at one state's archive. The request effectively attempted to appropriate the company's value-added work product without incurring the costs required to create it. An administrative body initially ruled that the materials should be disclosed, reasoning that the company had acted as an extension of the government in performing a public function. On appeal, however, a higher tribunal rejected that view, concluding that the digitized and organized database was materially different from the original records and not subject to compulsory disclosure.A second series of cases have been brought by individuals whose personal information appears in these searchable databases such as ZoomInfo, Spokeo, or Whitepages.com. Plaintiffs in these cases often assert privacy or right of publicity claims, arguing that even if the data originated from public sources, companies should not profit from compiling and monetizing that data without their consent. Although many of these claims face challenges similar to claims in data breach cases, especially in demonstrating actual harm or the inherent value of ordinary personal information. Some courts have allowed these cases to proceed past the dismissal stage, creating significant potential exposure for companies due to the prospect of class-wide liability and statutory damages.While raw public data remains freely accessible, significant private investment in organizing and enhancing that data may often generate a protectable interest. However, individuals may argue that while their information may be publicly available, they never agreed that third parties could profit from it. This tension remains unsettled and will likely evolve as courts confront similar disputes in other contexts involving large-scale data aggregation.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Benjamin Torres lost his mother when he was six years old. Valerie Mack disappeared in 2000. Her dismembered remains were found in Manorville that same year and went unidentified for two decades. Rex Heuermann has now pleaded guilty to her murder. But for Torres, the admission that ended the criminal case opened something else entirely — a wrongful death lawsuit naming Heuermann, his ex-wife Asa Ellerup, and their daughter Victoria as defendants.The complaint alleges the two women knew about or concealed the crimes, lived with access to a secured vault-like room in the basement of the Massapequa Park home, and collected over a million dollars from a Peacock documentary. Plaintiff's attorney John Ray has argued publicly that the family could not have been unaware in a house of roughly 1,300 square feet. Hair evidence linked to both Ellerup and Victoria was recovered from victims' remains. Prosecutors have attributed that to ordinary household transference. Ray frames it as evidence of proximity.The defense response has been aggressive. Ellerup's attorney called the suit reckless and completely unsupported by the facts. Victoria was approximately three when Mack was killed. Prosecutors have maintained consistently that Heuermann acted alone and timed his crimes for when the family was away. Neither woman has been charged.Asa called Heuermann her savior. She maintained she would have known if something was wrong. Victoria sat in the courtroom during the plea and has publicly said she believes her father most likely committed the killings. Psychotherapist Shavaun Scott examines the psychology behind that split — how denial functions inside a family where one person's identity is built entirely around the other, and what happens when a guilty plea collapses the framework that held "not knowing" in place.Criminal defense attorney Bob Motta breaks down the legal mechanics of the plea itself. Every pre-trial motion failed — the DNA challenge, the motion to sever the cases, the 178-page omnibus motion. Whole genome sequencing was admitted in a New York courtroom for the first time. A deleted planning document was recovered from Heuermann's hard drive. The sentence — life without parole — was reportedly identical whether he went to trial or pled. So what did the plea actually accomplish? Motta examines what the defense calculated, what the families lost when the plea replaced testimony, and what open cases along the Gilgo corridor still need answers. Heuermann has agreed to cooperate with the FBI.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#RexHeuermann #GilgoBeach #ValerieMack #AsaEllerup #VictoriaHeuermann #LISK #WrongfulDeath #ShavaunScott #BobMotta #HiddenKillers

Asa Ellerup called Rex Heuermann her savior. Their daughter Victoria sat in a packed Suffolk County courtroom and watched him plead guilty to killing eight women. Asa has maintained she would have known if something was wrong. Victoria has publicly said she believes her father most likely committed the killings. A mother and daughter inside the same house, the same marriage, the same nightmare — arriving at opposite conclusions. That split is the story.Benjamin Torres — the son of victim Valerie Mack, who was six when his mother vanished in 2000 — has filed a wrongful death lawsuit naming both women alongside Heuermann. The complaint alleges they knew about or concealed the crimes, had access to a secured vault-like room in the basement of the Massapequa Park home, and collected over a million dollars from a Peacock documentary. Plaintiff's attorney John Ray has argued the family could not have been unaware in a house of roughly 1,300 square feet. Hair evidence linked to both Ellerup and Victoria was recovered from victims' remains. The defense has called the suit reckless. Victoria was approximately three when Mack was killed. Prosecutors maintain Heuermann acted alone. Neither woman has been charged.Psychotherapist and author Shavaun Scott breaks down the psychology of "not knowing" — how the mind constructs barriers to protect an identity that's built around another person, why someone whose entire framework depends on the marriage being real may be neurologically incapable of processing contradictory evidence, and what a guilty plea does to the psychological architecture that held denial in place for decades.Criminal defense attorney Bob Motta examines the plea mechanics. Every pre-trial motion had failed. Whole genome sequencing was admitted for the first time in a New York courtroom. A deleted planning document was recovered from Heuermann's devices. The sentence — life without parole — was reportedly the same whether he went to trial or pled. Motta walks through what the defense calculated, what Karen Vergata's uncharged murder being folded into the deal means for accountability, and what the FBI cooperation agreement actually requires. Open cases along the Gilgo corridor remain unresolved. The criminal chapter is closed. The civil and psychological ones are just beginning.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#RexHeuermann #GilgoBeach #AsaEllerup #VictoriaHeuermann #ValerieMack #HiddenKillersLive #ShavaunScott #BobMotta #LISK #WrongfulDeath

Everything you've been told about being a lawyer might be wrong. The Lawyer Stories Podcast Episode 261 features William "Bill" T. Reid, senior founding partner of Reid Collins & Tsai LLP, one of the nation's leading plaintiff-side commercial litigation firms. Bill is the author of Fighting Bullies: The Case for a Career in Plaintiffs' Law - a bold, straight-talking book that challenges the traditional path pushed by law schools and reframes what it means to build a successful legal career. More than just a career guide, the book is a call to think critically about purpose, impact, and the kind of lawyer you actually want to become. In this episode, we focus on the ideas behind Fighting Bullies - from the realities of BigLaw and the limitations of the billable hour model, to why plaintiffs' law offers a path that combines meaningful work with real opportunity. Bill shares insights from decades of high-stakes litigation and explains why young lawyers should rethink how they define success. Bill is also an adjunct professor at the University of Texas School of Law, where he teaches Complex Financial Litigation and continues to mentor the next generation. This is a conversation about purpose, perspective, and choosing a path that actually aligns with who you are. This episode presented by CallRail Integrated into your case management system, CallRail helps you: Capture every call - even after hours Spot high-value leads instantly Respond faster Get the insights you need to bring in bigger cases Join over 3,000 law firms using CallRail to follow up faster, land bigger cases, and drive growth for your firm. Start your free trial at https://www.callrail.com/legal-services?utm_medium=influencer&utm_source=lawyer-stories

The President's House was the first home of the U.S. president in the temporary capital of Phildelphia. While George Washington lived there, he had nine enslaved people that we know of., including the cook, Hercules. Research: “George Washington to Tobias Lear, 12 April 1791,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-08-02-0062 . [Original source: The Papers of George Washington, Presidential Series, vol. 8, 22 March 1791 – 22 September 1791, ed. Mark A. Mastromarino. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1999, pp. 84–] “President's House Civic Engagement Forum Grant Report 1.” USHistory.org. https://www.ushistory.org/presidentshouse/controversy/october_30_2004_report.php “Tobias Lear to George Washington, 5 June 1791,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-08-02-0172 . [Original source: The Papers of George Washington, Presidential Series, vol. 8, 22 March 1791 – 22 September 1791, ed. Mark A. Mastromarino. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1999, pp. 231–] 1838 Black Metropolis et al. “Re: President Donald Trump’s Executive Order, ‘Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.’” 9/8/2025. https://preservationalliance.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/NPS-Signage-Letter-9-9-25.pdf Althouse, Michela. “President's House display on George Washington's slaves remains despite White House scrutiny — for now.” Philly Voice. 9/26/2025. https://www.phillyvoice.com/george-washington-slaves-presidents-house-exhibit-trump/ Andersen, Eva. “Philadelphia advocates say key panels of slavery exhibit still missing at President's House Site.” CBS News. 2/25/2026. https://www.cbsnews.com/philadelphia/news/slavery-exhibit-philadelphia-presidents-house/ Bomar, Mary A. and Dennis R. Reidenbach. “Report on Site Review of Interpretive Programs by The Organization of American Historians.” National Park Service Independence National Historical Park. 9/8/2025. https://www.oah.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Review-of-Independence-National-Historic-Parks-interpretive-programs.pdf Cerino, Marco. “Feds detail plans for restoring President's House.” Philadelphia Tribune. 2/24/2026. https://www.phillytrib.com/news/local_news/feds-detail-plans-for-restoring-presidents-house/article_85ee7f4a-0b19-4d20-8933-951c7e2bfea0.html. Chervinsky, Lindsay M. “The Enslaved Household of President George Washington.” The White House Historical Association. 9/6/2019. https://www.whitehousehistory.org/the-enslaved-household-of-president-george-washington Custis, George Washington Parke. “Recollections and private memoirs of Washington.” Philadelphia, J. W. Bradley. 1861. https://archive.org/details/recollectionspri02cust/ Evans, Dorinda. “Portrait of a Man from the Island of Dominica (?).” Thyssen-Bornemisza Museo Nacional. https://www.museothyssen.org/en/collection/artists/reynolds-circle-sir-joshua/portrait-man-island-dominica Fanelli, Doris Devine. “History, Commemoration, and an Interdisciplinary Approach to Interpreting the President's House Site.” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography , Oct, 2005, Vol. 129, No. 4. Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20093820 George Washington’s Mount Vernon. “A Case of Mistaken Identity.” https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/slavery/mistaken-identity George Washington’s Mount Vernon. “Hercules Posey.” https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/hercules Hinks, Peter. “A Shambles for the President's House.” Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies , Vol. 81, No. 2 (Spring 2014). Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/pennhistory.81.2.0253 House Appropriations Committee. “H. Rept. 107-564 - DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2003.” https://www.congress.gov/committee-report/107th-congress/house-report/564 Joselow, Maxine. “Park Service Is Ordered to Take Down Some Materials on Slavery and Tribes.” 9/16/2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/16/climate/trump-park-service-slavery-photo-tribes.html Lawler, Edward Jr. “The President's House Revisited.” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography , Oct., 2005, Vol. 129, No. 4 (Oct., 2005). Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20093817 Organization of American Historians. “Statement on the Freedom and Slavery Exhibit Removal at Independence National Historical Park.” 1/24/2026. https://www.oah.org/2026/01/24/statement-on-the-freedom-and-slavery-exhibit-removal-at-independence-national-historical-park/ Preservation Alliance. “We are outraged … “ 1/22/2026. https://preservationalliance.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/President-House-Statement-1-22-26.pdf “US national parks told to remove signs on mistreatment of Native Americans, climate, Wash Post reports.” 1/27/2026. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-national-parks-told-remove-signs-mistreatment-native-americans-climate-wash-2026-01-27/ Rufe, Cynthia M. “CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Plaintiff, v. DOUG BURGUM, et al., Defendants. Civil Action no. 26-434. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.paed.648842/gov.uscourts.paed.648842.53.0.pdf Schuessler, Jennifer. “How Trump Brought the Fight Over American History to Philadelphia.” 2/5/2026. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/05/arts/george-washington-slavery-trump-history.html Smith, Dinita. “Slave Site For a Symbol Of Freedom.” New York Times. 4/20/2002. https://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/20/arts/slave-site-for-a-symbol-of-freedom.html Spears, Alan. “To Tell the Truth.” National Parks Conservation Association. Winter 2026. https://www.npca.org/articles/11218-to-tell-the-truth Visit Philadelphia. “The President's House: Freedom and Slavery in the Making of a New Nation.” Via YouTube. 12/14/2010. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPxu2z2GEcc Wiencek, Henry. "George Washington and Slavery" Encyclopedia Virginia. Virginia Humanities, (07 Dec. 2020). Web. 11 Feb. 2026. https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/washington-george-and-slavery/ Young, Patrick. “The Signage at Manassas That Is Slated for Removal by the National Park Service.” The Reconstruction Era. 9/17/2025. https://thereconstructionera.com/the-signage-at-manassas-that-is-slated-for-removal-by-the-national-park-service/ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.