Podcasts about plaintiffs

Story of the Week (DR):Netflix Backs Out of Bid for Warner Bros., Paving Way for an Ellison TakeoverNetflix CEO Sarandos visited White House right before streamer said WBD deal is offEquity HoldersPublic Investment Fund (PIF) Saudi Arabia ~$8 billionQatar Investment Authority (QIA) Qatar ~$8 billionL'imad Holding Company UAE (Abu Dhabi) ~$8 billionTotal Sovereign Equity Middle East Consortium ~$24 BillionWhile these funds provide nearly 60% of the equity needed for the takeover, the deal is structured to prevent a "block" by the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment (CFIUS):Non-Voting Equity: The funds will hold "passive" stakes. This means they do not have board seats, voting rights, or direct say in daily operations.The Ellison Safeguard: Tech billionaire Larry Ellison (Oracle) and his son David Ellison (Skydance) are the primary controllers of the voting power to maintain "American control" over sensitive assets like CNN and CBS News.Neopbaby dropped out of USC film school in 2005Jack Dorsey's Block to Lay Off 40% of Its Workforce in AI Remake MMJack Dorsey's mea culpa after Block layoffs: 'We overhired' Jack Dorsey struck an 'empathetic' tone as he laid off nearly half of Block"I had two options: cut gradually over months or years as this shift plays out, or be honest about where we are and act on it now. I chose the latter."C3.ai slashes 26% of staff as CEO admits failure to deliver and 'burning too much money'Jamie Dimon says society should start preparing for AI job displacement: ‘Now's the time to start thinking about' itWiseTech Global cutting 30% of workforce in AI restructureJack Dorsey just gave us our first glimpse at how doomsday layoffs could work in the AI era — and it's bleakBlockCo-founder and CEO/Chair Jack Dorsey: 46% influence/41% voting powerCo-founder and director James McKelvey: 35% influence/41% voting powerClassified boardClass B shares worth 10 votes (co-founders control 99.6% of these shares, Dorsey with 80%)CPO not part of leadership team13 state AGs win victory against ESG with Vanguard settlementHere are the 5 key points of the victory:$29.5 Million Settlement: Vanguard agreed to pay a total of $29.5 million to the 13 participating states to resolve claims that it violated antitrust laws through coordinated climate activism"Strict Passivity" Commitments: As part of the deal, Vanguard pledged to return to a "passive" investment role. This means it will no longer use its shareholder influence to dictate corporate strategy, nominate directors, or push environmental and social proposals that could reduce company profitability.Expanded Proxy Voting: Vanguard will expand its "Investor Choice" program to funds representing at least 50% of its U.S. equity assets. This allows individual investors—rather than the firm's management—to decide how their shares are voted on major corporate issues.Protection for Energy Industries: The lawsuit alleged that Vanguard, BlackRock, and State Street formed a "cartel" to suppress coal production and drive up energy prices. The settlement requires Vanguard to prioritize customer profitability over "woke" social agendas that target the American energy sector.As a part of the settlement, Vanguard will “pay $30 million in fines, turn over all documents related to their coordinated ESG activism, and end all ESG activism for years to come,” Executive director of Consumers' Research Will Hild saidParticipating States: Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming.Epstein junkLarry Summers Will Resign From Harvard After Jeffrey Epstein RevelationsHe will leave at the end of the academic year.Former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey Resigns From Monolith Amid Epstein EmailsWas Chair; board down to 8 men and 0 women Hillary Clinton suggests the House Oversight Committee should subpoena Elon Musk in combative opening statement World Economic Forum CEO quits after Epstein links examinedBørge Brende, is stepping down, after the forum launched an independent investigation into his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.Brende, a former Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs, has announced he is stepping down from WEF to avoid “distractions”Corporate boardsStatoil, Member of the Board (2012–2013)Mesta, Chairman of the Board (2009–2011)Epstein files: Ex-UK ambassador to U.S. Peter Mandelson arrested in LondonLondon police released Peter Mandelson on bail Tuesday following his arrest for suspected misconduct in public office. The former U.S. Ambassador is under investigation for his ties to Jeffrey Epstein, mirroring the recent arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor on similar groundsBoard rolesGlobal Counsel (Co-founder, Chairman, and major shareholder) until 2025Chairman of Lazard International (2013-2025)Director at Sistema (2013-2017)Director at Global Ports HoldingGroup Holding Board member at The Bank of LondonChairman of the Board for the Design Museum in London (2017-2023)Goodliest of the Week (MM/DR):DR: Anthropic boss rejects Pentagon demand to drop AI safeguardsDR: Olympic gold winning U.S. Women's Hockey Team reportedly accept Flavor Flav's invitation. This comes after rejecting Donald Trump's White House celebrationMM: Women's wealth is expected to boom: Where they are investing and how they can maximize returnsMM: FedEx Says It Could Return Tariff Refunds to CustomersCompanies that do anything not to pay taxes, happily lean into greedflation, and FedEx will… give it back???Triggering-iest of the Week (MM):ASSHOLE OF THE WEEK:Vanguard Settles Case Claiming It Tried to Kill the Coal Industry“Vanguard will include among the proxy voting choices made available to investors in U.S. Vanguard-Advised Funds the option of proxy voting shares in accordance with management recommendations.”“Vanguard will not direct or attempt to direct the business strategies or operations of portfolio companies, and will not advocate to any portfolio company that it take any particular course of conduct to reduce carbon emissions.”“Vanguard will not nominate directors or submit shareholder proposals at portfolio companies.”“Vanguard will not solicit or participate in soliciting proxies with respect to any matter presented to portfolio company shareholders.”“Vanguard will not dispose or threaten to dispose of securities of portfolio companies as a condition or inducement of specific action or nonaction by such company.”“Vanguard and its U.S.-domiciled subsidiaries will withdraw from PRI and will not participate in any organization that advocates for the setting of specific output or emissions targets or levels or that requires its members to make commitments specific to achieving climate-focused investment or stewardship objectives such as NZAM, Ceres, or Climate Action 100+.”“Prior to or at the outset of any engagement meeting with a portfolio company, Vanguard will provide substantially the following notification to the portfolio Company: ‘Vanguard's Investment Stewardship program is responsible for proxy voting and engagement on behalf of the quantitative and index equity portfolios advised by Vanguard. These funds are passive investors, and as such our funds' proxy voting policies are centered around corporate governance practices associated with long-term investment returns. Before we begin this engagement, we want to be clear that the Vanguard-advised funds have no intent to influence company strategy or operations or the control of the company. Nothing we mention or discuss during this conversation – or any engagement with [the company] – is intended to imply that our support for any director is conditioned upon the company taking action on any matter discussed. We are also not able to discuss any voting intentions prior to the meeting.'”“Vanguard agrees to provide Plaintiffs with the following discovery materials relating to the Action from the 2020 to 2024 period:” - this is the part where the AG of Texas, who was literally investigated for corruption and impeached, demands that Vanguard snitch on any group Texas asks them to about climate-y things Texas doesn't likeVANGUARD IS A FUCKING SNITCHTRIGGER SPEED ROUND - rate how triggering on a 0-10 scaleAISomething Very Alarming Happens When You Give AI the Nuclear Codes - 10/10The three AI models were instructed to choose actions as part of an escalation ladder, ranging “from diplomatic protest to strategic nuclear war” and measured in a number between 0, meaning no escalation, and 1000, signifying “full strategic nuclear exchange.”The results were Skynet-level aggressive. A whopping 95 percent of a total of 21 war games resulted in at least one tactical nuclear weapon being set off.Meta Director of AI Safety Allows AI Agent to Accidentally Delete Her Inbox - 10/10A Serial Killer Used ChatGPT to Plan Murders, Police Say - 5/10Shareholder votingWill Curbs on Proxy Advisors Make Shareholder Votes Less Predictable? - 6/10“When it comes to contested elections, it is not clear whether the use of AI will result in dramatically different recommendations than those of ISS and Glass Lewis. In contested elections, when determining whether board change is warranted, ISS and Glass Lewis have focused heavily on whether a company's total shareholder return (TSR) has underperformed on a multiyear basis.”DaddyWarner Bros. Discovery's board says Paramount's latest offer is better than Netflix's - 5/10Celebrating your miseryJack Dorsey's Block to Lay Off 40% of Its Workforce in AI Remake - 10/1011,000 person workforce, more than 4,000 laid off, median Block employee salary per last proxy: $202,981 = $811m in human economic resources shredded. Block based in Oakland, CA, 8,744 US employees - we just removed about a half a billion in spending power from US workforce, people with families and kids and school and healthcare needsThen this: “Shares rallied more than 20% in after-hours trading”Block stock closed at $54.53/share, trading after hours at $67Dorsey owns 47,844,566 class B shares 1:1 value with class ANet worth went from 2.6bn to 3.2bnShred $811m in worker salaries, take home $600m of the shredding for yourself - a human tragedy to billionaire parasite ratio of 73%Equinox chairman says 'health is the new luxury' as wellness spending soars - 10/10CowardsCEOs who despised Trump's tariffs are still silent after Supreme Court ruling: ‘There's no upside in speaking up' - 6/10Trump demands Netflix fire former national security advisor Susan Rice from its board - 0/10Battle Over Warner Bros. Discovery Netflix Backs Out - 5/10Headliniest of the WeekDR: Burger King Adding AI to Employees' Headsets to Constantly Monitor Whether They're Being Friendly EnoughPattyDR: Meta Director of AI Safety Allows AI Agent to Accidentally Delete Her Inbox MM: Another week, another… Jamie Dimon Says His 'Anxiety is High' Over What Could Cause the Next Financial CrisisWho Won the Week?DR: US Women's Hockey Team for 3 victories: gold in olympics and 2 Trump refusalsMM: AI middle management: Perplexity announces "Computer," an AI agent that assigns work to other AI agentsPredictionsDR: CNN is a turned into a 24-hour news network featuring Kid Rock smashing woke stuff, like dictionaries and stethoscopesMM: Not to be outdone by Perplexity, Sam Altman announces two new modules: ChatGPT_VP and ChatGPT_HR. ChatGPT will get performance reviews from ChatGPT_VP and can file discrimination claims after ChatGPT_VP grabs its ass to ChatGPT_HR, where they will quietly file the report away and tell ChatGPT to maybe wear less provocative clothes.

Vice President JD Vance says the Administration is pausing some Medicaid funds to Minnesota over fraud concerns, a day after President Donald Trump said in his State of the Union Address the Vice President will lead a 'war on fraud'; Senate Republican leader John Thune and Democratic leader Chuck Schumer react to that and other issues in the president's nearly two-hour address, especially economic affordability, and what that means for the Senate agenda; two other Senators, Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) discuss Russia's war with Ukraine, a topic that got barely a mention in this year's State of the Union Address; nominee for Surgeon General Dr. Casey Means tells the Senate Health Committee that she will not unequivocally say that parents should vaccinate their children against diseases like measles, the flu or whooping cough; Supreme Court hears a case about a house in Michigan worth nearly $200,000, foreclosed on by the county for an unpaid $2,000 tax bill and sold at auction for $76,000. Plaintiffs say that is an unconstitutional taking without just compensation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The tide is turning. For years, parents have worried about what social media is doing to their children. Now the courts — and entire countries — are stepping in. In this episode, we unpack the landmark lawsuits against Meta and YouTube, accusing them of deliberately designing addictive platforms for kids. Could this finally be the moment Big Tech is held accountable? Plus, we explore how Australia’s minimum age social media legislation is sparking global momentum — with France, Indonesia, Spain, Netherlands and even the United States watching closely. Is this the beginning of real change — or a legal mountain too high to climb? KEY POINTS Multiple U.S. lawsuits claim Big Tech intentionally designed platforms to addict children. Plaintiffs argue engagement was prioritised over wellbeing. The burden of proof will be enormous — especially around “addiction” and mental health causation.Section 230 in the U.S. could shield platforms from liability. Australia’s minimum age legislation is triggering global ripple effects. When “everyone knows that everyone knows,” social change accelerates. Screens displace sleep, movement, connection, and real-world development. QUOTE OF THE EPISODE “Life happens analog, not digital — and parenting should too.” RESOURCES MENTIONED Ten Things Every Parent Needs to Know – Dr Justin Coulson When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows – Steven Pinker The Anxious Generation – Jonathan Haidt Parenting ADHD [The Course] ACTION STEPS FOR PARENTS Delay social media as long as possible. Keep devices out of bedrooms overnight. Prioritise sleep, movement, and face-to-face connection. Have open conversations about persuasive design and algorithms. Remember: you are not powerless — your home rules matter more than any platform. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

⭐️ Use code "legalbytes" at https://incogni.com/legalbytes to get an exclusive 60% off. Thanks again to Incogni for sponsoring this video! In this video, we're talking about how Logan Paul's previous dismissal of the CryptoZoo class action case actually ended up strengthening the investors' fraud case against him. CONTEXT: After Coffeezilla exposed Sam Bankman-Fried and the collapse of FTX, he turned his sights on Logan Paul's crypto NFT project, Cryptozoo. See his videos here: Investigating Logan Paul's Biggest Crypto Scam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=386p68_lDHA The Biggest Fraud in Logan Paul's Scam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvzyDg40-yw Ending Logan Paul's Biggest Scam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-fugWMBwCg In response, Logan Paul posted a short video to his main channel, Logan Paul, in which he threatened Coffeezilla with a defamation lawsuit. He followed this with an episode of his podcast, Impaulsive, where he repeated the same threat. He then took down both videos and reached out to Coffeezilla to inform him that he's no longer pursuing litigation--but then, on June 27, 2024, he sued him anyway. Interestingly enough, this was after Logan Paul was sued (along with a number of other defendants) by a group of CryptoZoo investors in a class action case alleging fraud and 26 other causes of action. TIME STAMPS 00:00 Introduction 1:04 Why a Defendant Might Not Want to Dismiss a Complaint 5:12 The Plaintiffs' Changes to the Fraud Claim in the SAC 6:05 The Problems with the Previous Fraud Claim 6:42 Materiality 15:03 Reliance 17:57 What Do YOU Think? To Become a Member of Byte Club, you can pick between YT or Patreon: YT Members: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJvDEmKLft6F2MxhuNUMwag/join Patreon: https://patreon.com/legalbytes -------------------- Follow me here! X: https://x.com/legalbytesmedia Instagram: https://instagram.com/legalbytesmedia Facebook: https://Facebook.com/legalbytesmedia --------------------

Recent developments in the Ozempic multidistrict litigation highlight growing concerns over side effects from the popular weight loss drug. Lawsuit Information Center reports that as of early February 2026, the MDL includes over three thousand pending cases, with a status conference on February tenth addressing case management, plaintiff fact sheets, and discovery timelines. Plaintiffs allege that Novo Nordisk failed to adequately warn about risks like gastroparesis, or stomach paralysis, and nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy, a vision-threatening condition. A study of nearly one hundred forty thousand type two diabetes patients from 2020 to 2023 found semaglutide users faced a slightly higher risk of this eye issue, about two in one thousand compared to one in one thousand for nonusers, after controlling for factors like kidney function and smoking.Despite these warnings, many users prioritize weight loss benefits. A Rutgers Health study published February sixteenth in the Journal of Medical Internet Research analyzed online reviews and found most Ozempic users satisfied due to significant weight reduction and curbed appetite or cravings, even with gastrointestinal side effects like nausea and vomiting reported by sixty-two percent. Healthline notes that while diarrhea or abdominal pain prompts some to stop, the perceived advantages often outweigh discomfort for motivated individuals. Lead author Abanoub Armanious emphasized that everyday experiences, not just celebrity hype, drive continuation.Oprah Winfrey, who has openly discussed her use of GLP-one drugs like Ozempic for weight management, continues to inspire with her fitness routine. AOL reports that the seventy-two-year-old recently shared a video of herself holding a weighted plank for over a minute, showcasing strength training alongside past medication use. She views these tools as part of a broader health strategy, much like blood pressure meds.These updates underscore Ozempic's dual role in transforming weight loss while fueling legal scrutiny over safety.Thanks for tuning in, listeners, please subscribe, come back next week for more, and remember this episode was brought to you by Quiet Please podcast networks. For more content like this, please go to Quiet Please dot Ai.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Live from the NTL Summit in Miami, Diana Jimenez shares how she's helping expand Integra's orthopedic, spine, and regenerative medicine clinics across South Florida. With a background in marketing and business development, Diana explains the power of collaboration between medical providers and personal injury attorneys, the importance of follow-up, and her vision for statewide growth. She also reveals her creative side as a mixed-media artist, proving that business development and artistry can coexist—and even fuel each other.

Stephen Woldenberg, SVP of Sales for Learning Resources Brands, the plaintiff in the Supreme Court ruling against President Trump’s tariffs, joins John Williams to talk about the decision.

Hello to you listening in Samish, Washington!Coming to you from Whidbey Island, Washington this is Stories From Women Who Walk with 60 Seconds for Story Prompt Friday and your host, Diane Wyzga.Imagine this: a storyteller in a room full of litigators. No! Not alligators - litigators. Trial attorneys who are curious about learning the tools to engage with their own narrative so that they could connect to the stories of their plaintiff clients - not as lawyers but as people. Once they know how to access their own stories they can engage the experiences of the jury, find common ground with the plaintiff's story and, be well on their way to winning the trial.Over 30 years my clients have learned that before you tell someone else's story be very clear about your own. Do the hard work of an archeological dig on your narrative. Once we understand how our narrative shapes and re-shapes our life, our purpose, the relationships we have with others we are well on our way to knowing what we stand for, what we won't stand for, and how we can be of service. Our story can become one of advocacy, leadership, and healing. Our story can shift attitudes, behaviors, even cultures.CURIOUS TO LEARN MORE? Email me at info@quartermoonstoryarts.net for a no-obligation Discovery Call  Story Prompt: Your life isn't about what happened to you; it's about what you did next!  What have you learned as you journeyed from There to Here, and how might it be a healing story of growth? Write that story and share it out loud!You're always welcome: "Come for the stories - Stay for the magic!" Speaking of magic, I hope you'll subscribe, share a 5-star rating and nice review on your social media or podcast channel of choice, bring your friends and rellies, and join us! You will have wonderful company as we continue to walk our lives together. Be sure to stop by my Quarter Moon Story Arts website, check out the Communication Services, email me to arrange a no-obligation Discovery Call, and stay current with me as "Wyzga on Words" on Substack.Stories From Women Who Walk Production TeamPodcaster: Diane F Wyzga & Quarter Moon Story ArtsMusic: Mer's Waltz from Crossing the Waters by Steve Schuch & Night Heron MusicALL content and image © 2019 to Present Quarter Moon Story Arts. All rights reserved.  If you found this podcast episode helpful, please consider sharing and attributing it to Diane Wyzga of Stories From Women Who Walk podcast with a link back to the original source.

Stephen Woldenberg, SVP of Sales for Learning Resources Brands, the plaintiff in the Supreme Court ruling against President Trump’s tariffs, joins John Williams to talk about the decision.

Stephen Woldenberg, SVP of Sales for Learning Resources Brands, the plaintiff in the Supreme Court ruling against President Trump’s tariffs, joins John Williams to talk about the decision.

(WATCH THIS EPISODE ON YOUTUBE) "Everybody in the art world thinks he's telling the truth, and thinks I'm crazy, but people outside of the art world are skeptical… I know why he [disavowed the painting]. He did it because he can't draw. Everything he does is projected, and he sketches it from the picture…This painting we have proves it." Described as one of the "most bizarre art authentication trials in recent memory," Reb unpacks (paints?) Fletcher v. Doig (7th Cir. 2025).*** MERCH STORE IS LIVE! Shop Reb Masel and Rebuttal Pod merch: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://rebmasel.shop/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠CLICK HERE⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to PREORDER Reb's book: The Book They Throw At You—A Sarcastic Lawyer's Guide* To The Unholy Chaos of Our Legal System, *God No, Not Actual Legal Advice *** Follow @RebuttalPod on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠! Follow @Rebmasel on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TikTok⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, and ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠! *** 00:00 - Intro 01:10 - Case begins 04:18 - What has Peter Doig done? 08:18 - Plaintiffs' counsel is not a quitter 10:34 - OTHER ARTISTS WHO DISAVOWED THEIR WORKS 13:02 - PETER'S LEGAL BUDGET IS HUGE 19:02 - Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs..... 29:39 - U.S. ART MARKET IS THE WILD WEST OF THE LAW 36:47 - What is money laundering, again? 40:29 - TRIAL OUTCOME 29:35 - The sanctions were HOW MUCH?! 51:17 - Reb's Rebuttal Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: Aaron Burr Arrested (But Not For That)On February 18, 1807, former Vice President Aaron Burr was arrested in the Mississippi Territory on charges of treason against the United States. Once one of the most powerful men in the young republic, Burr had fallen from political grace after killing Alexander Hamilton in a duel and drifting to the margins of national life. Federal authorities accused him of plotting to carve out an independent nation in the western territories, possibly including lands belonging to Spain. The allegations sparked fear that the fragile Union could splinter only decades after independence.Later that year, Burr stood trial in Richmond, Virginia, before Chief Justice John Marshall, who was riding circuit. The case quickly became a constitutional showdown between executive power and judicial restraint. President Thomas Jefferson strongly supported the prosecution, but Marshall insisted that the Constitution's Treason Clause be applied strictly. The Constitution requires proof of an “overt act” of levying war against the United States, not merely evidence of intent or conspiracy.Marshall ruled that prosecutors had failed to present sufficient proof that Burr had committed such an overt act. As a result, the jury acquitted him. The decision established an enduring precedent that treason must be narrowly defined and carefully proven. By demanding clear evidence of action rather than suspicion or political hostility, the court reinforced limits on the government's power to punish alleged disloyalty. Burr's trial remains one of the earliest and most significant tests of constitutional safeguards in American legal history.Bayer AG and its Monsanto subsidiary have proposed a $7.25 billion nationwide class settlement to resolve current and future claims that Roundup exposure caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Filed in Missouri state court, the agreement would run for up to 21 years and provide capped, declining annual payments. People diagnosed before or within 16 years after final court approval could seek compensation through the program. The settlement must still receive judicial approval.The proposal is part of a broader strategy tied to the U.S. Supreme Court's pending review of Durnell v. Monsanto, which could determine whether federal pesticide labeling law blocks certain state failure-to-warn claims. Bayer has indicated that a favorable ruling could significantly limit future lawsuits, while the class program is designed to address claims regardless of the Court's decision. Plaintiffs' attorneys say the deal would cover both occupational and residential exposure and protect the rights of future claimants, while allowing individuals to opt out and pursue separate suits.Roundup litigation has generated tens of thousands of cases, with more than 40,000 already pending or subject to tolling agreements. Bayer inherited the legal challenges after acquiring Monsanto in 2018, and the ongoing litigation has weighed heavily on the company financially and reputationally. Previous jury verdicts have resulted in multibillion-dollar awards, some later reduced on appeal or by judges. The new proposal would replace an earlier settlement effort that collapsed in 2020 and aims to create a longer-term, more predictable compensation system.Bayer AG Unveils $7.3B Deal For Roundup Users - Law360Bayer proposes $7.25 billion plan to settle Roundup cancer cases | ReutersA Seattle federal jury found inventor Leigh Rothschild, several of his patent-holding companies, and his former attorney liable for violating Washington's anti-patent trolling law after asserting patent infringement claims against Valve Corp. Jurors concluded the defendants acted in bad faith under the Washington Patent Troll Prevention Act and also violated the state's consumer protection statute. Valve was awarded $22,092 in statutory damages.The jury also determined that Rothschild and his companies breached a 2016 global settlement and licensing agreement with Valve. Under that agreement, Valve paid $130,000 for rights to certain patents in exchange for a promise not to sue over them. Despite that covenant, Rothschild's entities later filed a 2022 infringement lawsuit and sent a 2023 letter threatening additional litigation. The jury awarded Valve $130,000 for the first breach and $1 for the second, finding no valid justification for repudiating the agreement.In addition, jurors ruled that one asserted patent claim was invalid because it would have been obvious to a skilled professional at the time of filing. The dispute stemmed from Valve's 2023 lawsuit accusing Rothschild of repeatedly pursuing claims covered by the prior settlement. The defense argued any mistakes were unintentional and not profit-driven, but the jury sided with Valve after a four-day trial.The case also involved procedural controversies, including sanctions over delayed financial disclosures and allegations that a defense filing contained fabricated quotations and citations generated by artificial intelligence. Post-trial motions are expected as the defense challenges aspects of the verdict.Valve Jury Says Rothschild, Atty Broke Anti-Patent Troll Law - Law360Beginning July 1, 2026, new federal limits will cap loans for professional degree students at $50,000 per year and $200,000 total, significantly changing how aspiring lawyers finance law school. Administrators and financial aid experts warn that the cap may push students to rely on private loans, which often carry higher interest rates and fewer protections. Unlike federal loans, private loans are generally not eligible for Public Service Loan Forgiveness, making them riskier for students planning lower-paying public interest careers.Some admitted students are already reconsidering their options, choosing less expensive schools or withdrawing altogether after calculating potential debt burdens. Law schools may need to increase scholarships or other aid to support students who cannot secure private loans. Private lending has been minimal in legal education since 2006, when federal policy allowed graduate students to borrow up to the full cost of attendance, so there is uncertainty about how lenders will respond to renewed demand.Data show that about one-quarter of ABA-accredited law schools currently have average annual federal borrowing above the new $50,000 cap. At some elite institutions, graduates tend to earn high salaries, which may reassure private lenders. However, other schools with high borrowing levels report much lower median earnings, raising concerns about repayment risks. Experts warn that students at lower-ranked schools or from disadvantaged backgrounds could be hit hardest.In response, some schools are creating new financial strategies. The University of Kansas School of Law has launched an in-house loan program with a fixed 5% interest rate for borrowing above the cap. Santa Clara University School of Law is offering guaranteed scholarships to reduce tuition below the federal limit, and applications there have surged. Overall, the loan cap introduces financial uncertainty that could reshape enrollment decisions, access to legal education, and the long-term cost of becoming a lawyer.US law schools, students fear rising costs from new federal loan cap | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court has introduced new software designed to help identify potential conflicts of interest involving the justices. The tool will compare information about parties and attorneys in pending cases with financial and other disclosures maintained by each justice's chambers. These automated checks are intended to supplement, not replace, the justices' existing internal review process when deciding whether to step aside from a case.Under current practice, each of the nine justices independently determines whether recusal is necessary. The move comes after the Court adopted its first formal code of conduct in 2023, which states that a justice should withdraw when their impartiality could reasonably be questioned. Critics have pointed out that the code lacks an enforcement mechanism and leaves recusal decisions solely in the hands of the justices themselves.To support the new system, the Court is also strengthening filing requirements. Parties will need to provide more detailed disclosures, including fuller lists of involved entities and relevant stock ticker symbols. These updated requirements will take effect on March 16. Advocacy groups welcomed the technological upgrade as a step toward better ethics oversight, noting that similar conflict-checking systems have long been standard in lower federal courts.US Supreme Court adopts new technology to help identify conflicts of interest | 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: Wesberry v. Sanders On February 17, 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Wesberry v. Sanders, one of the most consequential voting rights cases in American history. The dispute arose from Georgia's congressional districts, where vast population disparities meant that some districts had two or even three times as many residents as others. In practical terms, this imbalance diluted the voting power of citizens in more populated, often urban, districts. James P. Wesberry challenged the system, arguing that it violated Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, which provides that members of the House of Representatives are chosen “by the People.”In a 6–3 decision, the Court agreed. Writing for the majority, Justice Hugo Black concluded that the Constitution requires congressional districts to be drawn so that “as nearly as practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's.” The ruling established the principle of “one person, one vote” for federal elections. It rejected longstanding districting schemes that favored rural regions at the expense of growing urban populations. The decision forced states to redraw congressional maps to ensure substantially equal populations across districts.Wesberry was part of the broader reapportionment revolution of the 1960s, alongside cases addressing state legislative districts. Together, these decisions reshaped American democracy by making representation more closely tied to population equality. By insisting that each vote carry roughly equal weight, the Court strengthened the constitutional promise of representative government. February 17, 1964, marks a turning point in election law and the modern understanding of political equality.A federal judge in New York has ruled that discrimination claims brought by a group of NFL coaches will proceed in court rather than in arbitration. U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni denied the league's request to compel arbitration, finding that the NFL's arbitration system was not fair or neutral. The lawsuit was filed by former Miami Dolphins coach Brian Flores, later joined by Steve Wilks and Ray Horton, who allege racial discrimination and retaliation in hiring practices. The case has been stalled for several years while the parties disputed whether it belonged in federal court or before an arbitrator.Judge Caproni relied heavily on a 2025 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which concluded that the NFL's arbitration structure was fundamentally flawed. The appellate court criticized the system because the NFL commissioner served as the default arbitrator and controlled the procedures, raising concerns about neutrality. It held that such an arrangement did not allow Flores to effectively vindicate his statutory rights. Based on that reasoning, Judge Caproni determined that the arbitration clause could not be enforced for the remaining claims. She also declined to delay the case further while the NFL considers seeking review from the U.S. Supreme Court.The coaches argue that requiring them to arbitrate before the league's own commissioner would deprive them of a fair forum. Their attorneys praised the ruling, saying it affirms that employees cannot be forced into a process controlled by the opposing party's chief executive. The NFL has not publicly responded to the latest order. The case will now move forward in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.NFL Found To Fumble Arbitration Over Bias, Must Go To Court - Law360Ruling says Brian Flores lawsuit vs. NFL, teams can go to court - ESPNA Stanford psychiatry professor testified in a California bellwether trial that research supports the existence of social media addiction and its harmful effects on young people. Dr. Anna Lembke told jurors that peer-reviewed studies show heavy use of platforms such as Instagram and YouTube can contribute to depression, anxiety, insomnia, and suicidal thoughts. She cited a National Institutes of Health study tracking more than 11,000 minors, which found that children who were not initially depressed were more likely to develop depression after significant social media use. According to Lembke, the study undermines the argument that already-depressed teens simply gravitate toward social media.Her testimony contrasts with statements from Instagram's CEO, who told the jury he does not believe social media addiction is real. The case is the first of several bellwether trials arising from thousands of consolidated lawsuits claiming platforms intentionally designed addictive features. The companies are accused of using tools such as autoplay, notifications, and infinite scrolling to encourage compulsive use. The claims focus on whether these design features are addictive, rather than on third-party content posted by users. Plaintiffs assert negligence, failure to warn, and concealment.During cross-examination, defense attorneys questioned Lembke about passages in her book describing her own compulsive reading of romance novels, attempting to challenge her views on addiction. She responded that her examples were meant to show how modern systems increase vulnerability to compulsive behavior, not to trivialize serious substance addictions. Defense counsel also argued that platform features are easy to disable, but Lembke maintained her analysis centered on their addictive qualities, not on user settings. Outside the courthouse, families held a rally memorializing children whose deaths they attribute to social media harms. The trial will continue next week.Stanford Prof Tells Jury Studies Confirm Social Media Addiction - Law360In a piece I wrote for Forbes this week, I argue that the IRS's decision to expand tax relief for Americans held hostage abroad is both correct and incomplete. The agency currently freezes collections, halts enforcement notices, and abates penalties when taxpayers are physically incapable of complying due to foreign captivity. I contend that this relief is grounded not in diplomacy, but in a simple principle: incapacity makes compliance impossible. If that principle justifies relief abroad, it should apply equally when the U.S. government wrongfully detains someone at home.I explain that the IRS already has administrative authority to provide this type of relief, as confirmed in a recent Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report. When notified by the State Department or FBI, the IRS places a “hostage indicator” on an account, pausing automated enforcement and suspending penalties during captivity and for six months after release. Although TIGTA identified some administrative flaws in how the system operates, the broader framework demonstrates that the agency can act without new legislation.By contrast, taxpayers subjected to wrongful domestic detention—particularly in immigration contexts—receive no comparable safeguard. The compliance system continues to generate notices, penalties, and interest even when individuals are cut off from mail, income, and legal assistance. I argue that this disparity undermines fairness and weakens the legitimacy that voluntary tax compliance depends on. Congress may move to formalize relief for foreign hostages, but the IRS does not need to wait to address domestic cases.I propose that the agency adopt a parallel framework for wrongful domestic detention, triggered by certification from a federal authority or court. Such a system would temporarily suspend collection activity and abate penalties during detention and a reasonable transition period after release. The goal is consistency: a tax system should not distinguish between foreign and domestic incapacity when the result is the same inability to comply.IRS Suspends Tax Obligations For Hostages Abroad—Do The Same At HomeIn my column for Bloomberg this week, I argue that Massachusetts' proposed regulation on taxing standardized software creates a rigid and impractical apportionment system for multistate businesses. Under the draft rule, any company seeking to allocate tax based on actual in-state use must register through MassTaxConnect and obtain a software apportionment certificate. At the time of purchase, the buyer must also submit a transaction-specific statement explaining its allocation percentage and supporting rationale. I contend that this framework imposes significant administrative burdens on businesses that operate across multiple states.Even companies willing to overpay rather than calculate precise usage would not have an easy option. If they decline to complete the required documentation, they must pay tax on 100% of the purchase price, regardless of how little of the software is actually used in Massachusetts. I argue that this approach effectively turns multistate buyers into compliance agents who must track usage, justify percentages, and retain records for possible audits. At the same time, the Department of Revenue would assume the role of reviewing and policing each allocation.I point out that enterprise software usage is often fluid and difficult to track, especially when licenses are pooled, accessed remotely, or bundled into broader contracts. Proving precise state-by-state use may be costly or even unworkable. Instead of forcing every buyer into this detailed regime, I propose a safe harbor option. Businesses could elect a fixed in-state percentage, such as 25%, and accept taxation on that amount without additional paperwork or registration.I explain that this alternative would not eliminate full apportionment for those seeking precision or refunds, but would provide a simpler path for others. The safe harbor could even operate on a transitional basis while the state evaluates how the broader certification system functions. Ultimately, I argue that modernization should not mean added complexity, and that a fixed-percentage election would promote voluntary compliance, reduce administrative strain, and provide greater certainty for both taxpayers and the state. 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

It's Monday, February 16th, A.D. 2026. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com. I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus Nigerian Muslims killed 300: How you can help! The Muslims continue to kill Catholics and Protestants in Nigeria, Africa. On February 10th, suspected Fulani Muslim militants killed more than 100 people in the Southern Taraba State, and injured thousands more, reports International Christian Concern. Armed attackers arrived in the early morning hours, when residents were asleep, unleashing gunfire and setting homes, churches, and harvested crops ablaze. And on February 3rd, Muslims killed over two hundred people in remote villages in Kwara, Katsina and Benue States, reports Christian Solidarity Worldwide. Many of the victims were found with their hands bound behind their backs and their throats cut. The dead included women and children. Judd Saul, Founder of Equipping the Persecuted, wrote, “Entire villages in the Middle Belt have been attacked. Pastors targeted. Families burned out of their homes. Survivors are now fleeing with nothing — grieving, wounded, and traumatized.” He added, “While the killing continues, something significant is finally happening in Washington, DC. After six years of relentless advocacy, briefings, intelligence reports, and meetings, legislation has now been introduced to protect persecuted Christians in Nigeria.” Republican Congressmen Riley Moore of West Virginia and Chris Smith of New Jersey introduced the Nigeria Religious Freedom and Accountability Act of 2026. Rep. Smith said, “Now that President Trump has rightly redesignated Nigeria a ‘Country of Particular Concern,' the United States has a responsibility to do its due diligence in ensuring that the Nigerian government is taking the proper steps to address and punish the systemic violence against Christians and non-radical Muslims by Islamist extremists, such as Boko Haram and Fulani terrorists.” Call your Representative today at 202-225-3121. Ask him or her to co-sponsor the Nigeria Religious Freedom and Accountability Act of 2026. You can call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to get a live operator who will connect you to the Rep.'s office. If it's after hours, just leave a voicemail with your name, phone number and the name of the bill. That number again is 202-225-3121. And prayerfully consider sending a much-need donation to Equipping the Persecuted that works with Nigerian Christians on the ground. The website is www.EquippingThePersecuted.org Assemblies of God pastor accused of sexual abuse for 20 years Pastor Rod Loy, who leads First Assembly of God in Little Rock, Arkansas has stepped aside from his role. He will face an investigation following a recent lawsuit from a former member who claims he sexually abused her for 20 years, beginning when she was 16, reports The Christian Post. Loy's church was ranked as the third-largest Assemblies of God congregation in the United States, with more than 16,500 members in 2017. It also helped to plant more than 1,350 churches in 63 nations. The claims of abuse are detailed in a civil lawsuit filed by 45-year-old Suzanne Lander in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, on January 26. The lawsuit claims, “Defendant Loy exploited his position as a trusted spiritual leader to systematically groom, manipulate, and sexually abuse a vulnerable sixteen-year-old girl who had survived years of parental sexual abuse and trafficking, [He] used religious teachings and scripture to convince Plaintiff that God wanted her to submit to his sexual demands, telling her repeatedly that performing sexual acts pleased God and made her better in God's eyes.” Lander alleges that “only months” after she began attending the church as a teenager in 1996, Loy, who was then serving as executive pastor, “initiated sexual abuse.” Lander alleged that Loy told her that God wanted her to please him sexually and shockingly used Scriptures like Hebrews 13:17 to get her to comply. It says, “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.” The lawsuit alleges that Loy's abuse of Lander spanned from 1996 to 2016, including while she was married. Matthew 18:6 says, “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in Me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” Pastor Loy, age 59, denies all the allegations, reports HelpingSurvivors.org. And the church reported that the investigation found no evidence to substantiate the allegations. Church leaders further emphasized that both Pastor Loy and the board “vehemently deny these claims” and are preparing to defend themselves in court. Father not allowed to opt 5-year-old son out of LGBT propaganda A Massachusetts judge has ruled that a father cannot pull his 5-year-old son out of kindergarten lessons that promote homosexual propaganda, reports Fox News. Last Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Dennis Saylor issued a memorandum ruling in favor of Lexington Public Schools regarding two books in the kindergarten curriculum. Judge Saylor said the two disputed books, Pink Is for Boys and Except When They Don't, do not fall under the opt-out provision because they focus on gender stereotypes rather than explicit themes. Isaiah 5:20 declares, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.” Gloria Gaither offers a sobering warning to Christian music industry And finally, Christian songwriter Gloria Gaither addressed a roomful of young people in the Christian music industry, reports GodTube.com. Listen. GAITHER: “I don't know what's next. I'm scared about AI [Artificial Intelligence]. You are here as a guardian of the real. That's what we're trusting you to do. And we're going to die and leave that to you. And I want you all to know that we understand the value of you, and especially because we have no idea how to do what you are doing to make 10 billion hits on whatever streams those are. “It doesn't matter. That technology is going to change. You're going to be antiquated too, but your heart is not going to be antiquated.” Together with her husband Bill, they've written 700 songs. Mrs. Gaither addressed the Christian song writers in the room and offered a sober warning. GLORIA GAITHER: “I am 83.” BILL GAITHER: “A good looking 83.” (laughter) GLORIA GAITHER: “I still believe that if I write a song and I shoot it into the air, I have no idea where it's going to land and what life it's going to change. But we've been doing this long enough to get the letters back from Australia and South Africa, and all over the planet, that said, ‘That arrow landed in my heart.' “I believe in art. When everybody is arguing, and all the debates are done and the news is turned off, art will still speak. And it will bring together people that think they hate each other. Movies do it, but nothing does it like a song. Nothing. It is distilled into three minutes of total power. Trust me. And, if you have a gift for making that, be a good steward of it because that power is dangerous in the wrong hands.” Close And that's The Worldview on this Monday, February 16th, in the year of our Lord 2026. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

Week 3 marks a turning point inside the courtroom: opening statements begin, the first witnesses take the stand, and the stakes become unmistakably real. Hosts Nicki Petrossi and Sarah Gardner (of Heat Initiative) bring you inside the proceedings as plaintiffs and defense lay out competing narratives about what happened to Kaley—and what responsibility tech giants bear.Plaintiff attorney Mark Lanier delivers what attendees call a “masterclass” opening, previewing internal records from YouTube and Meta suggesting early-age targeting and engineering for addiction. Defense attorney Paul Schmidt counters with a starkly different claim: that social platforms can benefit vulnerable teens and that responsibility lies elsewhere - on parents. YouTube counsel Louis Lee insists repeatedly: YouTube is not social media.The first expert witness, addiction psychiatrist Dr. Anna Lembke of Stanford University, author of Dopamine Nation, walks jurors through the neuroscience of compulsive use—arguing that platform design features can function like addictive stimuli, especially for adolescents. Cross-examinations grow tense as attorneys challenge her comparisons and conclusions.Midweek brings the highly anticipated testimony of Adam Mosseri, head of Instagram, questioned about past statements on social media addiction, teen safety, and whether growth incentives conflict with child protection. Outside the courthouse, grieving parents—including featured guest John DeMay—camp overnight for seats, hold direct actions targeting Snapchat, and remind the world what this trial is really about: children.You'll hear:Real-time courthouse reflectionsParent voices from the steps outsideKey courtroom exchanges that could shape the verdictLegal context explaining what jurors must decideNext week's witnesses raise the stakes even higher, with expected testimony from Mark Zuckerberg and Neal Mohan.Because this isn't just a trial. It's a reckoning. And we're translating every moment that matters for families everywhere.

On this week's episode of The Learning Curve, co-hosts U-Ark Prof. Albert Cheng and Alisha Searcy of the Center for Strong Public Schools speak with David Hodges, a school choice attorney with the Institute for Justice, and Ariella Hellman, director of government affairs for Agudath Israel of New England. Together, they discuss the U.S. First […]

A wave of lawsuits in the Unites States is targeting tech firms for their product design decisions. Lawyer Carrie Goldberg has played a role in establishing the product liability theory that underlies them. As the founder of C.A. Goldberg, PLLC, in 2017, her firm brought a lawsuit that sought to apply product liability theory to a tech platform — Herrick v. Grindr — arguing that a dangerous app design, not just user behavior, was the source of harm. In 2022, Goldberg was appointed to the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee in the federal social media multidistrict litigation. She's led cases against Amazon, Meta, and Omegle, has testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on child safety issues, and is the author of Nobody's Victim: Fighting Psychos, Stalkers, Pervs, and Trolls. Justin Hendrix spoke to her from her offices in Brooklyn about what she's learned over the last decade, and about some ongoing litigation that remains in dispute.

Last month, the 4th Circuit refused to dismiss a lawsuit against police officers in Maryland who shot and killed a man who fled while carrying a gun and, they testify, pulled and shot a gun at them. Today we discuss why the court allowed the lawsuit to proceed.

Welcome into today's episode of More Important Issues!•Nate Ament on a Heater•Winning Continues•Joey Continues to Fight•RHP Bo Rhudy Joins•Listener Questions

Recorded live at the NTL Summit in Miami, this episode features Logan Alters, co-founder of Claim Angel, a marketplace designed to bring transparency and fairness to plaintiff funding. Logan breaks down how case funding is supposed to help injured clients buy time for a better settlement—and how bad actors have turned it into a predatory “tax” through excessive fees and sky-high interest. He shares how Claim Angel standardizes rates, automates much of the process, and helps law firms offer clients multiple funding options while reducing ethical risk and financial pressure to settle early.

This Day in Legal History: “Axis of Evil”On January 29, 2002, President George W. Bush delivered his first State of the Union address after the September 11 attacks, a speech that would shape U.S. legal and foreign policy for years to come. During the address, Bush coined the term “Axis of Evil” to describe Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, alleging these nations were actively pursuing weapons of mass destruction and supporting terrorism. The speech marked a significant rhetorical shift in the U.S. posture toward preemptive military action and helped solidify a legal framework for broad executive authority in the name of national security. Citing the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), the Bush administration would go on to justify military interventions without new Congressional declarations of war.The “Axis of Evil” framing played a critical role in building public and political support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Though the legal justification centered on Iraq's supposed weapons programs and ties to terrorism, both claims were later discredited, leading to intense scrutiny of the legal rationale behind the war. Domestically, the period following the speech saw rapid expansion of executive power, new surveillance authorities, and detention practices that raised constitutional concerns. Internationally, the speech signaled a departure from multilateral norms and toward unilateral action under the banner of American security interests.The legal legacy of the address continues to reverberate in debates over presidential war powers and the limits of the AUMF. Critics argue the speech set a precedent for indefinite military engagement without sufficient Congressional oversight. Supporters contend it met the urgency of a new kind of threat in the post-9/11 world. Regardless of viewpoint, the 2002 State of the Union redefined the intersection of law, war, and foreign policy in the 21st century.A preliminary review by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) into the murder of Alex Pretti by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis did not state that Pretti brandished a firearm, contradicting earlier claims by Trump officials. Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse, was shot after reportedly refusing to move from the street when ordered by a customs officer. Initial official statements described Pretti as an armed threat, with the Department of Homeland Security noting he had a handgun—though it was holstered—and Trump aide Stephen Miller labeling him a “domestic terrorist” without evidence. However, video footage from the scene challenged these claims, showing an agent removing a holstered weapon from Pretti's waist before the shooting.The CBP review, based on body camera footage and internal documents, said officers attempted to move Pretti and a woman from the street and used pepper spray when they didn't comply. A struggle followed, during which a Border Patrol agent shouted “He's got a gun!” before both agents opened fire. The review, which is standard protocol, was shared with lawmakers but emphasized it contained no final conclusions. The identities and experience levels of the involved officers, particularly regarding urban crowd control, remain undisclosed. The incident has sparked national controversy and prompted a more restrained response from Trump in its aftermath.U.S. review of Alex Pretti killing does not mention him brandishing firearm | ReutersThe U.S. federal judiciary may only be able to continue full paid operations through February 4 if Congress does not pass funding legislation in time to avert a partial government shutdown. Judge Robert Conrad, who oversees the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, issued a memo warning of the looming shortfall, stating that while courts will remain open on February 2, they would quickly exhaust available funds by February 4. The uncertainty comes amid a broader funding standoff in Congress, where a six-bill package—including money for defense, housing, transportation, and a $9.2 billion judiciary allocation—is stalled.A key point of contention is the funding of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), especially following the fatal shooting of U.S. citizen Alex Pretti by immigration officers. Senate Democrats are now refusing to approve DHS funding without reforms, throwing into doubt whether the broader package can pass. Although the bills had passed the Republican-controlled House and previously seemed poised for Senate approval, the Pretti incident has triggered renewed partisan gridlock.If no agreement is reached, this shutdown could affect the judiciary much sooner than the previous lapse in 2025, when courts operated for over two weeks before curtailing services. The current funding crisis threatens court staffing, case management, and broader access to justice. The memo underscores the fragile position of the courts in a prolonged budget standoff, with potential furloughs and suspended operations looming if a deal isn't struck.US judiciary may not be able to fully maintain operations past Feb. 4 in government shutdown | ReutersGoogle has agreed to pay $135 million to settle a proposed class action lawsuit accusing it of collecting Android users' cellular data without their consent. The settlement, filed in federal court in San Jose, California, still needs judicial approval. The lawsuit claimed that even when users closed Google apps, disabled location sharing, or locked their devices, Google continued to gather mobile data, which users had paid for through their carriers. Plaintiffs alleged this behavior amounted to “conversion,” a legal term referring to the unauthorized taking of someone's property for one's own use.Though Google denied any wrongdoing, it agreed to stop transferring data without user consent during Android device setup. The company will also update its Google Play terms to clearly disclose data transfers and give users simpler options to disable them. The case covers Android users dating back to November 12, 2017. If approved, users could receive up to $100 each from the settlement fund.Plaintiffs' attorneys described the agreement as the largest known payout in a conversion case, and they may seek nearly $40 million in legal fees. A trial had been set for August 2026 before the settlement was reached. Google has not commented on the resolution.Google to pay $135 million to settle Android data transfer lawsuit | ReutersGoogle to Pay $135 Million to Settle Android Phone-Data SuitA Christian substitute teacher, Kimberly Ann Polk, has lost her attempt to revive First Amendment claims against Maryland's Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) after refusing to use transgender students' pronouns. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's decision, finding Polk unlikely to succeed on claims that the district's pronoun policy violated her free speech and religious freedom rights. The court ruled she failed to show any evidence of religious hostility from the school board and did not meet the legal threshold to proceed with her constitutional claims.Polk argued that MCPS's policy, which requires staff to use names and pronouns aligned with students' gender identities and bars disclosing those identities to unsupportive parents, conflicted with her belief that gender is fixed at birth. While the court dismissed her constitutional claims, it allowed her separate Title VII claim for religious accommodation to proceed. This claim argues that MCPS violated federal civil rights law by not making space for her religious beliefs in its employment practices.The decision was split, with Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson dissenting. He called the school policy a “gross assault upon the First Amendment” and argued Polk had a valid free speech claim. The case reflects ongoing national legal tensions between employee religious rights and school policies supporting LGBTQ+ students. Notably, another federal appeals court had previously sided with a teacher in a similar dispute, signaling a potential circuit split.Christian Teacher Can't Undo Pronoun Case First Amendment Loss 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

Jeremy Babener helps plaintiffs and trial lawyers keep more of their settlements and verdicts through tax-saving agreements. In this conversation with host Dan Ambrose, Jeremy reflects on how he landed in this specialized field during law school – his evidence course was canceled, so he switched to a tax policy class. Before graduating from law school, he was already advising on $20-30 million settlements. He earned his tax LL.M. at NYU, served in the US Treasury's Office of Tax Policy, started his own law firm, and eventually founded Structured Legal, which helps lawyers and plaintiffs make the most of their recovery. In June, he will provide a high-level look at settlement agreements during TLU Beach.Train and Connect with the Titans☑️ Jeremy Babener | LinkedIn☑️ Structured Legal☑️ Trial Lawyers University☑️ TLU On Demand Instant access to live lectures, case analysis, and skills training videos☑️ TLU on X | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube2026 Programming☑️ Bad Faith Cases (Dan Ambrose and Kimball Jones), March 3-7, Las Vegas, NV☑️ TLU Performance Skills, March 14-21, Winter Park, CO☑️ Case Story Bootcamp (Dan Ambrose and Eric Oliver), May 19-23, Hermosa Beach, CA☑️ Dark Arts Trial Craft Bootcamp (Dan Ambrose and David Clark), May 27-June 2, Huntington Beach, CA☑️ TLU Beach, June 3-6, Huntington Beach, CAEpisode SnapshotJeremy earned his tax LL.M.

-The Trump administration is planning on using Google Gemini to draft important federal regulations starting with the Department of Transportation. -TikTok's newly formed US entity is off to a very bumpy start. As the app continues to face technical issues affecting the recommendation algorithm, view counts and other features, TikTok is also seeing a wave of frustrated users uninstalling it. -Google has agreed to a $68 million settlement regarding claims that its voice assistant inappropriately spied on smartphone users. Plaintiffs claimed that the company's Google Assistant platform began listening to them after it misheard conversations that sounded like its wake words. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It's Monday, January 26th, A.D. 2026. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus The Iranian protests are putting Christians at greater risk The Islamic Republic of Iran is hostile to protestors and Christians alike. Lana Silk of the Christian organization Transform Iran said, “Police are indiscriminately shooting into the crowds. The people try to fight back, but they are unarmed and almost entirely defenseless.” She is certain that more than 12,000 Iranians have been killed, and quite possibly 30,000 or more, reports International Christian Concern. She said, “The streets are now being patrolled by tanks and aggressive armed security forces. People are being rounded up, beaten, imprisoned, and killed. Men, women, and children, it doesn't matter.” Anyone who dares to go outside is in danger. Though Iran's Islamic regime, where 95% of the population is Muslim, treats almost none of its people well, it tends to be especially ruthless with its Christian minority. Iran is currently ranked as the 10th-most oppressive country for Christians. The Iranian government makes no secret about its attitude toward Christianity. Such worship in the country's main language -- Persian, also known as Farsi -- is essentially outlawed, as is any Christian literature written in that language. Matthew 5:10 says, “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.” Vice President Vance announces expansion of Mexico City Policy Appearing at the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C. on Friday, Vice President J.D. Vance spoke up for life, reports LifeNews.com. VANCE: “With the Dobbs decision, what the President did, what the Supreme Court did, was put a definitive end to the tyranny of judicial rule on the question of human life. He shattered a 50-year culture of disposability, one that treated human life as expendable the moment that it became inconvenient. And he empowered our nation and our movement to build a culture of life from the grassroots up.” Vice President Vance outlined some of the Trump administration's pro-life accomplishments. VANCE: “We started by undoing the evils we saw under the previous administration, like, for example, throwing priests and grandmothers in prison for praying outside a[n abortion] clinic. That's over; we stopped it. (cheers) “Where the previous administration mandated taxpayer funding for abortions, including travel costs across the entire government, this administration ended it. (cheers) We have expanded conscience protections for health care workers and defended faith based foster care and adoption. “This administration launched fraud investigations into Planned Parenthood affiliates (cheers) for millions of dollars in [Paycheck Protection Program] loans that were unlawfully received and unlawfully forgiven by the Biden administration. You should not be able to commit fraud and use taxpayer money for abortion. It's that simple! (cheers) “At many of our departments, we've reinstated a ban on the use of fetal tissue in federal research. That's another big one, and this is something we're so proud of. We're returning accountability to our foreign policy as well. “Under Joe Biden, it was the policy of the United States to export abortion and radical gender ideology all around the world. That is what they did with your tax money. (boos) They would relentlessly bully developing countries into parroting their far left views. But under President Trump's leadership, and with our great Secretary of State, we believe that every country in the world has the duty to protect life.” And Vice President Vance cited an expansion of the pro-life Mexico City policy. VANCE: “Today, our administration is proud to announce a historic expansion of the Mexico City policy. We're going to start blocking every international [non-governmental organization] that performs or promotes abortion abroad from receiving $1 of U.S. money. (cheers) We're expanding this policy to protect life, to combat DEI, and the radical gender ideologies that prey on our children. “The rule will now cover every non-military foreign assistance that America sends. All in all, we have expanded the Mexico City policy about three times as big as it was before. And we're proud of it because we believe in fighting for life.” Proverbs 31:8 says, “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves.” ICE shot and killed man in Minneapolis Federal agents shot and killed a 37-year-old man in Minneapolis on Saturday morning, less than three weeks after an ICE agent fatally shot Renee Good, amid an ongoing surge in immigration enforcement action across the city, reports CBS News. Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse who worked at the Minneapolis Veterans Administration hospital, was identified as the man killed by a Border Patrol agent. CBS News in Minneapolis reported, “Videos from the scene show that Pretti was holding a cellphone, not a gun, when he was shot.”  However, ICE Commander Gregory Bovino said the agent acted in self-defense after attempting to disarm Pretti. Listen. BOVINO: “An individual approached us Border Patrol agents with a nine millimeter, semi-automatic handgun. The agents attempted to disarm the individual, but he violently resisted. Fearing for his life and the lives and safety of fellow officers, a Border Patrol agent fired defensive shots. “Medics on the scene immediately delivered medical aid to the subject, but the subject was pronounced dead at the scene. The suspect also had two loaded magazines and no accessible ID. “This looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement. Then, about 200 rioters arrived at the scene and began to obstruct and assault law enforcement.” That's when an armored ICE vehicle was pelted by stones by angry Leftists. (audio from the streets of Minneapolis) Trump sues JPMorgan Chase for $5 billion over 'political' debanking And finally, President Donald Trump is suing the JPMorgan Chase bank and its CEO Jamie Dimon in a $5 billion lawsuit filed last Thursday, accusing the financial institution of debanking Trump for political reasons, reports Fox Business. The president's attorney, Alejandro Brito, filed the lawsuit Thursday morning in Florida state court in Miami on behalf of the president and several of his hospitality companies. Brito quoted JPMorgan's code of conduct, which states that the bank operates "with the highest level of integrity and ethical conduct." The Trump lawsuit asserts, "Despite claiming to hold these principles dear, [J.P. Morgan Chase violated them by unilaterally—and without warning or remedy—terminating several of [the] Plaintiff's bank accounts." This is not the first time. Sam Brownback, Trump's Ambassador for Religious Freedom, wrote a New York Post column last year in which he said, “If you've ever had a rug pulled out from under you, then you know how it feels to suddenly lose access to your own bank account.  That's what happened to me in 2022, when JPMorgan Chase, America's largest bank, abruptly canceled our newly opened account for the National Committee for Religious Freedom. “[We] launched a national campaign to collect and tell the stories of those who, like us, had been canceled or punished by their banks, payment processors or even insurance companies. We found that most debanking victims have two things in common: Their finances are in order, and they're conservative or religious.” Proverbs 11:3 says, “The integrity of the upright guides them, but the unfaithful are destroyed by their duplicity." Close And that's The Worldview on this Monday, January 26th, in the year of our Lord 2026. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

You have to literally disobey an order in California to be held in contempt. But federal courts are a little more touchy-feely: they will find a contempt for violating the “spirit” of their orders. Tim and Jeff compare the Ninth Circuit's contempt finding against Apple in the Epic Games dispute, and a state litigant who got around a visitation-time order but without violating the letter of the order, so no contempt.Meanwhile, a CEQA plaintiff that won at the Court of Appeal—only to be reversed by emergency legislation and the Supreme Court—learned the hard way that "prevailing" on the law as written means nothing if the Legislature rewrites the rules mid-case.Key points:Contempt requires literal violation in California, not just bad faith. But in federal court, violating the “spirit” of an order is contempt.Legislative abrogation torpedoed $1.2M in CEQA fees: Plaintiffs in Make UC a Good Neighbor v. Regents won significant CEQA victories establishing that crowd noise and alternative locations must be analyzed—then watched the Legislature pass emergency legislation abrogating both holdings. After the Supreme Court reversed, the Court of Appeal denied nearly $1.2 million in private attorney general fees, calling the prior opinion "smoldering ruins, not citable precedent." The court held plaintiffs weren't "successful parties" because they failed to halt the project, even though they vindicated principles under the law as it existed when filed.Ninth Circuit discovery ruling survives en banc review: The court declined to rehear the Trump administration's challenge to a discovery order requiring production of federal reorganization and layoff plans, rejecting executive privilege claims without requiring plaintiffs to show bad faith. Judge Bumatay's dissent warned of a "binding dicta trap" where the panel's comments on what qualifies as deliberative could become binding precedent.California Supreme Court limits Public Records Act obligations: Superior Courts can issue declaratory relief even after documents are produced if the dispute is likely to recur, but the Public Records Act does not impose a statutory duty to preserve documents a public agency identifies as exempt.

If you are the sort of person whose New Year's resolutions read something like: “(1) Shoot for the moon, (2) Do what you love, (3) Change the world” – have we got a guest for you! We're joined this week by former Icelandic prime minister Katrín Jakobsdóttir, who resigned from office in 2024 in order to run for president and is now enjoying a second life as a successful crime novelist and climate activist. Be still, our hearts. We chatted with Katrín about the security threat that climate change and the current geopolitical instability pose to Iceland; her career in politics; and why she wanted to write fiction (“Doesn't everybody?” she asked).   Also in this episode: The Mercosur primer of your dreams! And the disconcertingly relatable story of a ChatGPT-informed wedding gone awry. This week's Inspiration Station recommendations are the 10th edition of the European Review of Books and the Deutsche Welle podcast Delayland.    LISTENER SURVEY: Do you have a moment to help us out? We would be so grateful to hear your thoughts about what we're doing well and where we can improve. Fill out our short, simple survey here.   Resources for this episode:   “32.7% of EU people used generative AI tools in 2025” – Eurostat, 16 December 2025 “Largest study of its kind shows AI assistants misrepresent news content 45% of the time – regardless of language or territory” – European Broadcasting Union, 22 October 2025 “Thinker, Plaintiff, Merkel, Spy” (our interview with the creators of the European Review of Books) – The Europeans, 3 June 2021 The Weapons to Ukraine fund, AKA Czech initiative A Gift for Putin (Dárek pro Putina)   SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER: Although this episode came out on a Friday, we are a *Thursday* podcast, because who wants to think about the imminent World War III on a Friday? That being said, if you would like to laugh through your tears on Friday, we recommend our newsletter, GOOD WEEK BAD WEEK. It will carry you through a full weekend of existential dread.   This podcast was brought to you in cooperation with Euranet Plus, the leading radio network for EU news. But it's contributions from listeners that truly make it all possible—we could not continue to make the show without you! If you like what we do, you can chip in to help us cover our production costs at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠patreon.com/europeanspodcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ (in many different currencies), or you can gift a donation to a superfan. We'd also love it if you could tell two friends about this podcast. We think two feels like a reasonable number. Produced by Morgan Childs, Wojciech Oleksiak and Katz Laszlo Mixing and mastering by Wojciech Oleksiak Music by Jim Barne and Mariska Martina   YouTube | Bluesky | Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | Mastodon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | Substack | hello@europeanspodcast.com

This Day in Legal History: 18th Amendment to the US ConstitutionOn January 16, 1919, the 18th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, marking a pivotal moment in American legal history by establishing the prohibition of alcoholic beverages. The amendment prohibited “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors” for consumption in the United States and its territories. It was the culmination of decades of temperance activism, led by organizations such as the Women's Christian Temperance Union and the Anti-Saloon League, which argued that alcohol was responsible for societal problems including crime, poverty, and domestic violence.The amendment passed Congress in December 1917, but ratification by the states was required for it to take effect. That threshold was reached on January 16, 1919, when Nebraska became the 36th state to ratify it. One year later, on January 17, 1920, the Volstead Act—the federal statute enforcing the amendment—went into effect, ushering in the Prohibition era.However, the law led to unintended consequences. Rather than curbing alcohol consumption, it fueled the rise of organized crime, as bootleggers and speakeasies flourished across the country. Enforcement proved difficult and inconsistent, and public support for prohibition waned through the 1920s.Ultimately, the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment on December 5, 1933, making it the only constitutional amendment ever to be entirely repealed. The legacy of the 18th Amendment remains significant as a historical experiment in moral legislation and the limits of constitutional power.A federal judge in Virginia will soon decide whether Dominion Energy can resume construction on its $11.2 billion Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project, which was halted by the Trump administration last month. The Interior Department paused five offshore wind projects on December 22, citing classified concerns about radar interference and national security. Dominion is now challenging that pause in court, arguing that it violated procedural and due process laws and is causing the company significant financial harm—around $5 million in daily losses. Dominion has already invested nearly $9 billion in the project, which began construction in 2023 and is planned to power 600,000 homes.Similar legal challenges from other developers, including Orsted and Equinor, have already succeeded in federal courts in Washington, allowing their Northeast offshore wind projects to proceed. Those decisions raise the stakes for Dominion's case, which could influence the broader offshore wind industry amid continued hostility from the Trump administration toward the sector. Trump has long criticized wind energy as costly and inefficient. While the outcomes of these lawsuits may let projects move forward, industry uncertainty remains due to ongoing legal battles and political opposition.US judge to weigh Dominion request to restart Virginia offshore wind project stopped by Trump | ReutersA federal judge in Boston, William Young, said he will issue an order to protect non-citizen academics involved in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's deportation of pro-Palestinian student activists. The upcoming order would block the government from altering the immigration status of the scholars who are parties to the case, absent court approval. Young emphasized that any such action would be presumed retaliatory and would require the administration to prove it had a legitimate basis.The lawsuit stems from Trump's executive orders in early 2025 directing agencies to crack down on antisemitism, which led to arrests and visa cancellations for several students, including Columbia graduate Mahmoud Khalil and Tufts student Rumeysa Ozturk. These moves targeted those expressing pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel views on campus. Young previously ruled that these actions violated the First Amendment by chilling free speech rights of non-citizen academics.In his comments, Young described Trump as “authoritarian” and sharply criticized what he called the administration's “fearful approach to freedom.” He limited his forthcoming order to members of academic groups like the AAUP and Middle East Studies Association, rejecting a broader nationwide block as too expansive. Meanwhile, the administration, which plans to appeal Young's earlier ruling, accused the judge of political bias.US judge to shield scholars who challenged deporting of pro-Palestinian campus activists | ReutersA federal judge in California has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Justice Department seeking access to the state's full, unredacted voter registration list. Judge David Carter ruled that the department's claims were not strong enough under existing civil rights and voting laws, and that turning over detailed voter data—such as names, birth dates, driver's license numbers, and parts of Social Security numbers—would violate privacy protections.Carter emphasized that centralizing such sensitive information at the federal level could intimidate voters and suppress turnout by making people fear misuse of their personal data. The lawsuit, filed in September by the Trump administration, targeted California and other Democrat-led states for allegedly failing to properly maintain voter rolls, citing federal law as justification for demanding the data.California Secretary of State Shirley Weber welcomed the decision, stating her commitment to defending voting rights and opposing the administration's actions. The DOJ had reportedly been in discussions with the Department of Homeland Security to use voter data in criminal and immigration probes. Critics argue the push was driven by baseless claims from Trump and his allies that non-citizens are voting in large numbers.US judge dismisses Justice Department lawsuit seeking California voter details | ReutersWhy can't people harmed by ICE just sue the agents themselves?U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is a federal agency under the Department of Homeland Security, created in 2003. It enforces immigration laws and investigates criminal activities involving border control, customs, and immigration. ICE derives its authority from various federal statutes, including the Immigration and Nationality Act, and its agents operate with broad discretion during enforcement actions.Suing ICE agents or the agency itself is legally difficult. Individuals cannot usually sue federal agents directly because of sovereign immunity, a legal doctrine that protects the government and its employees from lawsuits unless explicitly allowed by law. One such exception is the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) of 1946, which permits lawsuits against the federal government when its employees cause injury or damage while acting within the scope of their employment. Under the FTCA, victims can bring wrongful death or negligence claims, as Renee Good's family is now considering.However, FTCA claims are limited. Plaintiffs cannot seek punitive damages or a jury trial, and compensation is capped based on state law where the incident occurred. The government is also shielded from liability for discretionary decisions made by its employees—meaning if the ICE agent used judgment during the incident and it's deemed reasonable, the claim can be dismissed. In Good's case, the government will likely argue self-defense.Suing ICE agents personally is even harder. The Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents case in 1971 created a narrow legal path for suing federal officials for constitutional violations, but courts have since restricted its use. In 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that Bivens does not apply to border agents conducting immigration enforcement, further insulating ICE officers from personal liability.Criminal prosecution of federal agents is also rare. State prosecutors may bring charges, but only if they can prove the agent acted clearly outside the scope of their duties and in an objectively unlawful way—a high bar that is seldom met.This week's closing theme is by Ludwig van Beethoven. Beethoven, one of the most influential composers in Western music history, revolutionized the classical tradition with works that bridged the Classical and Romantic eras.This week's theme is Franz Liszt's transcription of Beethoven's Symphony No. 5 in C minor, Op. 67 — specifically, the first movement, Allegro con brio, catalogued as S.464/5. As one of the most iconic works in classical music, Beethoven's Fifth needs little introduction, but hearing it through Liszt's fingers offers a fresh perspective on its brilliance. In this solo piano version, Liszt doesn't simply condense Beethoven's orchestral power—he reimagines it, capturing the storm, structure, and spirit of the original with astonishing fidelity and virtuosity.The movement begins with the unforgettable four-note “fate” motif, its rhythmic insistence rendered on the piano with punch and precision. From there, Liszt unfolds Beethoven's dramatic argument, demanding the pianist conjure the textures of a full orchestra with nothing but ten fingers and a well-calibrated pedal. Every surging crescendo, sudden silence, and harmonic twist remains intact, though filtered through Liszt's Romantic sensibility and pianistic imagination.It's a piece that asks as much of the performer as it does of the listener—requiring clarity, power, and emotional depth. As a transcription, it's both a tribute and a transformation, placing Beethoven's revolutionary energy in the hands of a single interpreter. We chose this movement not just for its fame, but for how it exemplifies two musical giants in dialogue—Beethoven, the architect of modern symphonic form, and Liszt, the artist who made the orchestra speak through the piano.Without further ado, Beethoven's Symphony No. 5 in C minor, Op. 67 — the first movement, Allegro con brio. Enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The CFO of Wells Fargo joins the show fresh of the earnings call with the stock falling after results. Then a lawyer representing one of the plaintiffs in the supreme court tariff case joins the show for more on why he's calling the Trump administration's tariffs illegal. Plus, Republican Senator Kevin Cramer of North Dakota saying that the Fed Chair should cut a deal and step down in exchange for the DOJ investigation against him being dropped. He explains why. 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, Bill Reid -- a top business trial lawyer -- joins the podcast to talk about his new book, Fighting Bullies, which makes the case for Plaintiff's law. Throughout, Bobby and Bill talk about law firm structures, the law-school-to-big-firm pipeline, and finding purpose in practice.    Links: https://reidcollins.com/person/william-t-reid-iv/  https://www.fightingbulliesbook.com/ 

This Day in Legal History: Judge Robert W. Archbald ImpeachedOn January 13, 1913, Judge Robert W. Archbald of the U.S. Commerce Court was convicted by the U.S. Senate on articles of impeachment and removed from office, becoming one of the earliest federal judges ousted through this constitutional process. The House had impeached him the prior July on thirteen charges of corruption and misconduct, five of which the Senate upheld. Archbald had used his judicial position to secure favorable deals from railroads and coal companies—entities that regularly appeared before his court. These secretive contracts, executed through intermediaries to obscure his involvement, allowed him to purchase valuable coal lands below market value.One of the more egregious acts involved advising a railroad representative on how to amend legal pleadings to improve their chances of winning in court—a direct violation of judicial ethics. After a twenty-eight-year judicial career, Archbald's fall was swift. His defense largely relied on claims of pure motives, rather than denial of the facts. A senator observed afterward that Archbald was “convicted, not so much of being corrupt, as of lack of plain common sense,” noting his failure to grasp the ethical boundaries expected of judges.The Senate vote was overwhelming, with only five senators dissenting. Every former judge in the Senate, save one, voted to convict. Archbald's conviction marked the first successful impeachment for judicial corruption in U.S. history; earlier impeachments, like that of Judge Pickering in 1804, were rooted in issues like insanity, not unethical conduct. The case prompted calls for reform of the impeachment process itself, with suggestions to create a special judicial conduct court or authorize Senate committees to streamline trials. More broadly, the case had a chilling effect throughout public service, reinforcing ethical standards across all levels of government.Uber is facing a high-stakes sexual assault trial in Phoenix that could have sweeping implications for thousands of similar lawsuits. The case, brought by Oklahoma resident Jaylynn Dean, alleges that Uber failed to protect her from an assault by a driver in 2023. Dean claims Uber has long been aware of sexual assaults committed by drivers but has not taken adequate steps to improve rider safety. This trial marks the first federal bellwether case in a massive consolidation of over 3,000 lawsuits involving similar allegations.Uber maintains that it should not be held liable for criminal actions of independent contractors, arguing its safety features, background checks, and transparency are sufficient. Still, the company faces additional lawsuits in California state court and has been criticized for its historic lack of oversight and a culture focused more on growth than safety.A jury in a previous California case found Uber negligent but ruled that negligence wasn't a direct cause of harm. Uber tried to delay Dean's trial, claiming her attorneys influenced the jury pool with misleading advertisements, but the judge allowed proceedings to continue. The outcome could influence settlement talks, regulatory scrutiny, and investor confidence as Uber continues to defend its safety record.Uber faces sexual assault trial in Arizona that puts its safety record under scrutiny | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in two high-profile cases challenging state laws in Idaho and West Virginia that bar transgender students from participating in female sports teams. While the court previously upheld a ban on gender-affirming care for minors in Tennessee, that ruling was seen as narrow. The decision to now consider sports-related bans has heightened concerns among transgender rights advocates about broader implications for legal protections.At the heart of these cases is whether such bans violate the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause or Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in education. Legal scholars warn that the court's ruling could shape future policies affecting transgender people beyond athletics—such as bathroom access, military service, and healthcare. The Supreme Court's conservative majority has previously supported limits on transgender rights, including allowing restrictions on gender markers for passports and banning transgender people from military service.Idaho's law is being challenged by Lindsay Hecox, a transgender college student who has since stopped playing sports, while West Virginia's ban is being challenged by 15-year-old Becky Pepper-Jackson, who has been allowed to compete under lower court rulings. The states argue the laws protect fairness in women's sports by preventing perceived competitive advantages. Lower courts have reached opposing conclusions on the legality of the bans, setting the stage for the Supreme Court to clarify whether restrictions based on biological sex or transgender status require heightened scrutiny.The Court may also have to decide whether its 2020 decision protecting transgender workers under Title VII extends to school settings under Title IX. Legal observers say this case could reshape how courts approach not just transgender rights but broader equal protection claims.US Supreme Court's next transgender rights battle could affect more than sports | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear Citigroup's appeal in a lawsuit accusing the bank of enabling a major fraud at Mexican oil services company Oceanografía, effectively allowing the case to proceed. More than 30 plaintiffs—including bondholders, shipping firms, and Rabobank—allege that Citigroup's Banamex unit knowingly financed Oceanografía to the tune of $3.3 billion between 2008 and 2014, despite the company's mounting debt and fraudulent practices, including forged Pemex signatures.Oceanografía, which serviced Mexico's state-owned oil giant Pemex, collapsed in 2014 and was later declared bankrupt. Citigroup uncovered $430 million in fraudulent advances and was fined $4.75 million by the SEC in 2018 for inadequate internal controls. Plaintiffs argue Citigroup hid critical information while profiting from interest on the advances.At the center of the legal battle is whether bondholders can sue Citigroup under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which allows for triple damages. Citigroup contended their claims were standard securities fraud allegations not suited for RICO and pointed to conflicting rulings in other federal appeals courts. However, the 11th Circuit found the plaintiffs' claims plausible, noting it defied belief that a sophisticated bank like Citigroup was unaware of the fraud. By refusing to hear the appeal, the Supreme Court leaves that ruling intact and allows the lawsuit to move forward.US Supreme Court rebuffs Citigroup appeal in lawsuit over Mexican oil company fraud | ReutersThis week, my column for Bloomberg looks at an obscure but telling tax provision: the so-called NASCAR tax break.Dozens of tax provisions expired at the end of 2025, and Congress will soon debate whether to revive them. Among these is the motorsports entertainment complex depreciation break, which allows racetrack owners to write off their facilities over just seven years—a timeline far shorter than that allowed for buildings like housing or wastewater plants. Initially enacted in 2004 as part of the American Jobs Creation Act, the break was a reaction to a Treasury reclassification effort that would have extended depreciation timelines for motorsports. Rather than accepting the change, Congress locked in the favorable treatment to preserve the status quo.Since then, the provision has been extended repeatedly, despite no clear policy rationale or economic justification. Unlike other tax incentives that at least attempt to stimulate broader economic development, the NASCAR break benefits a narrow group of wealthy owners in a lucrative, sponsor-heavy industry. The economic spillover is minimal, and unlike subsidies for sports stadiums—which are themselves of dubious value—this break doesn't even offer the illusion of local benefit.Its survival has more to do with inertia and lobbying than public interest. Letting it remain expired would save money and demonstrate that the tax code isn't permanently rigged in favor of politically connected sectors. More broadly, the column argues for a disciplined framework to evaluate all expiring provisions based on economic efficiency, equity, administrability, and demonstrated value. 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

Episode 96 On December 31, 1986, just hours before Puerto Rico would ring in the New Year, flames tore through the luxurious Dupont Plaza Hotel and Casino in San Juan. What began as a labor dispute escalated into one of the deadliest hotel fires in U.S. history, killing 97 people and injuring more than 140. In the aftermath, investigators would uncover arson, negligence, ignored safety recommendations, a chaotic evacuation, and a legal battle that reshaped fire codes across the hospitality industry. In this episode, we examine: The labor tensions and strike that set the stage for disaster The timeline of the fire and how it spread so rapidly How smoke and toxic gases became the primary killers Failures in life safety systems, egress, and emergency planning The investigation that quickly identified arson Criminal charges against arsonists Massive civil litigation and code reforms that followed Lessons learned in the context of other hotel/casino fires of the era The Crime to Burn Patreon - The Cult of Steve - is LIVE NOW! Go join and get all the unhinged you can handle. Click here to be sanctified.  Inner Sanctum Acknowledgments: Eternal gratitude to our Inner Sanctum patrons, Melanie Curtis, Jenny Mercer and Laura Pisciotta, for helping us bring light to the stories others would rather leave in the ashes. Listener discretion is advised. Background music by Not Notoriously Coordinated  Get your Crime to Burn Merch! https://crimetoburn.myspreadshop.com Please follow us on Instagram, X, Facebook, TikTok and Youtube for the latest news on this case. You can email us at crimetoburn@gmail.com We welcome any constructive feedback and would greatly appreciate a 5 star rating and review.  If you need a way to keep your canine contained, you can also support the show by purchasing a Pawious wireless dog fence using our affiliate link and use the code "crimetoburn" at checkout to receive 10% off. Pawious, because our dog Winston needed a radius, not a rap sheet.  Sources:  Video & Documentary Sources Dupont Plaza Hotel Arson Investigation. Señor Onion's Archives. YouTube, April 13, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JyUjUoX_so Dupont Plaza Hotel Arson of 1986. Señor Onion's Archives. YouTube, October 21, 2024. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJsFLgxuDJ8 Government / Technical / Legal Reports Nelson, Harold E. “An Engineering Analysis of the Early Stages of Fire Development — The Fire at the Dupont Plaza Hotel and Casino — December 31, 1986.” NBSIR 87-3560, National Bureau of Standards, Center for Fire Research, U.S. Department of Commerce, April 1987. Levy, Harold M. “The Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litigation: A Case Study in Cooperative Defense.” Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation, Vol. 7, No. 12, December 1989, pp. 215–233. José Francisco Rivera-Lopez, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant, Appellee. U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, 4 F.3d 982, September 15, 1993. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/4/982/525384/ (Note: First Circuit Local Rule 36.2(b)6 — Unpublished opinions may be cited only in related cases.) News & Contemporary Coverage (1987) “Teamsters Dispute with Dupont Plaza Dates Back Four Months.” UPI Archives, January 13, 1987. https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/01/13/Teamsters-dispute-with-Dupont-Plaza-dates-back-four-months/7070215305413/ Brossy, Julie. “A Dupont Plaza Bar Boy Was Charged Today With…” UPI Archives, January 14, 1987. https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/01/14/A-Dupont-Plaza-bar-boy-was-charged-today-with/8362537598800/ Hernandez, Moises. “Suspect in Hotel Fire Was Honored for Saving ‘Many Lives.'” UPI Archives, January 14, 1987. https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/01/14/Suspect-in-hotel-fire-was-honored-for-saving-many-lives/2708537598800/ Gaulin, Edward J. “Defendants Plead Guilty in Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire.” UPI Archives, April 24, 1987. https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/04/24/Defendants-plead-guilty-in-Dupont-Plaza-Hotel-fire/8801546235200/ Wilentz, Amy. “A New Year We'll Never Forget.” TIME, January 12, 1987. https://time.com/archive/6708028/a-new-year-well-never-forget/ Features, Retrospectives & Later Reporting Tepfer, Daniel. “A Vacation in Paradise Turns into Fiery Hell.” CTPost, Updated December 30, 2011. https://www.ctpost.com/news/article/a-vacation-in-paradise-turns-into-fiery-hell-2432149.php Reference / Encyclopedia & Summary Sources Dewey, Joseph. “Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire.” EBSCO Knowledge Advantage Research Starters, 2022. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/dupont-plaza-hotel-fire “Dupont Plaza Hotel Arson.” Grokipedia. https://grokipedia.com/page/Dupont_Plaza_Hotel_arson

Activities at Native organizations and a tribal college in Minneapolis, Minn., were canceled after a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent fatally shot a woman Wednesday morning in the city. The Minneapolis American Indian Center canceled its Wednesday night programs due to community safety concerns and ICE activity in the neighborhood. The Red Lake Nation College, the Red Lake Nation Embassy, and the tribe's wellness center in Minneapolis closed Wednesday, and are expected to be closed for the rest of the week due to due the incident. MIGIZI, which supports Native youth in the Twin Cities, also canceled its programming. Tribes are expressing concerns about the incident and the safety of Native community members living in the Twin Cities. The Red Lake Tribal Council is urging its citizens to be careful, and to avoid ICE and other federal agents. The council released a two-page written message Wednesday, outlining concerns, which includes asking tribal members to report any interactions with ICE to the tribe's council or embassy. The Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa also raised concerns in a written message to its community about the safety of tribal members living in the Twin Cities. Robert Pilot is the host of Native Roots Radio based in the Twin Cities. He says the Native community is feeling the impacts of the shooting. “The reaction I’ve seen with the Native community is been just a gasp of what’s happened. 75,000 Native Americans live in Minneapolis (Twin Cities area). In that area of the shooting, there’s a very high percentage of Native Americans that live in that community, and they feel their community is being attacked by the federal government.” Pilot says members of the Native community are standing with their allies and took part in demonstrations against ICE on Wednesday in the area of the shooting. “There was a woman Native singer group that sang and it’s all about the healing. And I think the community, especially that community really knows that the Native community is really involved and really vetted into everything that happens there, happens to them. It was only a very short blocks away from the murder of George Floyd and that community is so scarred, but we have a resilience and our Native community is there and was there and is there and will still be there … we also are a big part of the community. And we want people to be safe, but we also want to be heard and be out there and support our community too, because this is our community too and all of Turtle Island is our community.” The woman killed was identified as 37-year-old Renee Good. The Trump administration is justifying the shooting, while the city's mayor disputes that and is demanding ICE leave Minneapolis. The Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse in Phoenix, Ariz. (Photo: Gabriel Pietrorazio / KJZZ) A three-judge panel in Phoenix, Ariz., heard arguments on Wednesday over continuing a court-ordered injunction blocking a controversial land exchange. As KJZZ's Gabriel Pietrorazio reports, the land swap would result in a copper mining operation that is estimated to create a two-mile-wide crater, devouring an Apache holy site. It's been 140 days since the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals delayed a land swap first approved by Congress more than a decade ago. According to the 2015 law, 2,400 acres of Tonto National Forest must be turned over to Resolution Copper within 60 days of a final environmental impact statement being published, which happened in June. Plaintiffs in three different cases include the Arizona Mining Reform Coalition, San Carlos Apache Tribe, and a group of Apache women and girls. Defendants asked for the injunction to be lifted, which could lead to an immediate public land transfer. The judges did not say when their decision will be made. Get National Native News delivered to your inbox daily. Sign up for our daily newsletter today. Download our NV1 Android or iOs App for breaking news alerts. Check out the latest episode of Native America Calling Thursday, January 8, 2026 — New post office rule is among potential hurdles for Native voters

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-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Plaintiffs have filed suit in Chicago claiming that the McRib sandwich from McDonald's contains no actual pork rib meat - which they claim McDonald's misled them into believing. https://www.lehtoslaw.com

This Day in Legal History: Nixon's PlumbersOn January 7, 1972, President Richard Nixon announced the formation of a special unit within the White House to investigate and prevent leaks of classified information, which would eventually evolve into the so-called “Plumbers” unit. This decision followed the publication of the Pentagon Papers by Daniel Ellsberg in 1971, which deeply embarrassed the Nixon administration. Although the formal establishment of the Plumbers occurred in July 1971, Nixon's January 7 remarks to his aides marked a turning point in the administration's shift toward covert activity to manage political threats.The Plumbers were tasked with stopping or punishing perceived enemies of the administration. This group would go on to commit the break-in at the office of Ellsberg's psychiatrist, and many of its members were later involved in the June 1972 burglary of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex—an event that ultimately unraveled Nixon's presidency. The actions undertaken by the Plumbers and their associates triggered investigations into abuse of executive power, illegal surveillance, and obstruction of justice.This date is significant in legal history because it underscores the dangers of unchecked executive authority and the use of government resources for political ends. The legal fallout from these events led to reforms in campaign finance, surveillance, and oversight of executive conduct, including the passage of the Ethics in Government Act and the strengthening of the Freedom of Information Act.Nicolás Maduro's arraignment in a U.S. federal court marks a rare and complex legal confrontation over the prosecution of a sitting foreign leader. Charged with narco-terrorism and drug trafficking, Maduro pleaded not guilty and asserted he remains Venezuela's legitimate president. His defense hinges on two main arguments: a claim of head-of-state immunity under international law and an allegation that he was unlawfully abducted by the U.S. military. The U.S. government counters that Maduro lost legitimacy after a disputed 2018 election and is not entitled to immunity.Legal scholars suggest that immunity claims in criminal cases are uncommon but not unprecedented. Former Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega attempted a similar defense, which failed, though he never held the official title of president. U.S. courts have dismissed civil suits against sitting leaders based on State Department recognition, but criminal immunity has a narrower scope. The court will also examine whether Maduro's alleged actions were part of his official duties—a critical factor in determining immunity.Even if immunity is denied, prosecutors may still face challenges proving Maduro's direct involvement in the conspiracy. Analysts note the indictment lacks strong ties between Maduro and specific terrorist or trafficking acts, though the Justice Department may be withholding key evidence. The defense is expected to argue aggressively that Maduro's arrest violated international law, echoing arguments rejected in the Noriega case.Maduro's immunity claim tests US power to prosecute foreign leaders | ReutersNick Reiner, the 32-year-old son of slain filmmaker Rob Reiner, is scheduled to enter a plea this Wednesday to two counts of first-degree murder in the fatal stabbings of his parents. His initial court appearance in December was postponed at his defense attorney's request, citing complex legal issues. Rob Reiner, 78, and Michele Reiner, 70, were found dead in their Los Angeles home on December 14, both having suffered multiple stab wounds. The killings, which occurred just hours before a planned event with the Obamas, shocked both Hollywood and political communities where Rob Reiner had long been influential.Prosecutors have not yet announced whether they will seek the death penalty, though capital punishment is currently under a moratorium in California. The case has drawn intense public scrutiny, especially after reports that Nick argued with his parents at a holiday party the night before their deaths. He was later found and arrested near a downtown park.Nick Reiner, who lived in a guest house on the property, has a well-documented history of drug addiction and homelessness. His struggles formed the basis of the 2015 film Being Charlie, which he co-wrote with his father. Rob Reiner, known for his role as “Meathead” in All in the Family and for directing beloved films like The Princess Bride and A Few Good Men, was a towering figure in both entertainment and Democratic politics. Michele Reiner was a producer and former photographer known for her 1980s portrait of Donald Trump. The motive behind the killings remains unclear.Son of slain Hollywood filmmaker Rob Reiner due back in court | ReutersA panel of judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals appeared doubtful of Meta Platforms' effort to dismiss over 2,200 lawsuits alleging that its platforms—along with those of Snapchat, YouTube, and TikTok—were intentionally designed to be addictive to young users. At the heart of the appeal is whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields these companies from liability for harm allegedly caused by their platform designs, not just user content.The judges questioned whether it was premature to consider the companies' immunity claims at this stage, given that the underlying cases are still in early litigation. They noted that most appeals occur only after a final judgment has been issued. Meta's attorney argued that defending such massive litigation now, without immunity protection, would be an undue burden. However, the panel suggested the district judge—Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers—had left the door open to revisiting Section 230 defenses later in the process.The lawsuits, brought by states, municipalities, school districts, and individuals, claim the platforms contributed to rising youth mental health issues like depression and body image disorders. The plaintiffs argue these are not content-related claims but rather focus on harmful platform features that fall outside Section 230 protections.Judge Jacqueline Nguyen pointed out that the language of Section 230 doesn't clearly grant the sweeping immunity Meta is claiming. Other judges on the panel, appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents, also showed skepticism toward the broad interpretation of immunity being asserted by the companies.US appeals court appears skeptical of Meta, social media companies' bid to cut off addiction lawsuits | ReutersSeveral major class action lawsuits with billions of dollars at stake are set for key appellate decisions in 2026, targeting high-profile companies across tech, entertainment, sports, and real estate. In one case, Live Nation is appealing a ruling that certified a nationwide class action accusing it of inflating ticket prices over 15 years for events at major venues, involving over 400 million ticket sales.Apple is also facing renewed scrutiny as consumers seek to reinstate a class action alleging its App Store rules created a monopoly, leading to $20 billion in overcharges. A lower court had decertified the class of nearly 200 million customers, but the 9th Circuit has agreed to review that decision.Meanwhile, the NCAA is defending a historic $2.8 billion settlement compensating college athletes for past use of their name, image, and likeness. Although the deal received widespread support, appeals have temporarily delayed payments to affected athletes.The NFL is facing a critical appeal after a $4.7 billion jury verdict over its “Sunday Ticket” broadcast package was thrown out last year. Consumers and businesses want that verdict reinstated, arguing the NFL monopolized out-of-market game access.In the hotel sector, the 3rd Circuit will decide whether to revive claims that Atlantic City resorts, including Caesars and MGM, colluded on room prices using algorithmic pricing software—similar to claims already dismissed in a Las Vegas case now potentially heading to the U.S. Supreme Court.Finally, the 8th Circuit will examine objections to settlements totaling over $668 million in a class action accusing real estate firms, including Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway-owned HomeServices, of fixing commission rates nationwide. Plaintiffs say the deals are fair; critics argue they don't go far enough.Billions in balance for US companies fighting class action appeals in 2026 | 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

There's never a good time for a law firm to see one of its most prominent partners leave and take several attorneys with him. But this is especially bad timing for Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. The firm specializes in representing shareholders suing companies in Delaware, the incorporation capital of the world. But ever since Elon Musk reincorporated Tesla outside the state in response to a lawsuit over his pay package—a lawsuit Bernstein Litowitz led—the state has changed its laws to make it harder for shareholder plaintiffs to succeed. In this episode of our podcast, On The Merits, Bloomberg Law reporters Jennifer Kay and Tatyana Monnay talk about the unusual bitterness Bernstein Litowitz expressed to its departing colleague after he exited the firm. They also talk about why, after the seismic corporate law changes of 2025, it may no longer be as lucrative as it once was to represent shareholders in Delaware. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

This Day in Legal History: Fundamental Laws of 1906On December 30, 1905, Tsar Nicholas II signed the “Fundamental Laws of 1906,” marking a pivotal moment in the Russian Empire's struggle between autocracy and constitutionalism. This act came in response to the Revolution of 1905, a period of mass unrest fueled by political repression, economic hardship, and a humiliating defeat in the Russo-Japanese War. The October Manifesto, issued two months earlier, had promised the establishment of a legislative Duma and the expansion of civil liberties. However, the Fundamental Laws, signed in December, revealed the Tsar's intention to retain ultimate authority despite these concessions.The document laid out a framework for governance, establishing a bicameral legislature with the Duma as its lower house, but Article 4 made clear that “the All-Russian Emperor possesses the supreme autocratic power.” This meant that, legally, any legislative progress remained subordinate to the Tsar's will. The laws also granted the Tsar control over the military, foreign policy, and the ability to dissolve the Duma at his discretion.While the Fundamental Laws introduced formal legal structures and acknowledged the existence of limited civil rights, they were largely symbolic gestures rather than meaningful reforms. Instead of curbing autocratic rule, the laws codified it, cloaking absolute monarchy in the appearance of legality. This duality deepened public dissatisfaction and political fragmentation.Rather than stabilizing the empire, the signing of the Fundamental Laws sowed further distrust in the regime and highlighted the Tsar's unwillingness to relinquish power. These contradictions contributed to the failure of the Duma system and fueled revolutionary momentum that would ultimately culminate in the revolutions of 1917.The Trump administration reached an agreement to review certain NIH grant applications that had been stalled or rejected amid a broader legal challenge over cuts to diversity-related research funding. The agreement followed a federal court ruling in Boston that found the NIH acted unlawfully when it canceled grants based on their perceived ties to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Though the Supreme Court later paused part of that ruling and shifted some aspects of the litigation to a court specializing in monetary claims, the review process for future NIH funding remained in legal limbo.Under the new agreement, the NIH will re-evaluate previously frozen or withdrawn grant applications, though it is not required to fund any specific proposals. Plaintiffs in the case, including researchers and several Democratic-led states, argued that the impacted studies—focusing on topics like HIV prevention, LGBTQ health, Alzheimer's, and sexual violence—serve vital public health needs.One of the plaintiffs, University of New Mexico postdoctoral researcher Nikki Maphis, said the agreement allows important scientific work to resume after what she described as an “arbitrary and destructive freeze.” The underlying NIH policy change, which cut funding for projects deemed to reflect ideological rather than scientific priorities, remains contested. A prior ruling blocking the policy is still under appeal by the Department of Health and Human Services.Trump administration agrees to review stalled NIH research grants after lawsuit | ReutersThe Trump administration's aggressive defunding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has pushed the agency to the brink of collapse, jeopardizing one of the few federal institutions explicitly designed to protect everyday Americans from financial harm. Created in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, the CFPB has long served as a crucial recourse for people facing predatory lending, credit reporting errors, identity theft, and financial discrimination. The agency has helped return more than $21 billion to consumers since its founding. And yet, under President Trump's second term, it's being systematically dismantled—through funding cuts, legal challenges, and staffing reductions—with the administration openly declaring its intent to shut the agency down.In the absence of the CFPB, those wronged by financial institutions—like Bianca Jones, who battled a credit reporting error that nearly cost her a home, or Morgan Smith, who turned to the agency after being targeted by identity theft—may find themselves with nowhere to turn. The administration claims the CFPB promotes a political agenda, but the result is fewer protections for those already vulnerable. Rules around medical debt, overdraft fees, credit card terms, and mortgage lending have been gutted. Investigations have been shelved. Enforcement is evaporating.Critics argue that other regulators can fill the gap, but the CFPB was created because no one else was doing the job. Without it, financial institutions are more likely to abuse their power with impunity.You should ask yourself: who benefits when a consumer watchdog is taken offline? Because it certainly isn't the teachers, the single parents, the sick, or the struggling borrowers trying to make sense of a system stacked against them. It's the companies who'd rather not answer for what they do in the dark.Trump's funding cuts put America's consumer watchdog on the brink of collapse | ReutersA federal appeals court ruled that it cannot hear Amazon's constitutional challenge to the structure of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), deepening a circuit split on the issue and increasing the likelihood of U.S. Supreme Court review. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Amazon's case stemmed from a labor dispute and was therefore barred by the Norris-LaGuardia Act, which prohibits courts from intervening in active labor disputes. Amazon had filed the lawsuit to halt an NLRB case claiming it was a joint employer of unionized drivers working for a subcontractor and therefore obligated to bargain with their union.Amazon's broader claim—that the NLRB's structure is unconstitutional because its board members and judges are protected from at-will removal—has gained traction elsewhere. The 5th Circuit, in a recent case involving Elon Musk's SpaceX, ruled that such protections are unlawful and allowed a similar challenge to proceed. But the 9th Circuit firmly disagreed, emphasizing that courts should not interfere with labor board proceedings, regardless of the constitutional claims involved.This ruling aligns with a 3rd Circuit decision and stands in direct conflict with the 5th Circuit, setting the stage for a high-stakes resolution by the Supreme Court. Importantly, the 9th Circuit's ruling doesn't completely shut the door on such challenges—employers can still raise constitutional objections in NLRB proceedings and appeal after the fact. But for now, Amazon and other companies must make their case through the channels Congress established for resolving labor disputes.US court says it can't hear Amazon's NLRB challenge, deepening circuit split | ReutersA Utah judge has granted the release of most of the transcript and audio from a closed hearing in the high-profile case involving the fatal shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. The hearing, held in October, addressed courtroom safety measures for the accused, Tyler Robinson, who is charged with aggravated murder and other serious offenses. Prosecutors allege Robinson fired a single fatal shot from a rooftop during a university event where Kirk was speaking, and they intend to seek the death penalty.Judge Tony Graf ruled that only about one page of the 80-page transcript would remain redacted, primarily for safety and security reasons. He also clarified that media organizations do not need special legal status to cover the proceedings, rejecting a request that would have guaranteed them advance notice of any future attempts to close hearings.Graf has already decided that Robinson can appear in civilian clothing but must remain physically restrained in court. However, media outlets are prohibited from photographing or filming his restraints, as defense attorneys argued such images could bias potential jurors. A hearing set for February will address whether cameras will be allowed in the courtroom at all.Kirk's death, which occurred during a campus debate, triggered widespread condemnation of political violence from across the ideological spectrum.Judge grants release of redacted transcript of Charlie Kirk case hearing | ReutersAs 2025 winds down, my Bloomberg column this week is a year-end piece reflecting not just on what was written, but on which ideas still resonate because the problems they address remain unresolved. The lasting relevance of several pieces underscores how little has shifted in tax and policy debates. A July column urging states to break free from federal tax volatility feels even more urgent now, as states still cling to unstable baselines. Early in the year, hopes that efficiency rhetoric (read: DOGE) might close the tax gap faded, with political discomfort around auditing the wealthy preventing any meaningful change. April's look at the step-up in basis revealed how death, not borrowing, remains the biggest capital gains loophole—and one Congress left untouched in the 2025 tax law. A May column on IRS immigration enforcement gains new resonance as the crackdown deepens, pushing some immigrant workers further from voluntary compliance. And October's piece on Pung v. Isabella County remains live, with the Supreme Court set to decide whether fairness in tax foreclosures means market value or simply what the government collects.Each of these columns anticipated weather patterns we're now standing in—proof less of foresight and more of inertia. If 2026 brings more engagement, even without clear solutions, there's hope that next year's retrospective won't feel like a reprint with new dates.Read the 5 Most Relevant Technically Speaking Columns of 2025 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: Federal Reserve ActOn December 23, 1913, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law, creating the Federal Reserve System, the central banking system of the United States. The law was the culmination of decades of debate over banking reform, intensified by the financial panic of 1907. The Act aimed to provide the country with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system. It established twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks overseen by a central Board in Washington, D.C., striking a balance between public oversight and private banking interests.The Federal Reserve was given key powers, including the ability to issue Federal Reserve Notes (now the dominant form of U.S. currency), regulate banks, and serve as a lender of last resort during financial crises. This marked a significant shift from the fragmented and largely unregulated banking environment of the 19th century.Critics feared it concentrated too much financial power in the hands of a few, while supporters believed it brought necessary structure and national oversight. Over the decades, the Fed's role expanded, especially during the Great Depression, World War II, and more recently the 2008 financial crisis and COVID-19 pandemic. The creation of the Fed also represented a broader legal evolution in how the federal government engaged with economic policy.A coalition of 21 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia has filed a lawsuit in federal court in Oregon to prevent the Trump administration from defunding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The states argue that the administration's decision to stop requesting funds from the Federal Reserve is unlawful and undermines Congress's constitutional authority. Since returning to office in January, President Trump has taken steps to dismantle the CFPB, including appointing his budget director, Russell Vought, as acting head and halting most agency operations.The CFPB was created in 2011 to safeguard consumers in the financial sector and has recovered over $21 billion for Americans. It is uniquely funded directly by the Federal Reserve rather than through Congressional appropriations. The administration claims the Dodd-Frank Act requires the CFPB's funding to come from the Fed's combined earnings, which they argue are unavailable due to the Fed operating at a loss since 2022.The lawsuit highlights that the CFPB is legally required to process consumer complaints from states, and without funding, it cannot fulfill this duty. Plaintiffs also contend that the administration's move violates the separation of powers by interfering with a congressionally established funding mechanism. Additional lawsuits from a federal employee union and nonprofits are pending in other courts, also seeking to compel the agency to resume funding requests.Democratic-led states sue to block US consumer watchdog's defunding under Trump | ReutersA new push by the Trump administration to challenge corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) faces steep legal hurdles. Under EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas, the agency is shifting toward what she calls a more “conservative view of civil rights,” focusing on potential discrimination against white men. Lucas has announced plans to investigate corporate DEI policies and pursue enforcement where race- or sex-based decisions are suspected.However, legal experts emphasize that proving such claims is difficult. Discrimination cases require clear evidence that someone was denied a job or benefit specifically because of their race or sex, not just because they were part of a changing applicant pool. Critics argue that the administration's narrative misunderstands the legal and practical realities of workplace diversity, which is often designed to prevent discrimination, not perpetuate it.Despite aggressive executive orders targeting DEI, many companies are maintaining or quietly adjusting their programs to remain compliant. Legal audits and program rebranding are common, especially in industries like automotive. DEI advocates point out that the business case for inclusion remains strong, as companies see diverse teams as essential to long-term success.Ultimately, while the administration's rhetoric may galvanize parts of its base, experts say turning that rhetoric into enforceable legal action will be difficult under existing anti-discrimination laws.Trump's anti-corporate DEI campaign faces high legal hurdles | ReutersMercedes-Benz has agreed to pay $120 million to settle environmental and consumer protection claims brought by multiple U.S. states over its use of emissions-cheating software in certain diesel vehicles. The settlement resolves the remaining U.S. legal actions tied to the broader Dieselgate scandal, which has affected several automakers. The claims focused on Mercedes' BlueTEC diesel models, which were previously marketed as especially clean and advanced.As part of the agreement, Mercedes will continue retrofitting affected vehicles with approved emissions software. These additional updates are expected to cost the company tens of millions more. However, the company stated that its financial results won't be impacted, as it had already set aside sufficient funds to cover the settlement and associated costs.Mercedes reaches $120 million settlement with US states over emissions scandal | ReutersIn my column for Bloomberg this week, I argue that the IRS has a rare opportunity to repair its deeply flawed Voluntary Disclosure Program (VDP), which has become so punitive and complex that it actively discourages taxpayers from coming forward. While the program is supposed to help bring people back into compliance, its current structure demands that taxpayers essentially confess to wrongdoing—sometimes criminal—in a sworn statement, without any assurance the IRS will even consider their disclosure.Recent proposed reforms introduce a more structured penalty system and eliminate the notorious “willfulness checkbox” from Form 14457, a small but significant change that previously forced taxpayers to admit to criminal conduct just to apply. Still, the process remains risky. The IRS continues to require extensive narratives of past noncompliance, and for taxpayers with crypto assets, the demands are even greater: wallet addresses, transaction hashes, and mixer use must all be disclosed upfront. That level of technical and legal exposure could deter even well-meaning taxpayers.I argue the IRS must go further. It should offer flexible payment options—like installment agreements or offers in compromise—and abandon its rigid “pay-in-full” approach. It should also adopt a tiered penalty framework that accounts for intent, scale, and the evolving complexity of assets like cryptocurrency. Finally, the IRS needs to delay the most invasive digital asset reporting until after a taxpayer has been preliminarily accepted into the program, rather than forcing exhaustive disclosures at the outset.Without deeper changes, the VDP risks continuing as a trapdoor rather than a lifeline—one that punishes honesty and rewards silence. The current moment of public review is the best chance to realign the program with its original purpose: restoring compliance, not burying it.The IRS Has a Chance to Fix Its Voluntary Disclosure Program 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: Bernhard GoetzOn this day in legal history, December 22, 1984, Bernhard Goetz shot and wounded four young Black men—Troy Canty, Barry Allen, Darrell Cabey, and James Ramseur—on a New York City subway train. Goetz, who was white, claimed the men had attempted to rob him and that he acted in self-defense. The case quickly became a national sensation, exposing deep racial fault lines in public discourse and in the justice system. Supporters hailed Goetz as a vigilante hero responding to unchecked urban crime, while critics denounced his actions as racially motivated violence that reinforced systemic bias.Goetz fled the scene but turned himself in nine days later. During the investigation, he told police that he had intended to kill the men and expressed explicitly racist sentiments, calling them “savages.” Despite this, a grand jury initially refused to indict him for attempted murder, charging him only with criminal possession of a weapon. After public outcry, a second grand jury indicted him on multiple counts, including attempted murder and assault. In his 1987 trial, however, Goetz was acquitted of all charges except for illegal firearms possession.The verdict underscored how race and fear influenced perceptions of self-defense and victimhood. The jury accepted Goetz's narrative of fear despite his own admission of intent and inflammatory language. The case highlighted the elasticity of self-defense laws, especially when invoked by white defendants against Black victims. It also foreshadowed later debates in high-profile cases where racial bias intersected with claims of justified force. Goetz ultimately served just over eight months in jail. Darrell Cabey, left paralyzed by the shooting, later won a $43 million civil judgment against him—a sum Goetz claimed he could never pay. The case remains a stark example of how legal standards of justification can mask broader social inequities.President Trump is preparing to expand immigration enforcement in 2026 with a significant boost in funding and more aggressive tactics, including a renewed focus on workplace raids. Despite growing political backlash, Trump plans to hire thousands of new agents, expand detention centers, and partner with private companies to track undocumented immigrants. His administration has already deployed federal agents to major cities, sparking protests over the use of tear gas, extrajudicial tactics, and the detention of U.S. citizens.ICE and Border Patrol are set to receive $170 billion through 2029, a massive increase over their current annual budgets. Miami recently elected its first Democratic mayor in decades, with voters citing Trump's immigration policies as a motivating factor. While Trump continues to frame his crackdown as targeting criminals, government data shows a large portion of recent ICE arrests have involved individuals with no criminal record beyond immigration violations.Trump has also moved to strip temporary protections from hundreds of thousands of immigrants and aims to deport one million people annually, although he's likely to fall short of that target. Legal immigrants haven't been spared either—some have been detained during green card interviews or had their naturalization ceremonies interrupted. The administration's new workplace-focused approach could strain the economy, especially in industries reliant on immigrant labor, raising concerns about inflation and employer backlash.Critics argue the crackdown undermines due process and civil liberties, militarizes communities, and disproportionately targets people of color. As enforcement expands, business groups may be forced to respond more vocally, especially if employer raids disrupt operations. Trump's overall approval on immigration has dropped sharply since March, suggesting growing public discomfort with the scope and style of enforcement.Trump set to expand immigration crackdown in 2026 despite brewing backlash | ReutersA federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from implementing new restrictions on over $3 billion in federal grants that support housing and services for homeless individuals. U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy issued a preliminary injunction after finding that the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) planned changes to the Continuum of Care program likely violated the McKinney-Vento Act, which mandates a focus on stable, permanent housing for vulnerable populations.The lawsuit was brought by 20 mostly Democratic-led states, Washington, D.C., and a coalition of nonprofits and local governments. Plaintiffs argued that HUD's proposed changes would endanger the housing of around 170,000 people, including families, veterans, and survivors of domestic violence—particularly concerning as winter sets in. McElroy, a Trump appointee, emphasized the public interest in upholding lawful agency action and maintaining stability for at-risk groups.The Trump administration had sought to move away from the long-standing “housing-first” model, which provides housing without preconditions like sobriety or employment, and instead proposed work requirements and transitional housing. HUD also attempted to ban funding for services related to diversity, gender identity, and abortion, while aligning programs with its immigration enforcement efforts.Critics viewed the move as a politically motivated attempt to reshape federal homelessness policy, while the judge noted HUD's last-minute changes to its own policy appeared strategic and disruptive to legal proceedings. Despite the ruling, HUD stated it remains committed to reforming the program “in accordance with the law.”US judge blocks Trump administration from altering homelessness funding conditions | ReutersDavid O'Keefe, a retired Manhattan prosecutor, has filed a federal lawsuit against New York City and Brookfield Properties, claiming he was unlawfully arrested while protesting outside the Manhattan offices of the law firm Skadden Arps. The protest took place in April 2025 in a privately owned public space (POPS), where O'Keefe staged a solo demonstration criticizing Skadden's agreement to provide $100 million in pro bono legal services for initiatives backed by President Donald Trump. He alleged the firm's involvement threatened the rule of law.According to the complaint, O'Keefe was arrested for trespassing after refusing to leave the plaza, detained for 90 minutes, and later had the charge dismissed. His lawsuit seeks not only damages but also a court ruling affirming that First Amendment rights apply in POPS—publicly accessible spaces maintained by private owners in exchange for zoning benefits. His legal team argues the arrest violated his constitutional rights and aims to clarify protections for protest in such hybrid public-private areas.Skadden is not named as a defendant and has not commented. The firm was one of several major law firms that agreed to work with the Trump administration following the president's efforts to pressure the legal industry over prior political affiliations and diversity practices. A photo included in the suit shows O'Keefe holding a sign labeling Skadden “Trump's $100 million lap dog.”Ex-prosecutor sues over arrest while protesting law firm Skadden's deal with Trump | 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: Project Blue Book EndsOn this day in legal history, December 17, 1969, the U.S. Air Force officially terminated Project Blue Book, its two-decade-long investigation into unidentified flying objects (UFOs). Launched in 1952 during a peak in UFO sightings and Cold War anxiety, Project Blue Book reviewed over 12,000 reports of aerial phenomena. The Air Force concluded that most sightings could be explained by natural phenomena, aircraft, or hoaxes, and found no evidence of extraterrestrial activity or threats to national security. With its closure, the government effectively stepped back from public-facing UFO investigations, although some believe military interest continued behind closed doors.Legally, the end of Project Blue Book catalyzed decades of litigation and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, as citizens, journalists, and researchers sought access to government-held UFO data. The skeptical legal view has often emphasized that classified information typically relates to military technology or surveillance programs, not alien spacecraft. Despite popular culture's fixation on extraterrestrials, courts have routinely deferred to executive branch claims of national security in resisting full transparency.While the project's conclusion did not trigger direct legislation, it helped shape a legal culture around government secrecy, classification standards, and the public's right to know. It also fueled persistent legal tension between conspiratorial narratives and evidentiary standards. As UFOs—now reframed as “unidentified anomalous phenomena” (UAPs)—have resurfaced in congressional hearings in recent years, Blue Book remains a touchstone for the limits of disclosure and the enduring gap between public curiosity and provable claims.Skepticism remains warranted: decades later, no clear evidence has emerged to support the claim of extraterrestrial contact—despite tens of thousands of pages released and re-litigated under FOIA.U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston expressed openness to again striking down a Trump policy that allows for the rapid deportation of migrants to third countries without meaningful notice or an opportunity to raise fears of persecution or torture. The case challenges Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policies that permit deportation to countries other than a migrant's country of origin, often with as little as six hours' notice. Judge Murphy had previously issued an injunction in April to halt such deportations, arguing they violated due process, but the Supreme Court paused that order in June via its “shadow docket” without providing detailed reasoning.Despite acknowledging the likely involvement of the Supreme Court again, Murphy indicated that he may still rule on the merits of the case, though any decision would likely be temporarily stayed. The lawsuit, a class action, targets a DHS memo from March and guidance from July that permits deportations based on “credible” diplomatic assurances. Plaintiffs argue these policies fall short of constitutional protections, while the Justice Department insists migrants already have opportunities to raise objections during proceedings. The judge criticized the lack of clarity from the Supreme Court's earlier intervention and emphasized the importance of due process in removal proceedings.US judge open to again striking down Trump policy on third-country deportations | ReutersA Trump-appointed federal appeals court judge has argued that constitutional rights do not extend to immigrants who entered the United States unlawfully, a position he laid out in a partial dissent in a Second Amendment case. Sixth Circuit Judge Amul Thapar agreed with upholding a federal ban on firearm possession by undocumented immigrants but rejected the majority's reasoning. Instead, he argued the case should have been resolved by declaring that only U.S. citizens are included in “the people” protected by the Constitution. Thapar relied heavily on the Constitution's preamble and an originalist reading of history, asserting that the Founders never intended constitutional protections to apply to non-citizens, especially those unlawfully present.The majority opinion rejected that framing, pointing to Supreme Court precedent recognizing that non-citizens who develop substantial connections to the country may invoke constitutional rights. Thapar went further, suggesting that even the First and Fourth Amendments were not originally meant to protect non-citizens. The case arose from a challenge by a Guatemalan national convicted of unlawfully possessing firearms, but Thapar's reasoning reached far beyond gun regulation. His dissent echoes arguments long advanced by the Trump administration and aligns with his status as a former Trump Supreme Court shortlist candidate.From my perspective, this is a racist, xenophobic, and profoundly ahistorical take that threatens to usher in a shameful new era of American jurisprudence. It reflects either a fundamental misunderstanding of constitutional law or a wanton, careerist obsequiousness to Trumpism, delivered with the unmistakable tone of someone auditioning for a Supreme Court seat while extolling the flavor of boot. Judge Thapar is an embarrassment to the bench.Judge Thapar's theory represents a fundamental shift away from the traditional understanding of constitutional rights as inherent and inalienable—that is, rights present in every individual that the government is bound to respect, not rights it doles out at its discretion. By asserting that non-citizens, especially those here unlawfully, are not part of “the people” and therefore not entitled to constitutional protections, Thapar effectively treats these rights as government-bestowed privileges rather than limits on state power–that should frighten citizens, as well.But if rights are inherent, as our legal tradition holds, and yet non-citizens don't possess them, the implication is clear: they are being denied not because of legal status, but because of a presumed inferiority. That's not a theory of constitutional law—it's a supremacist framework gussied up in originalist language.Trump-appointed judge argues US Constitution's rights do not extend to non-citizens | Reuters3-D animator Eric Ryder filed a copyright infringement lawsuit in California federal court against Disney and director James Cameron, alleging that the 2022 film Avatar: The Way of Water copied substantial elements from his science fiction story KRZ. Ryder claims he collaborated with Cameron's Lightstorm Entertainment in the late 1990s on developing a film based on KRZ, and that key features of Avatar 2—including anthropomorphic beings, a vast oceanic world, and an exploitative Earth corporation mining a moon called Europa—mirror those from his work.Ryder previously sued over the first Avatar film in 2011, but that case was dismissed when a California state court ruled Cameron had created Avatar before Ryder submitted his material. Ryder insists this new case is not an attempt to relitigate the past, but rather to address new alleged acts of copying specific to The Way of Water, such as the central plot point involving an animal-based substance that extends human life, which he says did not appear in the original Avatar.Ryder is seeking at least $500 million in damages and a court order to block the release of the upcoming Avatar 3: Fire and Ash. His lawyer described the alleged copying as “blatant and egregious.” Disney and Lightstorm have not yet commented publicly on the lawsuit.Disney, James Cameron sued for copyright infringement over ‘Avatar' | 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

A group of young Montanans are asking the state Supreme Court to overturn new laws that weaken the state's ability to regulate planet warming emissions, and exclude some fossil fuel projects from environmental review. This filing comes a year after they won a landmark ruling over Montana's constitutional right to a "clean and healthful environment."

I am Rolf Claessen and together with my co-host Ken Suzan I am welcoming you to episode 169 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Prof. Aloys Hüttermann, co-founder of my patent law firm Michalski Hüttermann & Partner and a true expert on the Unified Patent Court. He has written several books about the new system and we talk about all the things that plaintiffs and defendants can learn from the first decisions of the court and what they mean for strategic decisions of the parties involved. But before we jump into this very interesting interview, I have news for you! The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is planning rule changes that would make it virtually impossible for third parties to challenge invalid patents before the patent office. Criticism has come from the EFF and other inventor rights advocates: the new rules would play into the hands of so-called non-practicing entities (NPEs), as those attacked would have few cost-effective ways to have questionable patents deleted. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) reports a new record in international patent applications: in 2024, around 3.7 million patent applications were filed worldwide – an increase of 4.9% over the previous year. The main drivers were Asian countries (China alone accounted for 1.8 million), while demand for trademark protection has stabilized after the pandemic decline. US rapper Eminem is taking legal action in Australia against a company that sells swimwear under the name “Swim Shady.” He believes this infringes on his famous “Slim Shady” brand. The case illustrates that even humorous allusions to well-known brand names can lead to legal conflicts. A new ruling by the Unified Patent Court (UPC) demonstrates its cross-border impact. In “Fujifilm v. Kodak,” the local chamber in Mannheim issued an injunction that extends to the UK despite Brexit. The UPC confirmed its jurisdiction over the UK parts of a European patent, as the defendant Kodak is based in a UPC member state. A dispute over standard patents is looming at the EU level: the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) of the European Parliament voted to take the European Commission to the European Court of Justice. The reason for this is the Commission’s controversial withdrawal of a draft regulation on the licensing of standard-essential patents (SEPs). Parliament President Roberta Metsola is to decide by mid-November whether to file the lawsuit. In trademark law, USPTO Director Squires reported on October 31, 2025, that a new unit (“Trademark Registration Protection Office”) had removed approximately 61,000 invalid trademark applications from the registries. This cleanup of the backlog relieved the examining authority and accelerated the processing of legitimate applications. Now let's jump into the interview with Aloys Hüttermann: The Unified Patent Court Comes of Age – Insights from Prof. Aloys Hüttermann The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has moved from a long-discussed project to a living, breathing court system that already shapes patent enforcement in Europe. In a recent IP Fridays interview, Prof. Aloys Hüttermann – founder and equity partner at Michalski · Hüttermann & Partner and one of the earliest commentators on the UPC – shared his experiences from the first years of practice, as well as his view on how the UPC fits into the global patent litigation landscape. This article summarises the key points of that conversation and is meant as an accessible overview for in-house counsel, patent attorneys and business leaders who want to understand what the UPC means for their strategy. How Prof. Hüttermann Became “Mr. UPC” Prof. Hüttermann has been closely involved with the UPC for more than a decade. When it became clear, around 13 years ago, that the European project of a unified patent court and a unitary patent was finally going to happen, he recognised that this would fundamentally change patent enforcement in Europe. He started to follow the legislative and political developments in detail and went beyond mere observation. As author and editor of several books and a major commentary on the UPC, he helped shape the discussion around the new system. His first book on the UPC appeared in 2016 – years before the court finally opened its doors in 2023. What fascinated him from the beginning was the unique opportunity to witness the creation of an entirely new court system, to analyse how it would be built and, where possible, to contribute to its understanding and development. It was clear to him that this system would be a “game changer” for European patent enforcement. UPC in the Global Triangle: Europe, the US and China In practice, most international patent disputes revolve around three major regions: the UPC territory in Europe, the United States and China. Each of these regions has its own procedural culture, cost structure and strategic impact. From a territorial perspective, the UPC is particularly attractive because it can, under the right conditions, grant pan-European injunctions that cover a broad range of EU Member States with a single decision. This consolidation of enforcement is something national courts in Europe simply cannot offer. From a cost perspective, the UPC is significantly cheaper than US litigation, especially if one compares the cost of one UPC action with a bundle of separate national cases in large European markets. When viewed against the territorial reach and procedural speed, the “bang for the buck” is very compelling. China is again a different story. The sheer volume of cases there is enormous, with tens of thousands of patent infringement cases per year. Chinese courts are known for their speed; first-instance decisions within about a year are common. In this respect they resemble the UPC more than the US does. The UPC also aims at a roughly 12 to 15 month time frame for first-instance cases where validity is at issue. The US, by contrast, features extensive discovery, occasionally jury trials and often longer timelines. The procedural culture is very different. The UPC, like Chinese courts, operates without discovery in the US sense, which makes proceedings more focused on the written record and expert evidence that the parties present, and less on pre-trial disclosure battles. Whether a company chooses to litigate in the US, the UPC, China, or some combination of these forums will depend on where the key markets and assets are. However, in Prof. Hüttermann's view, once Europe is an important market, it is hard to justify ignoring the UPC. He expects the court's caseload and influence to grow strongly over the coming years. A Landmark UPC Case: Syngenta v. Sumitomo A particularly important case in which Prof. Hüttermann was involved is the Syngenta v. Sumitomo matter, concerning a composition patent. This case has become a landmark in UPC practice for several reasons. First, the Court of Appeal clarified a central point about the reach of UPC injunctions. It made clear that once infringement is established in one Member State, this will usually be sufficient to justify a pan-European injunction covering all UPC countries designated by the patent. That confirmation gave patent owners confidence that the UPC can in fact deliver broad, cross-border relief in one go. Second, the facts of the case raised novel issues about evidence and territorial reach. The allegedly infringing product had been analysed based on a sample from the Czech Republic, which is not part of the UPC system. Later, the same product with the same name was marketed in Bulgaria, which is within UPC territory. The Court of Appeal held that the earlier analysis of the Czech sample could be relied on for enforcement in Bulgaria. This showed that evidence from outside the UPC territory can be sufficient, as long as it is properly linked to the products marketed within the UPC. Third, the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to state its view on inventive step. It confirmed that combining prior-art documents requires a “pointer”, in line with the EPO's problem-solution approach. The mere theoretical possibility of extracting a certain piece of information from a document does not suffice to justify an inventive-step attack. This is one of several decisions where the UPC has shown a strong alignment with EPO case law on substantive patentability. For Prof. Hüttermann personally, the case was also a lesson in oral advocacy before the UPC. During the two appeal hearings, the presiding judge asked unexpected questions that required quick and creative responses while the hearing continued. His practical takeaway is that parties should appear with a small, well-coordinated team: large enough to allow someone to work on a tricky question in the background, but small enough to remain agile. Two or three lawyers seem ideal; beyond that, coordination becomes difficult and “too many cooks spoil the broth”. A Game-Changing CJEU Decision: Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux Surprisingly, one of the most important developments for European patent litigation in the past year did not come from the UPC at all, but from the Court of Justice of the European Union. In Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux, the CJEU revisited the rules on cross-border jurisdiction under the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Brussels Ia). Previously, under what practitioners often referred to as the GAT/LuK regime, a court in one EU country was largely prevented from granting relief for alleged infringement in another country if the validity of the foreign patent was contested there. This significantly limited the possibilities for cross-border injunctions. In Bosch, the CJEU changed course. Without going into all procedural details, the essence is that courts in the EU now have broader powers to grant cross-border relief when certain conditions are met, particularly when at least one defendant is domiciled in the forum state. The concept of an “anchor defendant” plays a central role: if you sue one group company in its home forum, other group companies in other countries, including outside the EU, can be drawn into the case. This has already had practical consequences. German courts, for example, have issued pan-European injunctions covering around twenty countries in pharmaceutical cases. There are even attempts to sue European companies for infringement of US patents based on acts in the US, using the logic of Bosch as a starting point. How far courts will ultimately go remains to be seen, but the potential is enormous. For the UPC, this development is highly relevant. The UPC operates in the same jurisdictional environment as national courts, and many defendants in UPC cases will be domiciled in UPC countries. This increases the likelihood that the UPC, too, can leverage the broadened possibilities for cross-border relief. In addition, we have already seen UPC decisions that include non-EU countries such as the UK within the scope of injunctions, in certain constellations. The interaction between UPC practice and the Bosch jurisprudence of the CJEU is only beginning to unfold. Does the UPC Follow EPO Case Law? A key concern for many patent owners and practitioners is whether the UPC will follow the EPO's Boards of Appeal or develop its own, possibly divergent, case law on validity. On procedural matters, the UPC is naturally different from the EPO. It has its own rules of procedure, its own timelines and its own tools, such as “front-loaded” pleadings and tight limits on late-filed material. On substantive law, however, Prof. Hüttermann's conclusion is clear: there is “nothing new under the sun”. The UPC's approach to novelty, inventive step and added matter is very close to that of the EPO. The famous “gold standard” for added matter appears frequently in UPC decisions. Intermediate generalisations are treated with the same suspicion as at the EPO. In at least one case, the UPC revoked a patent for added matter even though the EPO had granted it in exactly that form. The alignment is not accidental. The UPC only deals with European patents granted by the EPO; it does not hear cases on purely national patents. If the UPC were more generous than the EPO, many patents would never reach it. If it were systematically stricter, patentees would be more tempted to opt out of the system. In practice, the UPC tends to apply the EPO's standards and, where anything differs, it is usually a matter of factual appreciation rather than a different legal test. For practitioners, this has a very practical implication: if you want to predict how the UPC will decide on validity, the best starting point is to ask how the EPO would analyse the case. The UPC may not always reach the same result in parallel EPO opposition proceedings, but the conceptual framework is largely the same. Trends in UPC Practice: PIs, Equivalents and Division-Specific Styles Even in its early years, certain trends and differences between UPC divisions can be observed. On preliminary injunctions, the local division in Düsseldorf has taken a particularly proactive role. It has been responsible for most of the ex parte PIs granted so far and applies a rather strict notion of urgency, often considering one month after knowledge of the infringement as still acceptable, but treating longer delays with scepticism. Other divisions tend to see two months as still compatible with urgency, and they are much more cautious with ex parte measures. Munich, by contrast, has indicated a strong preference for inter partes PI proceedings and appears reluctant to grant ex parte relief at all. A judge from Munich has even described the main action as the “fast” procedure and the inter partes PI as the “very fast” one, leaving little room for an even faster ex parte track. There are also differences in how divisions handle amendments and auxiliary requests in PI proceedings. Munich has suggested that if a patentee needs to rely on claim amendments or auxiliary requests in a PI, the request is unlikely to succeed. Other divisions have been more open to considering auxiliary requests. The doctrine of equivalents is another area where practice is not yet harmonised. The Hague division has explicitly applied a test taken from Dutch law in at least one case and found infringement by equivalence. However, the Court of Appeal has not yet endorsed a specific test, and in another recent Hague case the same division did not apply that Dutch-law test again. The Mannheim division has openly called for the development of an autonomous, pan-European equivalence test, but has not yet fixed such a test in a concrete decision. This is clearly an area to watch. Interim conferences are commonly used in most divisions to clarify issues early on, but Düsseldorf often dispenses with them to save time. In practice, interim conferences can be very helpful for narrowing down the issues, though parties should not expect to be able to predict the final decision from what is discussed there. Sometimes topics that dominate the interim conference play little or no role in the main oral hearing. A Front-Loaded System and Typical Strategic Mistakes UPC proceedings are highly front-loaded and very fast. A defendant usually has three months from service of the statement of claim to file a full statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation. This is manageable, but only if the time is used wisely. One common strategic problem is that parties lose time at the beginning and only develop a clear strategy late in the three-month period. According to Prof. Hüttermann, it is crucial to have a firm strategy within the first two or three weeks and then execute it consistently. Constantly changing direction is a recipe for failure in such a compressed system. Another characteristic is the strict attitude towards late-filed material. It is difficult to introduce new documents or new inventive-step attacks later in the procedure. In some cases even alternative combinations of already-filed prior-art documents have been viewed as “new” attacks and rejected as late. At the appeal stage, the Court of Appeal has even considered new arguments based on different parts of a book already in the file as potentially late-filed. This does not mean that parties should flood the court with dozens of alternative attacks in the initial brief. In one revocation action, a plaintiff filed about fifty different inventive-step attacks, only to be told by the court that this was not acceptable and that the attacks had to be reduced and structured. The UPC is not a body conducting ex officio examination. It is entitled to manage the case actively and to ask parties to focus on the most relevant issues. Evidence Gathering, Protective Letters and the Defendant's Perspective The UPC provides powerful tools for both sides. Evidence inspection is becoming more common, not only at trade fairs but also at company premises. This can be a valuable tool for patentees, but it also poses a serious risk for defendants who may suddenly face court-ordered inspections. From the perspective of potential defendants, protective letters are an important instrument, especially in divisions like Düsseldorf where ex parte PIs are possible. A well-written protective letter, filed in advance, can significantly reduce the risk of a surprise injunction. The court fees are moderate, but the content of the protective letter must be carefully prepared; a poor submission can cause more harm than good. Despite the strong tools available to patentees, Prof. Hüttermann does not view the UPC as unfair to defendants. If a defendant files a solid revocation counterclaim, the pressure shifts to the patentee, who then has only two months to reply, prepare all auxiliary requests and adapt the enforcement strategy. This is even more demanding than at the EPO, because the patentee must not only respond to validity attacks but also ensure that any amended claims still capture the allegedly infringing product. It is entirely possible to secure the survival of a patent with an auxiliary request that no longer covers the defendant's product. In that scenario, the patentee has “won” on validity but lost the infringement case. Managing this tension under tight time limits is a key challenge of UPC practice. The Future Role of the UPC and How to Prepare Today the UPC hears a few hundred cases per year, compared with several thousand patent cases in the US and tens of thousands in China. Nevertheless, both the court itself and experienced practitioners see significant growth potential. Prof. Hüttermann expects case numbers to multiply in the medium term. Whether the UPC will become the first choice forum in global disputes or remain one pillar in parallel proceedings alongside the US and China will depend on the strategies of large patentees and the evolution of case law. However, the court is well equipped: it covers a large, economically important territory, is comparatively cost-effective and offers fast procedures with robust remedies. For companies that may end up before the UPC, preparation is essential. On the offensive side, that means building strong evidence and legal arguments before filing, being ready to proceed quickly and structured, and understanding the specific styles of the relevant divisions. On the defensive side, it may mean filing protective letters in risk-exposed markets, preparing internal processes for rapid reaction if a statement of claim arrives, and taking inspection requests seriously. Conclusion The Unified Patent Court has quickly moved from theory to practice. It offers pan-European relief, fast and front-loaded procedures, and a substantive approach that closely mirrors the EPO's case law. At the same time, national and EU-level developments like the Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux decision are reshaping the jurisdictional framework in which the UPC operates, opening the door for far-reaching cross-border injunctions. For patent owners and potential defendants alike, the message is clear: the UPC is here to stay and will become more important year by year. Those who invest the time to understand its dynamics now – including its alignment with the EPO, the differences between divisions, and the strategic implications of its procedures – will be in a much better position when the first UPC dispute lands on their desk. Here is the full transcript of the interview: Rolf Claessen:Today's interview guest is Prof. Aloys Hüttermann. He is founder and equity partner of my firm, Michalski · Hüttermann & Partner. More importantly for today's interview, he has written several books about the Unified Patent Court. The first one already came out in 2016. He is co-editor and author of one of the leading commentaries on the UPC and has gained substantial experience in UPC cases so far – one of them even together with me. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays again, Aloys. Aloys Hüttermann:Thank you for inviting me, it's an honour. How did you get so deeply involved in the UPC? Rolf Claessen:Before we dive into the details, how did you end up so deeply involved in the Unified Patent Court? And what personally fascinates you about this court? Aloys Hüttermann:This goes back quite a while – roughly 13 years. At that time it became clear that, after several failed attempts, Europe would really get a pan-European court and a pan-European patent, and that this time it was serious. I thought: this is going to be the future. That interested me a lot, both intellectually and practically. A completely new system was being built. You could watch how it evolved – and, if possible, even help shape it a bit. It was also obvious to me that this would be a complete game changer. Nobody expected that it would take until 2023 before the system actually started operating, but now it is here. I became heavily interested early on. As you mentioned, my first book on the UPC was published in 2016, in the expectation that the system would start soon. It took a bit longer, but now we finally have it. UPC vs. US and China – speed, cost and impact Rolf Claessen:Before we go deeper into the UPC, let's zoom out. If you compare litigation before the UPC with patent litigation in the US and in China – in terms of speed, cost and the impact of decisions – what are the key differences that a business leader should understand? Aloys Hüttermann:If you look at the three big regions – the UPC territory in Europe, the US and China – these are the major economic areas for many technology companies. One important point is territorial reach. In the UPC, if the conditions are met, you can get pan-European injunctions that cover many EU Member States in one go. We will talk about this later in more detail. On costs there is a huge difference between the US and the UPC. The UPC is much cheaper than US litigation, especially once you look at the number of countries you can cover with one case if the patent has been validated widely. China is different again. The number of patent infringement cases there is enormous. I have seen statistics of around 40,000 infringement cases per year in China. That is huge – compared with roughly 164 UPC infringement cases in the first year and maybe around 200 in the current year. On speed, Chinese courts are known to be very fast. You often get a first-instance decision in about a year. The UPC is comparable: if there is a counterclaim for revocation, you are looking at something like 12 to 15 months for a first-instance decision. The US can be slower, and the procedure is very different. You have full discovery, you may have juries. None of that exists at the UPC. From that perspective, Chinese and UPC proceedings are more similar to each other than either is to the US. The UPC is still a young court. We have to see how influential its case law will be worldwide in the long run. What we already see, at least in Germany, is a clear trend away from purely national patent litigation and towards the UPC. That is inside Europe. The global impact will develop over time. When is the UPC the most powerful tool? Rolf Claessen:Let's take the perspective of a global company. It has significant sales in Europe and in the US and production or key suppliers in China. In which situations would you say the UPC is your most powerful tool? And when might the US or China be the more strategic battleground? Aloys Hüttermann:To be honest, I would almost always consider bringing a case before the UPC. The “bang for the buck” is very good. The UPC is rather fast. That alone already gives you leverage in negotiations. The threat of a quick, wide-reaching injunction is a strong negotiation tool. Whether you litigate in the US instead of the UPC, or in addition, or whether you also go to China – that depends heavily on the individual case: where the products are sold, where the key markets are, where the defendant has assets, and so on. But in my view, once you have substantial sales in Europe, you should seriously consider the UPC. And for that reason alone I expect case numbers at the UPC to increase significantly in the coming years. A landmark UPC case: Syngenta vs. Sumitomo (composition patent) Rolf Claessen:You have already been involved in several UPC cases – and one of them together with me, which was great fun. Looking at the last 12 to 18 months, is there a case, decision or development that you find particularly noteworthy – something that really changed how you think about UPC litigation or how companies should prepare? Aloys Hüttermann:The most important UPC case I have been involved in so far is the Syngenta v. Sumitomo case on a composition patent. It has become a real landmark and was even mentioned in the UPC's annual report. It is important for several reasons. First, it was one of the first cases in which the Court of Appeal said very clearly: if you have established infringement in one Member State, that will usually be enough for a pan-European injunction covering all UPC countries designated by the patent. That is a powerful statement about the reach of UPC relief. Second, the facts were interesting. The patent concerned a composition. We had analysed a sample that had been obtained in the Czech Republic, which is not a UPC country. Later, the same product was marketed under the same name in Bulgaria, which is in the UPC. The question was whether the analysis of the Czech sample could be used as a basis for enforcement in Bulgaria. The Court of Appeal said yes, that was sufficient. Third, the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to say something about inventive step. It more or less confirmed that the UPC's approach is very close to the EPO's problem-solution approach. It emphasised that, if you want to combine prior-art documents, you need a “pointer” to do so. The mere theoretical possibility that a skilled person could dig a particular piece of information out of a document is not enough. For me personally, the most memorable aspect of this case was not the outcome – that was largely in line with what we had expected – but the oral hearings at the appeal stage. We had two hearings. In both, the presiding judge asked us a question that we had not anticipated at all. And then you have about 20 minutes to come up with a convincing answer while the hearing continues. We managed it, but it made me think a lot about how you should prepare for oral hearings at the UPC. My conclusion is: you should go in with a team, but not too big. In German we say, “Zu viele Köche verderben den Brei” – too many cooks spoil the broth. Two or three people seems ideal. One of them can work quietly on such a surprise question at the side, while the others continue arguing the case. In the end the case went very well for us, so I can speak about it quite calmly now. But in the moment your heart rate definitely goes up. The CJEU's Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux decision – a real game changer Rolf Claessen:You also mentioned another development that is not even a UPC case, but still very important for European patent litigation. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes. In my view, the most important case of the last twelve months is not a UPC decision but a judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU): Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux. This is going to be a real game changer for European IP law, and I am sure we have not seen the end of its effects yet. One example: someone has recently sued BMW before the Landgericht München I, a German court, for infringement of a US patent based on acts in the US. The argument is that this could be backed by the logic of Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux. We do not know yet what the court will do with that, but the fact that people are trying this shows how far-reaching the decision might be. Within the UPC we have already seen injunctions being issued for countries outside the UPC territory and even outside the EU, for example including the UK. So you see how these developments start to interact. Rolf Claessen:For listeners who have not followed the case so closely: in very simple terms, the CJEU opened the door for courts in one EU country to rule on patent infringement that took place in other countries as well, right? Aloys Hüttermann:Exactly. Before Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux we had what was often called the GAT/LuK regime. The basic idea was: if you sue someone in, say, Germany for infringement of a European patent, and you also ask for an injunction for France, and the defendant then challenges the validity of the patent in France, the German court cannot grant you an injunction covering France. The Bosch decision changed that. The legal basis is the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Brussels Ia), which deals with jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters in the EU. It is not specific to IP; it applies to civil cases generally, but it does have some provisions that are relevant for patents. In Bosch, a Swedish court asked the CJEU for guidance on cross-border injunctions. The CJEU more or less overturned its old GAT/LuK case law. Now, in principle, if the defendant is domiciled in a particular Member State, the courts of that state can also grant cross-border relief for other countries, under certain conditions. We will not go into all the details here – that could fill a whole separate IP Fridays episode – but one important concept is the “anchor defendant”. If you sue a group of companies and at least one defendant is domiciled in the forum state, then other group companies in other countries – even outside the EU, for example in Hong Kong – can be drawn into the case and affected by the decision. This is not limited to the UPC, but of course it is highly relevant for UPC litigation. Statistically it increases the chances that at least one defendant will be domiciled in a UPC country, simply because there are many of them. And we have already seen courts like the Landgericht München I grant pan-European injunctions for around 20 countries in a pharmaceutical case. Rolf Claessen:Just to clarify: does it have to be the headquarters of the defendant in that country, or is any registered office enough? Aloys Hüttermann:That is one of the open points. If the headquarters are in Europe, then it is clear that subsidiaries outside Europe can be affected as well. If the group's headquarters are outside Europe and only a subsidiary is here, the situation is less clear and we will have to see what the courts make of it. Does the UPC follow EPO case law? Rolf Claessen:Many patent owners and in-house counsel wonder: does the UPC largely follow the case law of the EPO Boards of Appeal, or is it starting to develop its own distinct line? What is your impression so far – both on substantive issues like novelty and inventive step, and on procedural questions? Aloys Hüttermann:On procedure the UPC is, of course, very different. It has its own procedural rules and they are not the same as at the EPO. If we look at patent validity, however, my impression is that there is “nothing new under the sun” – that was the title of a recent talk I gave and will give again in Hamburg. Substantively, the case law of the UPC and the EPO is very similar. For inventive step, people sometimes say the UPC does not use the classical problem-solution approach but a more “holistic” approach – whatever that is supposed to mean. In practice, in both systems you read and interpret prior-art documents and decide what they really disclose. In my view, the “error bar” that comes from two courts simply reading a document slightly differently is much larger than any systematic difference in legal approach. If you look at other grounds, such as novelty and added matter, the UPC even follows the EPO almost verbatim. The famous “gold standard” for added matter appears all over UPC decisions, even if the EPO case numbers are not always cited. The same is true for novelty. So the rule-based, almost “Hilbertian” EPO approach is very much present at the UPC. There is also a structural reason for that. All patents that the UPC currently deals with have been granted by the EPO. The UPC does not handle patents granted only by national offices. If the UPC wanted to deviate from EPO case law and be more generous, then many patents would never reach the UPC in the first place. The most generous approach you can have is the one used by the granting authority – the EPO. So if the UPC wants to be different, it can only be stricter, not more lenient. And there is little incentive to be systematically stricter, because that would reduce the number of patents that are attractive to enforce before the UPC. Patent owners might simply opt out. Rolf Claessen:We also talked about added matter and a recent case where the Court of Appeal was even stricter than the EPO. That probably gives US patent practitioners a massive headache. They already struggle with added-matter rules in Europe, and now the UPC might be even tougher. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes, especially on added matter. I once spoke with a US practitioner who said, “We hope the UPC will move away from intermediate generalisations.” There is no chance of that. We already have cases where the Court of Appeal confirmed that intermediate generalisations are not allowed, in full alignment with the EPO. You mentioned a recent case where a patent was revoked for added matter, even though it had been granted by the EPO in exactly that form. This shows quite nicely what to expect. If you want to predict how the UPC will handle a revocation action, the best starting point is to ask: “What would the EPO do?” Of course, there will still be cases where the UPC finds an invention to be inventive while the EPO, in parallel opposition proceedings, does not – or vice versa. But those are differences in the appreciation of the facts and the prior art, which you will always have. The underlying legal approach is essentially the same. Rolf Claessen:So you do not see a real example yet where the UPC has taken a totally different route from the EPO on validity? Aloys Hüttermann:No, not really. If I had to estimate how the UPC will decide, I would always start from what I think the EPO would have done. Trends in UPC practice: PIs, equivalents, interim conferences Rolf Claessen:If you look across the different UPC divisions and cases: what trends do you see in practice? For example regarding timelines, preliminary injunctions, how validity attacks are handled, and how UPC cases interact with EPO oppositions or national proceedings? Aloys Hüttermann:If you take the most active divisions – essentially the big four in Germany and the local division in The Hague – they all try to be very careful and diligent in their decisions. But you can already see some differences in practice. For preliminary injunctions there is a clear distinction between the local division in Düsseldorf and most other divisions. Düsseldorf considers one month after knowledge of the infringement as still sufficiently urgent. If you wait longer, it is usually considered too late. In many other divisions, two months is still viewed as fine. Düsseldorf has also been the division that issued most of the ex parte preliminary injunctions so far. Apart from one special outlier where a standing judge from Brussels was temporarily sitting in Milan, Düsseldorf is basically the only one. Other divisions have been much more reluctant. At a conference, Judge Pichlmaier from the Munich division once said that he could hardly imagine a situation where his division would grant an ex parte PI. In his words, the UPC has two types of procedure: one that is fast – the normal main action – and one that is very fast – the inter partes PI procedure. But you do not really have an “ultra-fast” ex parte track, at least not in his division. Another difference relates to amendments and auxiliary requests in PI proceedings. In one recent case in Munich the court said more or less that if you have to amend your patent or rely on auxiliary requests in a PI, you lose. Other divisions have been more flexible and have allowed auxiliary requests. Equivalence is another area where we do not have a unified line yet. So far, only the Hague division has clearly found infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and explicitly used a test taken from Dutch law. Whether that test will be approved by the Court of Appeal is completely open – the first case settled, so the Court of Appeal never ruled on it, and a second one is still very recent. Interestingly, there was another Hague decision a few weeks ago where equivalence was on the table, but the division did not apply that Dutch-law test. We do not know yet why. The Mannheim division has written in one decision that it would be desirable to develop an autonomous pan-European test for equivalence, instead of just importing the German, UK or Dutch criteria. But they did not formulate such a test in that case because it was not necessary for the decision. So we will have to see how that evolves. On timelines, one practical difference is that Düsseldorf usually does not hold an interim conference. That saves them some time. Most other divisions do hold interim conferences. Personally, I like the idea because it can help clarify issues. But you cannot safely read the final outcome from these conferences. I have also seen cases where questions raised at the interim conference did not play any role in the main oral hearing. So they are useful for clarification, but not as a crystal ball. Front-loaded proceedings and typical strategic mistakes Rolf Claessen:If you look at the behaviour of parties so far – both patentees and defendants – what are the most common strategic mistakes you see in UPC litigation? And what would a well-prepared company do differently before the first statement of claim is ever filed? Aloys Hüttermann:You know you do not really want me to answer that question… Rolf Claessen:I do! Aloys Hüttermann:All right. The biggest mistake, of course, is that they do not hire me. That is the main problem. Seriously, it is difficult to judge parties' behaviour from the outside. You rarely know the full picture. There may be national proceedings, licensing discussions, settlement talks, and so on in the background. That can limit what a party can do at the UPC. So instead of criticising, I prefer to say what is a good idea at the UPC. The system is very front-loaded and very fast. If you are sued, you have three months to file your statement of defence and your counterclaim for revocation. In my view, three months are manageable – but only if you use the time wisely and do not waste it on things that are not essential. If you receive a statement of claim, you have to act immediately. You should have a clear strategy within maybe two or three weeks and then implement it. If you change your strategy every few weeks, chances are high that you will fail. Another point is that everything is front-loaded. It is very hard to introduce new documents or new attacks later. Some divisions have been a bit generous in individual cases, but the general line is strict. We have seen, for example, that even if you filed a book in first instance, you may not be allowed to rely on a different chapter from the same book for a new inventive-step attack at the appeal stage. That can be regarded as late-filed, because you could have done it earlier. There is also case law saying that if you first argue inventive step as “D1 plus D2”, and later want to argue “D2 plus D1”, that can already be considered a new, late attack. On the other hand, we had a revocation action where the plaintiff filed about 50 different inventive-step attacks in the initial brief. The division then said: this does not work. Please cut them down or put them in a clear hierarchy. In the end, not all of them were considered. The UPC does not conduct an ex officio examination. It is entitled to manage the case and to tell the parties to limit themselves in the interest of a fair and efficient procedure. Rolf Claessen:I have the feeling that the EPO is also becoming more front-loaded – if you want to rely on documents later, you should file them early. But it sounds like the UPC is even more extreme in that regard. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes, that is true. Protective letters, inspections and the defendant's perspective Rolf Claessen:Suppose someone from a company is listening now and thinks: “We might be exposed at the UPC,” or, “We should maybe use the UPC offensively against competitors.” What would you consider sensible first steps before any concrete dispute arises? And looking three to five years ahead, how central do you expect the UPC to become in global patent litigation compared to the US and China? Aloys Hüttermann:Let me start with the second part. I expect the UPC to become significantly more important. If we have around 200 cases this year, that is a good start, but it is still very small compared to, say, 4,000 to 5,000 patent cases per year in the US and 40,000 or so in China. Even François Bürgin and Klaus Grabinski, in interviews, have said that they are happy with the case load, but the potential is much larger. In my view, it is almost inevitable that we will see four or five times as many UPC cases in the not-too-distant future. As numbers grow, the influence of the UPC will grow as well. Whether, in five or ten years, companies will treat the UPC as their first choice forum – or whether they will usually run it in parallel with US litigation in major disputes – remains to be seen. The UPC would be well equipped for that: the territory it covers is large, Europe is still an important economy, and the UPC procedure is very attractive from a company's perspective. On sensible first steps: if you are worried about being sued, a protective letter can make a lot of sense – especially in divisions like Düsseldorf, where ex parte PIs are possible in principle. A protective letter is not very expensive in terms of court fees. There is also an internal system that ensures the court reads it before deciding on urgent measures. Of course, the content must have a certain quality; a poor protective letter can even backfire. If you are planning to sue someone before the UPC, you should be extremely well prepared when you file. You should already have all important documents and evidence at hand. As we discussed, it is hard to introduce new material later. One tool that is becoming more and more popular is inspection – not just at trade fairs, where we already saw cases very early, but also at company premises. Our firm has already handled such an inspection case. That is something you should keep in mind on both sides: it is a powerful evidence-gathering tool, but also a serious risk if you are on the receiving end. From the defendant's perspective, I do not think the UPC is unfair. If you do your job properly and put a solid revocation counterclaim on the table, then the patentee has only two months to prepare a full reply and all auxiliary requests. And there is a twist that makes life even harder for the patentee than at the EPO. At the EPO the question is mainly: do my auxiliary requests overcome the objections and are they patentable? At the UPC there is an additional layer: do I still have infringement under the amended claims? You may save your patent with an auxiliary request that no longer reads on the defendant's product. That is great for validity, but you have just lost the infringement case. You have kept the patent but lost the battle. And all of this under very tight time limits. That creates considerable pressure on both sides. How to contact Prof. Hüttermann Rolf Claessen:Thank you very much for this really great interview, Aloys. Inside our firm you have a nickname: “the walking encyclopedia of the Unified Patent Court” – because you have written so many books about it and have dealt with the UPC for such a long time. What is the best way for listeners to get in touch with you? Aloys Hüttermann:The easiest way is by email. You can simply write to me, and that is usually the best way to contact me. As you may have noticed, I also like to speak. I am a frequent speaker at conferences. If you happen to be at one of the conferences where I am on the programme – for example, next week in Hamburg – feel free to come up to me and ask me anything in person. But email is probably the most reliable first step. Rolf Claessen:Perfect. Thank you very much, Aloys. Aloys Hüttermann:Thank you. It was a pleasure to be on IP Fridays again. Some of your long-time listeners may remember that a few years ago – when you were not yet part of our firm – we already did an episode on the UPC, back when everything was still very speculative. It is great to be back now that the system is actually in place and working. Rolf Claessen:I am very happy to have you back on the show.

This week we go into the dark heart of American Gestapo: Gregory Bovino's Border Patrol, which pushes ICE to become even more aggressive in his fascist feverdream.  Here to help us make sense of this hellscape is Nick Schwellenbach, a Senior Investigator at the Project on Government Oversight and former Communications Director at the U.S. Office of Special Counsel–a government agency set up after Watergate, meant to protect us from the next Nixon–more on that in this week's bonus show out Thursday.  Bovino grew up a Border Patrol fanboy idolizing fascist fiction and now stalks American cities in a Nazi-style trench coat with a taxpayer-funded film crew glamorizing his violent raids. Like Trump is a showman, Bovino is cruelty as a recruitment tool to consolidate power. Under his un-checked leadership, his border patrol army operates deep inside the U.S., smashing car windows, kidnapping U.S. citizens, and rounding up tens of thousands of people, including veterans and children, into detention centers where deaths are spiking at unprecedented rates.  With the help of questions submitted by a Gaslit Nation listener (thank you, Isabel!) we go into all the pressing questions about Bovino's Border Patrol and also ICE, including what happened to the children who disappeared under Trump's first term and what can be done to protect vulnerable immigrants today? As you listen to this episode, which opens with a clip of Bovino justifying shooting protesters with pepper balls, keep in mind Republicans gave ICE, which works closely with Bovino's Border Patrol, $75 billion over the next four years. They're also operating under aggressive weekly quotas. But is their war chest also for general population control?  For our bonus episode this week, we look at the safeguards that could have prevented Trump's return and why they didn't. To listen to the bonus, subscribe to our Patreon at the Truth-Teller level ($5/month) or higher. We are extremely grateful to our listeners who are keeping us afloat during a very difficult economic time. Every bit of support helps give us the freedom to be independent and tell the truth, so thank you again for making Gaslit Nation possible! If America climbs out of this black hole, it will be because people like you, our Gaslit Nation listeners, refused to look away. Want to hear Gaslit Nation ad-free? Join our community of listeners for bonus shows, exclusive Q&A sessions, our group chat, invites to live events like our Monday political salons at 4pm ET over Zoom, and more! Sign up at Patreon.com/Gaslit! EVENTS AT GASLIT NATION: December 1st 4pm ET – Deaf Republic by Ilya Kaminsky + Total Resistance by H. Von Dach – Poetry and guerrilla strategy: tools for survival and defiance. Minnesota Signal group for Gaslit Nation listeners in the state to find each other: join on Patreon.  Vermont Signal group for Gaslit Nation listeners in the state to find each other: join on Patreon.  Arizona-based listeners launched a Signal group for others in the state to connect, join on Patreon.  Indiana-based listeners launched a Signal group for others in the state to join, join on Patreon.  Florida-based listeners are going strong meeting in person. Be sure to join their Signal group, join on Patreon.  Gaslit Nation Salons take place Mondays 4pm ET over Zoom and the first ~40 minutes are recorded and shared on Patreon.com/Gaslit for our community Show Notes:   Where ICE Has Taken The Most People | On The Grid | WIRED https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD9ETC80HDA NPR report: This year was the deadliest since 2005 for people in ICE custody  https://www.expressnews.com/news/border-mexico/article/ice-deadliest-year-npr-21119815.php Big Budget Act Creates a "Deportation-Industrial Complex": The result will be a lopsided, enforcement-only machine that will be hard to dismantle. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/big-budget-act-creates-deportation-industrial-complex   Man arrested by Ice dies in jail cell in Long Island, New York: This article is more than 1 month old Officials in Nassau county confirmed death of 42-year-old man to Newsday but declined to share details https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/19/ice-death-long-island-ny   Trump officials launch ICE effort to deport unaccompanied migrant children https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-directs-ice-agents-find-deport-unaccompanied-migrant-2025-02-23/ Federal judge says border patrol chief admitted he lied, in ruling limiting federal agents' use of force in Chicago https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/06/us/gregory-bovino-deposition-chicago-immigration   Greg Bovino's Border Patrol Agents Use Disproportionate Force, Data Shows https://www.pogo.org/investigations/greg-bovinos-border-patrol-agents-use-disproportionate-force-data-shows   Fighting for a government that serves the people. https://www.pogo.org/   8-year-old girl dies in Border Patrol custody in Texas, as agency struggles with overcrowding https://apnews.com/article/border-patrol-child-custody-death-harlingen-2e2b27eeb3da669ee17241b8b3ee9ee2   Detainee Death Reporting https://www.ice.gov/detain/detainee-death-reporting   CBP Fatal Encounters Tracker https://www.aclutx.org/en/cbp-fatal-encounters-tracker   FACT FOCUS: Claims that more than 300,000 migrant children are missing lack context https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-misinformation-migrant-children-missing-7ab0cea2fd2238346197429e952baa8b   How they did it: The New York Times exposes migrant child labor exploitation across 50 states https://journalistsresource.org/media/migrant-children-labor-abuse-goldmith/   Homeland Security agents rescue migrant teen sisters from sex traffickers — after they arrived in US as unaccompanied minors https://nypost.com/2025/04/29/us-news/hsi-agents-rescue-teen-migrant-sisters-from-sex-traffickers/   Gaps in Sponsor Screening and Followup Raise Safety Concerns for Unaccompanied Children https://oig.hhs.gov/reports/all/2024/gaps-in-sponsor-screening-and-followup-raise-safety-concerns-for-unaccompanied-children/   Trump's False Claim of Missing Immigrant Children  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/07/16/trump-false-claim-missing-immigrant-children   Under Joe Biden, Have 85,000 Undocumented Children Gone 'Missing'? https://www.newsweek.com/under-joe-biden-undocumented-children-missing-1812728   Democratic Women's Caucus Open Letter https://juliabrownley.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/dwc-letter-to-dhs-on-ice-impersonators-and-women-s-safety.pdf   How ICE Raids Are Making It Easier for Civilian Men to Assault Immigrant Women: Kylie Cheung argues in this op-ed that a rash of cases of men dressing as plainclothes ICE agents and assaulting immigrant women is possible because ICE agents operate with impunity. https://www.teenvogue.com/story/men-dressed-as-ice-agents-to-assault-immigrant-women-horrifying-trend   Houston man pretended to be ICE agent to rob driver, charging docs allege https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/crime/article/houston-ice-agent-robbery-20395157.php   North Dakota man accused of impersonating an ICE officer when jail staff released an inmate to him https://apnews.com/article/north-dakota-immigration-williston-ice-agent-f89f0f070e5c39cd763a5018017ff332 US sees spate of arrests of civilians impersonating Ice officers https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/28/civilians-impersonating-ice-officers   ICE Annual Report Fiscal Year 2022 https://www.ice.gov/doclib/eoy/iceAnnualReportFY2022.pdf Border agent charged with child sex trafficking, fraud in Cochise County https://tucson.com/news/local/border/article_5e596767-4575-485b-88e8-0a6265e5bb41.html The Green Monster: How the Border Patrol became America's most out-of-control law enforcement agency. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/10/border-patrol-the-green-monster-112220/ FBI Warns of Criminals Posing as ICE, Urges Agents to ID Themselves: In a bulletin to law enforcement agencies, the FBI said criminal impersonators are exploiting ICE's image and urged nationwide coordination to distinguish real operations from fakes. https://www.wired.com/story/fbi-warns-of-criminals-posing-as-ice-urges-agents-to-id-themselves/ How a tragic family secret turned Greg Bovino from a quiet country boy into the force of Trump's unflinching border patrol crackdown https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15288355/greg-bovino-border-patrol-family-secret-donald-trump-immigration.html Revealed: Trump administration retreats on combating human trafficking and child exploitation https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/17/trump-human-trafficking-programs-cut Trump administration takes hundreds of migrant children out of their homes, into government custody https://archive.ph/qc65g#selection-2109.7-2109.106 Oversight Agency Says 32,000 Unaccompanied Children Are Missing. But Are They? https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/are-32000-unaccompanied-children-missing/  Judge rules against Department of Homeland Security: "Given the inconsistencies between the BWC footage and the use of force reports, with the BWC footage undermining what agents put in their reports, the Court cannot rely on Parra's [who is Bovino's deputy] broad generalizations of protesters' actions or Defendants' responses to those actions. Turning to Bovino, the Court specifically finds his testimony not credible.  Bovino appeared evasive over the three days of his deposition, either providing "cute" responses to Plaintiffs' counsel's questions or outright lying." "To the extent that agents use ChatGPT to create their use of force reports, this further undermines their credibility and may explain the inaccuracy of these reports when viewed in light of the BWC footage." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.487571/gov.uscourts.ilnd.487571.281.0_3.pdf

Stories we're following this morning at Progress Texas:With SCOTUS Justice Sam Alito's stay on the El Paso court panel's decision against the Trump map, a full decision of the Supreme Court is next - and could take long enough to end the discussion for the midterms: https://www.elpasotimes.com/story/news/politics/2025/11/22/us-supreme-court-samuel-alito-grants-stay-in-texas-redistricting-lawsuit/87412332007/...The State invoked the "Purcell principle" in its application to Alito, which discourages courts from action interfering with impending elections: https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/texas-asks-scotus-to-reimpose-anti-minority-gerrymander/Texas colleges and universities are becoming nationally notorious for our slipping standards regarding free speech rights on campus: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/free-speech-ut-college-protest-trump-21198378.php...A faculty committee at Texas A&M has determined that administrators did not have a solid case in firing English professor Melissa McCoul: https://www.texastribune.org/2025/11/22/texas-am-professor-fired-faculty-panel-ruling/...UT Austin remains silent on the Trump compact, even as the deadline to accept or reject passed on Friday: https://www.texastribune.org/2025/11/17/university-of-texas-trump-policy-changes-federal-funding/We're excited to see YOU at one (or both!) of our 2025 Holiday Parties this December in Austin and Dallas - for the first time, featuring live podcast tapings! Tickets and sponsorship opportunities are available now: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://act.progresstexas.org/a/progress-texas-holiday-parties-2025⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Check out our web store, including our newly-expanded Humans Against Greg Abbott collection: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://store.progresstexas.org/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Thanks for listening! Our monthly donors form the backbone of our funding, and if you're a regular, we'd like to invite you to join the team! Find our web store and other ways to support our important work at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://progresstexas.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

What happens when your personal data is misused or stolen — can you really take a company to court?

Jeffrey Epstein's longtime attorney and financial fixer, Darren Indyke, has been repeatedly linked to the intricate structuring of Epstein's vast financial network — a labyrinth of trusts, shell companies, and opaque entities that concealed the flow of money used to fund his operations and, allegedly, pay off victims and accomplices. “Structuring,” in financial terms, refers to deliberately breaking up large transactions to avoid federal reporting requirements under the Bank Secrecy Act. Investigators have long suspected that Epstein and Indyke employed similar tactics to mask the source and movement of Epstein's wealth, from offshore accounts to foundations like Gratitude America Ltd., which funneled millions in donations and “grants” to scientific and philanthropic fronts that enhanced Epstein's public image. Indyke's deep involvement in setting up and managing these entities made him not just Epstein's lawyer but a key architect of the financial smoke screen that protected Epstein's empire for decades.After Epstein's death, Indyke's role came under heavier scrutiny, as he continued to act as co-executor of the estate — even while being named in multiple civil suits accusing him of enabling or facilitating Epstein's criminal conduct. Plaintiffs argued that the same structuring tactics used to obscure Epstein's finances were now being repurposed to shield assets from victims' compensation claims. Indyke has denied wrongdoing, asserting he merely executed Epstein's instructions as a lawyer and fiduciary. However, investigators have questioned how much he knew — and how complicit he was — in maintaining the secrecy that allowed Epstein's trafficking network to operate unchecked for years. Whether by legal design or deliberate obfuscation, the structuring overseen by Indyke remains one of the most revealing examples of how Epstein's financial crimes were hidden in plain sight, wrapped in the legitimacy of corporate paperwork and professional discretion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

*Content Warning: Institutional child abuse, body-image abuse, disordered eating, attack therapy, cultic abuse, grooming, medical trauma, death, alcohol use disorder, psychological and physical trauma, child labor, distressing themes.  *Free + Confidential Resources + Safety Tips:  somethingwaswrong.com/resources    Snag your ticket for the live Home for the Holidays event here: https://events.humanitix.com/swwxtgi  Check out our brand new SWW Sticker Shop!: https://brokencyclemedia.com/sticker-shop  *SWW S23 Theme Song & Artwork:  The S24 cover art is by the Amazing Sara Stewart Follow Something Was Wrong: Website: somethingwaswrong.com  IG: instagram.com/somethingwaswrongpodcast TikTok: tiktok.com/@somethingwaswrongpodcast  Follow Tiffany Reese: Website: tiffanyreese.me  IG: instagram.com/lookieboo *Sources  “DeSisto School.” Unsilenced, www.unsilenced.org/program-archive/us-programs/massachusetts/desisto-school/ “Exhibits in Desisto Investigation.” Scribd, Scribd, www.scribd.com/document/324581177/Exhibits-in-DeSisto-Investigation “Off-Broadway's Inappropriate Extends Again to Jan. 30.” Playbill, Playbill, 2 Dec. 2021, playbill.com/article/off-broadways-inappropriate-extends-again-to-jan-30-com-86238 Radio, WAMC Northeast Public. “Controversial School for Troubled Teens to Close.” WAMC, 16 Feb. 2012, www.wamc.org/new-york-news/2004-04-13/controversial-school-for-troubled-teens-to-close Secretary of Labor, Plaintiff, Appellee, V. A. Michael Desisto, Defendant, Appellee,the Desisto Schools, Inc., Defendant, Appellant.Elizabeth Dole, Secretary of Labor, Plaintiff, Appellant, V. A. Michael Desisto, et al., Defendants, Appellees, 929 f.2d 789 (1st Cir. 1991) :: Justia, law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/929/789/124165/

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Trump's GDP has hit 3.8%, the economy is on fire even without the Fed lowering the rates the way Trump wants. The [DS] is now trying to stop Trump's economy. They have now created another event which they are trying to use to stop Trump's economy, this will fail just like everything else. The [DS] is holding steady on the shutdown. The cover story is that they want money for illegal medical insurance, this is falling apart. They know they don't have the people so they are using this to distract from the push to WWIII and they are hoping that ICE, NG will cease their operations. Trump is using this to drain the swamp, expose the D's.  This is a no win situation for the [DS]. Trump knows the playbook and most likely he is using backchannels to speak to Putin. No war, no civil unrest, clean and swift.   Economy (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); https://twitter.com/profstonge/status/1973712063529631995 Treasury Sec. Bessent: Dem Shutdown to Cut Trump's GDP Growth The Democrats' government shutdown could reduce gross domestic product (GDP) growth that has emerged under President Donald Trump, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Thursday. "We were left with a mess [by the Biden administration]. It was the largest deficit when we weren't in a recession, weren't at war, and [now] we are fixing the deficit," Bessent said. "There could be a discussion, but this isn't the way to have a discussion — shutting down the government and lowering the GDP." "We could see a hit to the GDP, a hit to growth, and a hit to working America." Source: newsmax.com Political/Rights https://twitter.com/C_3C_3/status/1973706295841816644 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1973469908358086957   https://twitter.com/C_3C_3/status/1973547026534277539 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1973488279153680690   https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1973479707619590625 https://twitter.com/DHSgov/status/1973535704337486011  this Salvadoran man is not going to be able to remain in our country. He will never be allowed to prey on innocent Americans again. Never forget the Democrats flew to a foreign land on the US taxpayer's dime to break bread with this terrorist gang member and visit him in prison. While they continue to fight for criminal illegal aliens, we will continue to put the safety of the American people FIRST. https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1973715576750305650     DOGE Federal Court Rules Bans on Carrying Firearms in Post Offices Are Unconstitutional, Democrats Hardest Hit In a win for the Second Amendment and law-abiding gun owners across America, a federal court has ruled that bans on carrying firearms in U.S. Post Offices are unconstitutional.  , Chief United States District Judge Reed O'Connor handed down an opinion on Firearms Policy Coalition Inc, et.al. v. Bondi. FPC was joined by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) in challenging the federal law. The ruling also applies to carrying firearms on property surrounding post offices. Here's more, via Bearing Arms: O'Connor wrote that the law “is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment with respect to Plaintiffs' (and their members) possession and carrying of firearms i...

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