Podcasts about presiding judge

Laurie Earl, Administrative Presiding Justice of the California Court of Appeal, Third District, joins the podcast to share her career journey from the public defender and district attorney's offices to Presiding Judge of the Sacramento Superior Court and now Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal. She describes how mentors nudged her along the way and provides insights into judicial decision making and effective advocacy in the trial and appellate courts.

The Reardon Roundtable hosted by Mike Elam has Steve Butz, Missouri State Representative, running for Missouri State Senate. Jean Evans, Political Consultant for GO Consulting, former Executive Director of Missouri GOP and Former State Rep. Ted House, Former Circuit Judge, including a Presiding Judge of the 11th Circuit and former Missouri State Senator and Representative.

The Reardon Roundtable hosted by Mike Elam has Steve Butz, Missouri State Representative, running for Missouri State Senate. Jean Evans, Political Consultant for GO Consulting, former Executive Director of Missouri GOP and Former State Rep. Ted House, Former Circuit Judge, including a Presiding Judge of the 11th Circuit and former Missouri State Senator and Representative. Paul Hall with Common Guy's Film Reviews joins to talk about Another Simple Favor on Prime Video, Rust and Minecraft Block Party Edition. KSDK Sports Director Frank Cusumano joins to talk about Blues playing in game 6 against the Winnipeg Jets. Brad Young, Partner with Harris, Dowell, Fisher and Young joins to talk about President Trump signing executive order cutting federal funding to NPR and PBS the Supreme Court hearing on Oklahoma Religious Charter school case. Joe Arnold, longtime Louisville Broadcaster joins to talk about the 151st running of the Kentucky Derby. Also Sue's News and an audio cut of the day.

The case filed by the Member of Parliament for Tafo against the removal of the Chief Justice has been adjourned once again, this time to May 6, 2025. Presiding Judge, Professor Henrietta Mensah-Bonsu, announced that the adjournment was due to the unavailability of one of the panel members

I never served our country in the military. I have so much respect for the men and women who have. And many of them come back out of combat and deal with invisible wounds. To talk about that right now is Judge John Roach, Presiding Judge of the North Texas Veterans Court.

Episode 49 Perspectives From the Bench: Anatomy of a Criminal Trial With Retired Judge Margaret Foti The Honorable Margaret Foti, formerly the Presiding Judge of the Criminal Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, joins host Matt Adams to examine the state's criminal trial process from the view of the bench. From arrest to sentencing, the two discuss a wide range of topics in New Jersey criminal proceedings, including bail reform, Early Disposition Court and the role of a defendant's remorse in a judge's ruling. You'll glean important insight from the bench on jury selection and sentencing determinations. Plus, Judge Foti shares a story of when Matt appeared in her courtroom and how the ruling in that case impacted the defense bar.

As the last series of podcast episodes highlighting the new CARE Court, a Superior Court of the State of California, initiated in December of 2023, our guest is Dr. Sarah Church, Supervising Psychologist of the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health (LACDMH), who has stories to tell. She has watched individuals with mental illness begin to grow and to turn their life around as they benefitted from the CARE Court programming. She further reminds the listeners how a Petition filed for someone with mental illness is reviewed by the Presiding Judge of the Court as the first step in someone qualifying to receive this menu of services. These services in CARE Court in partnership with LACDMH are available from various government agencies such as Public Health and the Public Defenders offices as well as many community organizations. Sarah's role is to act as a liaison to those collaborators, and to support her staff who are on the frontlines offering care. Listen to her stories and with her we can celebrate the success the program is having in helping people with mental illness enter into a continuum of recovery and hope for the future. To Learn more about CARE Court and how to Petition for someone in need: Go to the website, www.LACourt.org/CARE

If you write a song, create music or a fantastic invention, what can you do if someone copies your hard work?Alma- Constance and Lucinda speak to His Honour Judge Richard Hacon, Presiding Judge of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, known as IPEC.He tells us·      That creative works, inventions and designs can be legal protected by intellectual property rights·      There are different types of rights such as trademarks, design rights, patents, and copyrights·      How important it is that people can make a living from their creative work ·      The ways that these rights can be protected and where you can get help and advice, even if you don't have much moneyWhen Richard was 10 years old, he says he was a bit of a daydreamer, and his teachers often asked him to pay attention in class! He studied science at university, and he says he has found that useful in his intellectual property work.References and ResourcesHis Honour Judge Richard HaconIP Pro BonoIPECIntellectual property and your workIntellectual Property: A very short introductionKeep your questions coming in. Please subscribe, rate, and share the podcast with your friends. See you soon in the next episode!You can follow us @kidslawinfo on LinkedIn, X and Instagram

In this episode, we are joined by Judge Matt Hand, the Potter County Court #2 Presiding Judge, and Josh Crawford, the Director of Panhandle Regional Specialty Courts. The Panhandle Regional Problem Solving Court is a unique mental health court because it can pull participants from more than 20 counties in Texas. If you have an innovation in mental health that you'd like to see on the podcast, email JCMH@txcourts.gov with the subject line "Reimagining Justice." *Disclaimer: The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed are the speaker's own and do not represent the views, thoughts, and opinions of the JCMH, the Supreme Court of Texas, or the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The material and information presented here are for general information purposes only.

Frank starts the show like he always does on Fridays: With Ask Frank Anything. Frank is joined by a legal panel to discuss the Trump verdict. The panel consists of Mathew J. Mari, a veteran criminal defense attorney and a radio talk show host, David Katz, former Assistant U.S. Attorney and a criminal defense attorney and Judge Jim Gray, former Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Orange County California, former Libertarian candidate for Vice-President, an author and a playwright. Frank starts the third hour with denunciations for the week. He moves on to talk with Dr. Allan Lichtman, a historian, presidential scholar, Distinguished Professor of History at American University and the author of many acclaimed books on U.S. political history. They discuss the winner of the presidency in 2024. Frank wraps up the show talking about masculinity, an NRA Supreme Court case and much more. He is also joined by Noam Laden for News You Can Use. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Frank is joined by a legal panel to discuss the Trump verdict. The panel consists of Mathew J. Mari, a veteran criminal defense attorney and a radio talk show host, David Katz, former Assistant U.S. Attorney and a criminal defense attorney and Judge Jim Gray, former Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Orange County California, former Libertarian candidate for Vice-President, an author and a playwright. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Mathew J. Mari, veteran criminal defense attorney & a radio talk show host WEBSITE: https://www.mathewmarilaw.com/ Social Media: https://twitter.com/mathewjmari?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor   David Katz, Former Assistant U.S. Attorney and a criminal defense attorney Social Media: https://twitter.com/davidkatzlaw?lang=en https://www.katznassoc.com/firm-profile/david-a-katz/ Judge Jim Gray, former Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Orange County California, former Libertarian candidate for Vice-President, an author and a playwright Website: https://judgejimgray.com/ Social Media: https://www.facebook.com/JudgeJamesGray/ https://twitter.com/judgejamesgray Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Frank starts the show joined by a panel of four retired judges. They include: Judge Phillip Straniere, retired supervising judge of the New York City Civil Court in Richmond County, who also served as an Acting State Supreme Court Justice and the author of Filing and Winning Small Claims For Dummies; Judge Herb Dodell, host of the radio show For the People, California Superior Court Judge Pro Tem and author of the new book, From the Trench to the Bench: Navigating the Legal System and Finding your Spiritual Path Along the Way; Judge Jim Gray, former Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Orange County California, former Libertarian candidate for Vice-President, an author and a playwright, and Judge George Grasso, retired NYC Criminal Court Judge, who served as the Supervising Judge for the Bronx Criminal Court and the Administrative Judge for Criminal Matters in Queens Supreme Court. He's also a 30 year veteran of the NYPD, having served as First Deputy Police Commissioner. They discuss Trump's trial and issues faced in courtrooms. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Frank starts the show joined by a panel of four retired judges. They include: Judge Phillip Straniere, retired supervising judge of the New York City Civil Court in Richmond County, who also served as an Acting State Supreme Court Justice and the author of Filing and Winning Small Claims For Dummies; Judge Herb Dodell, host of the radio show For the People, California Superior Court Judge Pro Tem and author of the new book, From the Trench to the Bench: Navigating the Legal System and Finding your Spiritual Path Along the Way; Judge Jim Gray, former Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Orange County California, former Libertarian candidate for Vice-President, an author and a playwright, and Judge George Grasso, retired NYC Criminal Court Judge, who served as the Supervising Judge for the Bronx Criminal Court and the Administrative Judge for Criminal Matters in Queens Supreme Court. He's also a 30 year veteran of the NYPD, having served as First Deputy Police Commissioner. They discuss Trump's trial and issues faced in courtrooms. Frank then talks about South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem writing about killing her dog and goat. Frank starts the third hour with commendations for the week. He moves on to comment on a DEI style guide, a valedictorian robbed of her title. Frank wraps up the show talking about flying first class. He is also joined by Noam Laden for News You Can Use. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Midnight Panel Featuring Four Retired Judges: Judge Phillip Straniere, retired supervising judge of the New York City Civil Court in Richmond County, who also served as an Acting State Supreme Court Justice. He's also the author of Filing and Winning Small Claims For Dummies Bio: https://ballotpedia.org/Philip_Straniere Social Media: N/A   Judge Herb Dodell, host of the radio show “For the People,” California Superior Court Judge Pro Tem and author of the new book, “From the Trench to the Bench: Navigating the Legal System and Finding your Spiritual Path Along the Way”. Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/JudgeHerb Twitter - https://twitter.com/JudgeHerbDodell Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/judge_herb_dodell/ Website - https://judgeherbdodell.us/   Judge Jim Gray, former Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Orange County California, former Libertarian candidate for Vice-President, an author and a playwright Website: https://judgejimgray.com/ Social Media: https://www.facebook.com/JudgeJamesGray/ https://twitter.com/judgejamesgray    Judge George Grasso, retired NYC Criminal Court Judge, who served as the Supervising Judge for the Bronx Criminal Court and the Administrative Judge for Criminal Matters in Queens Supreme Court. He's also a 30 year veteran of the NYPD, having served as First Deputy Police Commissioner Bio: https://grassoforqueens.com/about Social Media: https://twitter.com/grasso4queens https://www.facebook.com/Grasso4Queens/ https://www.instagram.com/grasso4queens Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Emma Ansah reports on a brotha who cries after the presiding judge on his case recognizes him from middle school and he turns his life around after his released from prison --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/africandiasporanews/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/africandiasporanews/support

On this Salcedo Storm Podcast:Candidates for the Court of Criminal Appeals:David Schenck is a candidate for Presiding Judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals. He's a Dallas Attorney, a former Justice with Texas' Fifth Court of Appeals & is a former Assistant Attorney General of Texas. Justice Schenck is a graduate of Baylor University School of Law in 1992 and is Board Certified in Civil Appellate law. Gina Parker, running for Place 7 on the Court She's a Waco Attorney with a practice that focuses on criminal defense law, but has been a local prosecutor and for 7 years, was a Board Member and Chair of the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation. And She is a graduate of Baylor University School of Law and is also a Waco businesswoman. Lee Finley is running for Place 8 and is a Marine Corps Veteran and Texas Attorney for over 22 years. His law practice based in Richardson has included Business & Commercial cases, thousands of criminal law cases and work in health care law. He's University of Texas Law graduate, as a Marine Lee led a team of over 40 doctors and health care professionals to evacuate health care facilities during Hurricane Rita.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Judith Clark is the Presiding Judge of the Riverside Superior Court, one of California's busy and growing trial courts. With host M.C. Sungaila, she shares her path to the bench, offers advice for those considering serving on the bench themselves, and underscores how being open-minded about opportunities and the guidance of mentors led her to become a prosecutor and, later, a judge. Listen in for some thoughtful insights from a remarkable judicial leader.

lovethylawyer.comA transcript of this podcast is available at lovethylawyer.com.Go to https://www.lovethylawyer.com/blog for transcripts. In collaboration with the Alameda County Bar Association, Love Thy Lawyer presents an interview with:The Honorable Tara M. Desautels is the immediate past-Presiding Judge for the Alameda County Superior Court and is currently sitting in a Civil Direct Calendar assignment.  Judge Desautels' prior supervisory positions include terms as the Assistant Presiding Judge, the Supervising Judge of the Hayward Hall of Justice, and the Supervising Judge of the Wiley E. Manuel Courthouse in Oakland, California.Appointed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in April 2010, Judge Desautels has served in assignments across varied case-types, including Juvenile, Family, Criminal, and Civil.  She has been an ongoing member of the Court's Executive Committee, led the development of the Court's Strategic Plan, chaired the Court's Information Technology Committee, and previously served on the Court's Access and Self-Represented Litigants and Jury Committees, among others.Statewide, Judge Desautels has served two terms as the Vice-Chair of the Trial Court Presiding Judges' Advisory Committee to the Judicial Council of California (JCC).  Prior to her appointment, Judge Desautels was a litigator at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, specializing in Complex Litigation, White Collar Criminal Defense, and Antitrust matters.  Judge Desautels began her legal career as a Deputy District Attorney in the Alameda County District Attorney's Office where she handled criminal matters county-wide, including as a member of the Felony Child Sexual Assault Team.Judge Desautels is a graduate of U.C. Law San Francisco (formerly U.C. Hastings College of the Law) and Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. Alameda County Bar AssociationThe Alameda County Bar Association (ACBA) is a professional membership association for lawyers and other members of the legal profession. The ACBA provides access to ongoing legal education; and promotes diversity and civil rights in the Alameda County legal community. Our mission is to promote excellence in the legal profession and to facilitate equal access to justice. Louis Goodman www.louisgoodman.com louisgoodman2010@gmail.com 510.582.9090 Special thanks to ACBA staff and members:  Hadassah Hayashi, Director (https://www.acbanet.org/) Musical theme by Joel Katz, Seaside Recording, Maui Technical support: Bryan Matheson, Skyline Studios, OaklandAudiograms & Transcripts: Paul Roberts    We'd love to hear from you.  Send us an email at louisgoodman2010@gmail.com.  Louis Goodman www.louisgoodman.comhttps://www.lovethylawyer.com/510.582.9090Music: Joel Katz, Seaside Recording, MauiTech: Bryan Matheson, Skyline Studios, OaklandAudiograms: Paul Roberts louis@lovethylawyer.com

Frank starts the show by talking about whether or not there will be a cure for most of the different cancers and Judge Jim Gray, former Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Orange County California, former Libertarian candidate for Vice-President, a playwright and an author, whose books include “Wearing the Robe: The Art and Responsibilities of Judging in today's Courts” joins Frank to talk about his career as a judge.Next, Frank talks about open relationships and goes to the mail. Then, Frank talks about the new Taylor Swift movie causing people to be dancing and singing in the theatres. Later, Frank discusses whether or not you should vote if an election is uncontested, and much more.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Judge Jim Gray, former Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Orange County California, former Libertarian candidate for Vice-President, a playwright and an author, whose books include “Wearing the Robe: The Art and Responsibilities of Judging in today's Courts” . Website: https://judgejimgray.com/ Book: https://www.amazon.com/Wearing-Robe-Responsibilities-Judging-Todays/dp/0757002420 Social Media: https://www.facebook.com/JudgeJamesGray/ https://twitter.com/judgejamesgray Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Daily Gwei Refuel gives you a recap every week day on everything that happened in the Ethereum and crypto ecosystems over the previous 24 hours - hosted by Anthony Sassano. Timestamps and links to topics discussed: https://daily-gwei-links.vercel.app/recent 00:00 Introductory song 00:35 Grayscale wins lawsuit against SEC https://twitter.com/DeItaone/status/1696528835834155035 02:42 Potential ramifications of Grayscale win https://twitter.com/jchervinsky/status/1696544309699363201 02:52 Impact on SEC's spot BTC ETF denials https://twitter.com/JSeyff/status/1696545239136149545 03:05 Presiding Judge's comments on SEC's failures https://twitter.com/JSeyff/status/1696531990433190172 08:38 Coinbase may partner with Twitter for hiring https://twitter.com/coinbase/status/1696629598103183749 11:02 Release of Ethereum Execution Layer Specification https://twitter.com/_SamWilsn_/status/1696584700511309989 12:03 What is Stylus in a nutshell  https://twitter.com/OffchainLabs/status/1696616432812036176 14:37 Polygon proposal on how to fix appchain walled gardens https://twitter.com/0xPolygonLabs/status/1696531363120521605 17:27 Etherscan Scroll explorer https://twitter.com/etherscan/status/1696486574849200480 19:04 Euler's comeback narrative https://twitter.com/eulerfinance/status/1696563637022826815 21:08 Instadapp's Avocado multisig https://twitter.com/Instadapp/status/1696537797916799035 25:29 Farcaster DAU going parabolic https://twitter.com/dwr/status/1696649236882821215 26:42 Sassal & Refuel the 2nd largest Farcaster closed beta on-boarder https://twitter.com/sassal0x/status/1696519926159487147 This episode is also available on YouTube: https://youtu.be/jNtamNKTJiQ Subscribe to the newsletter: https://thedailygwei.substack.com/ Subscribe on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvCp6vKY5jDr87htKH6hgDA/ Follow Anthony on Twitter: https://twitter.com/sassal0x Follow The Daily Gwei on Twitter: https://twitter.com/thedailygwei Join the Discord Channel: https://discord.gg/4pfUJsENcg DISCLAIMER: All information presented across all of The Daily Gwei's communication channels is strictly for educational purposes and should not be taken as investment advice.

August 15th, 2023, Court Leader's Advantage Podcast Episode Leaders deal with multiple circles of individuals.  Two that you as a court administrator or Clerk of Court deal with are 1) those who report to you and 2) those you either report to or deal with as fellow stakeholders.  Those reporting to you include your team, and the larger office or court staff.   The next circle centers on your Presiding Judge, and your bench; it includes your funding body such as your City Council, County Board, the state administrative office, or the state legislature.  It extends to your fellow justice partners such as the Sheriff, the Prosecutor, the bar, and community organizations.   The leadership skills needed to deal with both circles include team building, mentoring, strategic thinking, organization, persuasive speaking, and concise effective writing.  But you deal with your fellow stakeholders (principally your judges), differently than with your court staff.  Your judges are leaders in their own right; usually, they have their own vision which or may not align with yours; they are well-educated and may not be particularly interested in your counsel.  In addition, many judges may have developed their own concepts of managing people, they are used to handing down orders from the bench and having them obeyed, many are elected so they have their own specific constituency, and court staff often have a direct informal pipeline to individual judges.  Rick Pierce described the role of the administrator dealing with this circle as being an “influencer.” This month we're looking at leaders as influencers of others in power. What is this environment really like? Are there different skills necessary or just different ways of applying the skills you have?  What is your mindset when working with your bench?   Today's Panelists Rick Pierce: Judicial Programs Administrator, Pennsylvania Administrative Office of the Courts   Melinda Brooks: Grants and Special Projects Manager, Municipal Court, Franklin County, Ohio   Ellen Procida-Fisher: Operations Manager, Superior Court, Cape May, New Jersey,   JoShonda Guerrier: Interim Chief Administrative Officer, Juvenile Court, Fulton County, Georgia, and   Lori Tyack: Clerk of Court for the Municipal Court, Franklin County, Ohio

Maria Hernandez is the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Orange County, California. She shares her journey to the bench from a career as a public defender, and her new role as presiding judge of one of the country's largest trial courts. She describes the challenges her court met during COVID-19, which led to virtual and hybrid court hearings which continue to improve people's access to the justice system, and the broader role that presiding judges play in administering justice.

Washington Supreme Court Justice Barbara Madsen is a trailblazer. The first woman to be popularly elected to the Court in Washington state history, and the third woman to serve on the Court, she is committed to public service and equal justice. While on Seattle's Municipal Court bench, she helped develop a Domestic Violence Coordinating Committee to comprehensively address violence in the family and as Presiding Judge of the Municipal Court, she increased opportunities for women and attorneys of color to receive appointments as pro tem judges. She shares her remarkable journey from public defender and city attorney to her state's highest court with host M.C. Sungaila.

Judge Samantha P. Jessner is the Presiding Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, the largest trial court in the United States. Judge Jessner discusses the role that mentors, including powerhouse women lawyers like her mother Patricia Phillips and former U.S. Attorney, now Court of Appeal Justice Nora Manella, played in moving her career forward. She also shares what goes into leading the nation's largest trial court, and how she pays it forward to the next generation of women lawyers.

May 23, 2023 Hon. Anna Huberman, Country Meadows Justice Court, Presiding Judge, MCJC   Taj Rahi-Loo, Administrative Pro Tem, MCJC Webinar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGPx-zgWQ44 Materials: https://spaces.hightail.com/space/tOuRfKkxm6

WARNING: This episode contains discussion related to bullying, sexual assault, suicide, childhood trauma, and human trafficking. Some listeners may want to skip this episode and catch up with us for the next one. In this episode, we are joined by Judge Cynthia Wheless, the Presiding Judge of the 417th District Court in Collin County. Judge Wheless tells us how and why she created the GEMS (Girl's Empowerment Mentoring Support) Program and a Juvenile Mental Health Court. If you have an innovation in mental health that you'd like to see on the podcast, email JCMH@txcourts.gov with the subject line "Reimagining Justice". *Disclaimer: The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed are the speaker's own and do not represent the views, thoughts, and opinions of the JCMH, the Supreme Court of Texas, or the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The material and information presented here are for general information purposes only.

Donald Trump journeyed on Monday to New York where he is expected to be arraigned Tuesday after he became the first former president to face criminal charges. The New York judge who is presiding over former President Donald Trump's criminal case is also overseeing a separate case against former aide Steve Bannon and heard proceedings against the Trump Organization. Former President Donald Trump called for the resignation of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg for allegedly “illegally” leaking the points of indictment to the media. Four Biden family business associates are cooperating with the House investigation into President Joe Biden and his family, House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-KY) said Monday.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A discussion with the Honorable Scott Rowland  of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. 

***Head's up - my audio (not Nicole's) has a lot of echo. But don't let that stop you from listening! Nicole's is crystal clear, and the advice she gives is super important.***I did this live interview with powerhouse attorney Nicole Cheri Oden in 2021, and if you teach Pilates, you need to listen.We talk about all the things - making the jump into entrepreneurship, work/family balance, the importance of trademarks and legal protection for online businesses, and whatever else comes up!Nicole shares exactly what Pilates teachers need to protect us, especially online, and she offers online legal templates to make it super easy, including everything from your online waiver to testimonial releases, blog post agreements, group and individual coaching agreements, podcast, non-disclosure.... All done for you - just fill in the blanks. See links section below.Nicole's Bio:Nicole is a licensed attorney in the State of California. She received the Super Lawyers Rising Star award in 2018-2021 for being in the top 2.5% of attorneys in the state.Nicole has worked with several prestigious boutique family law firms where she participated in all aspects of the practice, including representing individuals in litigation, Mediation, and Collaborative Law cases.Nicole has volunteered with the Domestic Violence Project located in Department 8 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Downtown LA and is passionate about child custody issues.Nicole graduated from Southwestern Law School in 2011 and was the recipient of the Dean's Scholar and Dean's Merit Scholarships. She received awards for having the highest grades in Sales Law and Legal Writing. Nicole externed for the Honorable Scott M. Gordon, the former Presiding Judge of Los Angeles County Superior Court – Family Law Division, and obtained valuable knowledge and insight regarding court proceedings and strategies.Nicole studied English at California State University, Long Beach as a President's Scholar (with a full scholarship) and graduated Magna Cum Laude with a Bachelor of Arts degree and a Minor in Sociology in 2006. She is also a member of Phi Beta Kappa.In her free time, Nicole is an avid reader and loves spending time with her daughter and husband.Links:Website & Legal Templates - https://fitlynda.com/legalFacebook - https://www.facebook.com/nicolecheriodenlawInstagram - https://www.instagram.com/nicolecheriodenlaw/ LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicole-cheri-oden/Music by Nerd SaladLove the podcast? Please review on Apple or Podchaser, and help support my work on Ko-Fi.Thank you! Support the showStart your podcast today at Buzzsprout

January 17th, 2023, Court Leader's Advantage Podcast Episode Every state in our nation has a Judicial Code of Conduct. Every judge in each state is obligated to follow that state's Code. Since 1973, most Federal judges have been subject to The Code of Conduct for United States Judges. There is only group exempt from the duty to follow these codes. That group consists of the Justices of the United States Supreme Court. To be fair over the years, accusations of scandal have been rare within the Court. Until recently one had to go back to Abe Fortas who in 1969 was accused of accepting a retainer from a private foundation. Lately however claims of bias have been on the rise. Justices are known to receive monetary advances for book deals. There have been accusations of inappropriate public comments; premature information on upcoming decisions disclosed; even draft opinions leaked. As a result, public approval of the Court has sharply declined. A recent Gallup Poll showed 40% of the public approving of the Supreme Court while 59% disapproved.[1] This month we are asking should the United States Supreme Court adopt a Code of Conduct? Adopting such a Code might help to rehabilitate the Court's image. On the other hand, a Code could damage if not destroy the court's independence. Questions to Explore · What are implications of adopting a code; what are the implications of doing nothing? · Are existing safeguards enough? Justices must submit financial disclosure forms and that they are prohibited from accepting gifts that could influence their judicial decision-making. Are these safeguards adequate? · Voluntary recusal from a case is the chief remedy for judicial conflict of interest. Is that sufficient? Today's Panel · The Honorable Ed Spillane, Judge of the Municipal Court in College Station, Texas. Judge Spillane is the Presiding Judge with the Municipal Court in College Station, Texas. He has served in this position since May 2002. Prior to this, he served as an Assistant District Attorney for Brazos County for eight years and as an associate for the law firm Fulbright & Jaworski for two years. Judge Spillane received his undergraduate degree from Harvard University, and his law degree from the University of Chicago. · The Honorable Sherry Stephens, retired Judge with the Superior Court in Maricopa County, Arizona. Judge Stephens retired from the Maricopa County Superior Court bench where she served from 2001 through 2021. She served on the Criminal Department, the Civil Department, the Juvenile Department, Family Department, and as a special assignment judge. Prior to that she was with the Arizona Attorney General's Office, serving under five attorneys general. She worked as the Chief Counsel for the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section for twelve years. She also served as a Special Assistant United States Attorney on several cases. · Karl Thoennes, Court Administrator with the 2nd Judicial Circuit Court in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Karl began his career in the courts in Alaska in 1988, ultimately working as a division supervisor at the state's largest trial court in Anchorage. He was appointed as Court Administrator in Todd County, Minnesota in 1998, and then Stearns County, St. Cloud, two years later. In 2004 he was appointed as Administrator for the Second Judicial Circuit in South Dakota, the state's largest circuit by population. [1]Dallas Sun, 12/4/2022

     Slam the Gavel welcomes Judge David B. Katz to the podcast. Judge Katz is the President of the National Council of juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ), and is the Presiding Judge in the Essex Vicinage of the New Jersey Courts.     The NCJFCJ's mission is to provide all judges, courts and related agencies involved with juvenile, family and domestic violence cases with the knowledge and skills to improve the lives of the families and children who are seeking justice.    Judge Katz was appointed to the Superior Court of New Jersey in 2008. Judge Katz is also chair of the New Jersey Supreme Court's Family Practice Committee and the Conference of Presiding Family Judges and in that capacity, he has served as a member of the New Jersey's Judicial Council. He has also served as the lead judge for Domestic Violence, lead judge for the Children in Court Docket and the family drug court judge and chair of the Model Court.   A former chair of the state-wide Domestic violence Working Group, Judge Katz is also active in his community where he served three terms as mayor and fifteen years as a member of his local Emergency First Aid Squad as an EMT.    We discussed many issues including Domestic Violence, firearms and when should a case be referred to Criminal Court if so. We talked about accountability when litigants disobey judge's orders and Child Psychological Abuse (Parental Alienation. To Learn More: NCJFCJSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.comSupport the showSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/

GUEST OVERVIEW: Andrew Gould's path to public service began with his parents. Growing up, the Gould family never had a lot of material success, but they were rich in far greater ways. Andy's parents were good, hard-working people of great faith who stressed the importance of integrity, honesty, and humility – values that inspired him to pursue a career in law. As a prosecutor in Yuma, Andy tried every type of criminal case imaginable, including the prosecution of criminal organizations located in Mexico. In 2001, Andy was appointed by the Governor to fill a vacant seat on the Yuma County Superior Court, where he served in that capacity for eleven years. In 2006, while serving on the Superior Court bench, he was appointed as the Presiding Judge for Yuma County. In 2012, Andy was appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals until he was given the honor of being appointed as Justice to the Arizona Supreme Court in 2016. Arizona needs an Attorney General who will be ready on day one to go to court and fight for their rights, and Andy Gould is the right person for the job. Andy understands the legal challenges facing Arizona because he has spent more than 30 years addressing and presiding over the most complex civil and criminal cases in the State. To show his commitment, Andy has stepped down from the Arizona Supreme Court – a decision that not many before him have made. But to quote Thomas Paine, “these are the times that try men's souls.” Arizona needs leaders who are willing to sacrifice something for its people, and Andy Gould has proven he will do just that.

The Reverend Andra D. Sparks is a native of Birmingham, Alabama. He is the eldest son of the late Cedric L. Sparks and the late Doris Jones Sparks. He is a lifelong member of First Missionary Baptist Church East Boyles. He has been actively involved in all aspects of the ministry. He has previously served as an Associate Minister, Deacon (Vice-Chairman), Trustee (Vice-Chair) Director of Youth and Children's Activities, Sunday School Teacher and the church's legal advisor. Reverend Sparks was educated in the Birmingham Public School System. He is a 1981 graduate of West End High School. He received his Bachelor of Science Degree in 1985 from Tuskegee Institute and his Doctor of Jurisprudence from the University of Alabama School of Law in 1988. Reverend Sparks is a graduate of the United States Army Judge Advocate General's School. He also pursued studies at Birmingham Theological Seminary. He has been honored for community service activities. In 2013 Metro NAACP Award as Pastor of the Year, April 2012, Inducted into the YMCA Order of the Red Triangle (the highest honor for a volunteer). Community Champion Award – The Dannon Project 2010 Meritorious Achievement Award – Lawson State Community College- January 2008 presented with the Key to City of Gadsden, Alabama; Recognized as one the most influential citizens in the 2009 and 2008 Edition of Who's Who in Birmingham, Alabama; 2007 Appointed to the Blue Ribbon Committee to Review the Birmingham Mayor/Council Act; 2006 Recognized as a “Trailblazer for Education” Birmingham City Schools, Ted Hawkins Award of Excellence, Jarvis Christian College Birmingham Alumni; Appreciation from Seraaj Family Homes, Inc.; 2005 Award of Appreciation from Jefferson County Aids in Minorities; February 2004 The Alabama Association of Family and Consumer Science Professionals presented him with Family Advocate Award. In 2003, he was presented with the first Western Area YMCA Harrison/ Atkins Award for Outstanding Board Leadership. In 2002 he received the first IMPACT Family Counseling G.O.L.D. Medal Award, and was presented the Professional Child Advocacy Award from Seraaj Family Homes, Inc. In 2001 he represented the Birmingham City Council District Eight on the Citizen's Commission of Redistricting (Co-Chair). In 2000 he was honored as Adult Volunteer of the Year by the Western Area YMCA. In March 2008, he was appointed Municipal Court Judge for the City of Fairfield, the first African American to hold the position. In August 2008, the Birmingham City Council appointed Judge Sparks to a newly established seat on Birmingham's Municipal Court to establish and preside over the Drug Court and Gun Court Dockets. He was reappointed in 2012. In December 2010 he was appointed Presiding Judge for the City of Birmingham Municipal Court (the largest Municipal Court in the State of Alabama with five full time judges, two part-time Special Judges and more than one hundred employees) by the Mayor. Reverend Sparks has been happily married to the former Karen Moore since June 28, 1986. They are the proud parents of Anthony (author of #Better and RelationTips) who is married to Ashley (a teacher in the Hoover School District) and Brittany, (a registered nurse with UAB who writes the blog Until Nothing Is Left) who is married to George (a Birmingham firefighter). They are the proud grandparents of Aidan, who currently believes he will be a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle, George Solomon, and Ashton Donell.

Today's episode is a recording of a live forum between Seattle Municipal Court Judge candidates - Judge Adam Eisenberg and Pooja Vaddadi for Position 3, Nyjat Rose-Akins and Judge Damon Shadid for Position 7. The forum was live streamed by Hacks & Wonks on October 12, 2022 and moderated by Crystal Fincher.   Resources Find links to the YouTube video and transcript here   Campaign Website - Judge Adam Eisenberg   Campaign Website - Pooja Vaddadi   Campaign Website - Nyjat Rose-Akins   Campaign Website - Judge Damon Shadid   Register to vote, update your registration, see what's on your ballot and more here   Past felony conviction? Information on re-registering to vote at the Washington Voting Rights Restoration Coalition   Transcript [00:00:00] Bryce Cannatelli: Hello everyone. This is Bryce from the Hacks & Wonks team. Today's episode is a recording of our City of Seattle Municipal Court Judge forum which was originally streamed live on October 12. You can find video from the event as well as a full text transcript on our website officialhacksandwonks.com. Thank you for listening! [00:00:34] Crystal Fincher: Greetings, everyone. My name is Crystal Fincher. I'm a political consultant and the host of this candidate forum tonight. Welcome to this Hacks & Wonks 2022 Primary Candidate Forum for City of Seattle Municipal Court Judge Positions 3 and 7. For those who need a refresher, the Seattle Municipal Court handles all misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor crimes, civil infractions, and other offenses authorized under the Seattle municipal Code and Revised Code of Washington statutes. Misdemeanors are crimes where the maximum sentence is 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine. Gross Misdemeanors are crimes that carry a maximum sentence of 364 days in jail and a $5,000 fine, including offenses such as driving under the influence, domestic violence, theft, and trespass. Infractions are acts that are prohibited by law but are not legally defined as a crime, like parking tickets and traffic or non-traffic infractions. And Civil Offenses are filed with the court when the City of Seattle seeks enforcement of its fire code, housing, and other city ordinance violations. The majority of the Seattle Municipal Court Judges' time is dedicated to jury trials and pretrial hearings. They also hear sentencings, arraignments, reviews, non-jury, or 'bench' trials, and can perform marriage ceremonies. Seattle Municipal Court has seven judges who are elected to four-year terms. Every other year, the judges select one judge to act as the Presiding Judge for a two-year term. The Presiding Judge's responsibilities including: overseeing the magistrates, lead the management and administration of the court's business, recommend policies and procedures that improve the court's effectiveness, allocate resources that maximize the court's ability to resolve disputes fairly and expeditiously, and determine judicial assignments. We're excited to be able to live stream this forum on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. Additionally, we are recording this forum for rebroadcast and later viewing. We invite our audience to ask questions of our candidates. If you're watching a live stream online, then you can ask questions by commenting on the live stream. You can also text your questions to 206-395-6248, and that number will scroll at the bottom of the screen. The candidates running for City of Seattle Municipal Court Judge Position 3 with us right now are - in alphabetical order - Adam Eisenberg and Pooja Vaddadi. And for Position 7 we have - again, in alphabetical order - Nyjat Rose-Akins and Damon Shadid. A few reminders before we jump into the forum. I want to remind you to vote. Ballots will be mailed to your mailbox starting Wednesday, October 19th - that's this coming Wednesday. You can register to vote, update your registration, and see what will be on your ballot at MyVote.wa.gov. I want to mention that tonight's answers will be timed. Each candidate will have one minute to introduce themselves initially, and 90 seconds to answer each subsequent question. Candidates may be engaged with rebuttal or follow up with questions and will have 30 seconds to respond. Time will be indicated by the colored dot labeled "timer" on the screen. The dot will initially appear as green, when there are 30 seconds left it will turn yellow, and when there are 10 seconds left it will turn red. You will be muted when time is up. Now we'll turn to the candidates who will each have one minute to introduce themselves, starting with Adam Eisenberg. Then Pooja Vaddadi. Next Nyjat Rose-Akins. Finally Damon Shadid. So starting with our first candidate. [00:04:13] Judge Adam Eisenberg: Good evening. Municipal courts present a unique opportunity for restorative justice and diversion. For many of the people who come before me, this is their first stop in the legal system - I want it to be their last. I grew up with an abusive father and I know that treatment is critical to healing survivors, families, and abusers. That's why I helped create the Domestic Violence Intervention Project, a community-based program that serves as an alternative to jail. DVIP provides individualized treatment to break cycles of abuse and trauma. I'm proud to be the only LGBTQ+ member of the Seattle Municipal Court bench. Before being appointed in 2017, I had 25 years of experience as a prosecutor, civil defense attorney, magistrate and commissioner. I believe my diverse background is why I've been rated "Exceptionally Well Qualified" by the King County Bar and four minority bar associations. It's also why I've been elected Presiding Judge by my peers and why I have the support of Supreme Court Justices Yu, González and Whitener, local district Democrats, the unions that represent our court clerks and many more. Thank you. [00:05:11] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. And next. [00:05:17] Pooja Vaddadi: Okay, sorry - thank you. My name is Pooja Vaddadi and I'm running for judge in Seattle to serve the community that raised me and bring about a positive change in the culture of Seattle Municipal Court. I'm a career public defender and my platform is centered on a recommitment to fairness, compassion, and restorative justice. At this time, I've been endorsed by every Democratic organization in Seattle and King County that has endorsed in this race, as well as the Washington Young Democrats, the Democrats for Diversity and Inclusion and the National Women's Political Caucus. Aside from three legislative districts, these endorsements are exclusive. I always planned to run for judge, but I wish that I didn't have to run right now. Practice at Seattle Municipal Court showed me a toxic and biased judiciary acting against the interest of public safety and undermining the institution of the court. I'm running now because it is urgent that we change direction. This campaign is about the people of Seattle. As a public defender, I came to understand the specific challenges that prevent misdemeanor defendants from interacting productively with the criminal justice system. I'm running to bring the court back in touch with the law and with the circumstances of those it serves. [00:06:17] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Nyjat Rose-Akins. [00:06:21] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Thank you. Good evening. My name is Nyjat Rose-Akins and I'm running for Position 7 on the Seattle Municipal Court bench. I love Seattle. I became a U.S. citizen here, but I've seen the breakdown in collaboration across the city. I'm running to help repair that breakdown to improve the community's confidence in the court and to return to an individualized approach to judicial decision-making. I'm running because I've spent the last 12 years working with victims and managing relationships - the community relationships with police. In my 12 years at the City Attorney's Office, I've partnered with businesses, government officials, community members, and law enforcement. I've seen firsthand that issues affecting communities are rarely resolved in silos. Real change takes collaboration from all those involved, a willingness to listen, and the ability to have the courage to say when things are not working. I am running for Seattle Municipal Court to make it better. Thank you. [00:07:20] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Damon Shadid. [00:07:22] Judge Damon Shadid: My name is Judge Damon Shadid. I've been a judge at Seattle Municipal Court for the past eight years. For the past four years, I've been presiding over the majority of Seattle Municipal Court's therapeutic courts - including Community Court which I helped found, Mental Health Court which I helped expand, and the Consolidated Calendar which I was able to create in partnership with other criminal legal system organizations. All of these programs have one thing in common. Accountability is best sought through rehabilitation, not through holding people in jail. Without rehabilitation, we are not going to make our community safer - and that's what all of my programs do. It is an individualized approach to find out what people's barriers are and to help them connect with the vital social services that will help them exit the criminal legal system. I'm proud to be endorsed by the Progressive Voters Guide, by The Seattle Times, by nine Supreme Court Justices, by many labor organizations, as well as community leaders, including - [00:08:31] Crystal Fincher: Thank you, I believe that's your time. Our first question will begin with Nyjat Rose-Akins, then follow up with Damon Shadid. What is your evaluation of the Community Court system? What is working and what's not working? [00:08:46] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Thank you for that question. My evaluation of the Community Court system that is run out of Seattle Municipal Court is that it is not working. I have been partnering with members in the community as well as businesses and really trying to understand what is happening in that court. As a prosecutor - when I initially started at the City Attorney's Office in 2010 - I worked in Community Court. So I understand how the program is supposed to work. And currently I do not believe it's working because right now it seems as if it's a very indiscriminate approach to low-level crime, meaning it seems as if all types of crimes can come in regardless of what that individual may be doing in the community and whether or not that individual continues to commit crime even after being in Community Court. For instance, an individual - me reviewing the docket in the court, the court dockets - I've seen individuals with six, seven, eight crimes all at one time in Community Court. That shows me that that is not working. And low-level crime should be something very small. However, I'm seeing crimes where individuals are stealing thousands of dollars, $970 from businesses and Home Depot and Target. So my issue with it is that it doesn't seem to be working and we continue to just recycle people in and out without any real solution. [00:10:19] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Judge Shadid. [00:10:22] Judge Damon Shadid: It's interesting. My opponent has never appeared in Community Court, which I founded - she was in a prior iteration of Community Court. But let me give you some numbers to show you how Community Court is working. 80% of the graduates of Community Court have no further criminal law violations - 80%. That's over two years that we ran the numbers and the graduates are not coming back in the criminal legal system - that is results that work. Let me tell you something else - now, Community Court was created in a collaboration with the City Attorney's Office and with the Public Defender's Office. We meet every two weeks, we tweak the program, we make it better. And in all of these meetings - my opponent has never come to the meeting, has never offered any sort of critique of the court, but instead has come from the outside where she's only reviewed dockets, but never actually been in the court, never been in the meetings. If she had been in the meeting, she would know that they work. She would know that we're collaborating and she would know that what we are trying to do is bring accountability through rehabilitation and it is working. Of the people who come to court, 90% of those people enter Community Court. Of those 90%, 75% graduate. And of those graduates, 90% don't re-offend in the next two years. Those are real numbers. Those work and we should keep going with Community Court, make it better, and expand it. [00:11:48] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Pooja Vaddadi. [00:11:54] Pooja Vaddadi: Thank you. I believe a lot of Community Court is working. I've had a lot of clients that cycled in and out of Community Court and have been met with very many resources through that court. What I've noticed that hasn't been working is that a lot of roadblocks have been set up by the City Attorney's Office and a majority of the judges have more or less gone along with what the City Attorney proposes - and that is to exclude everybody off the High Utilizer Initiative list. That list is made up of people who have severe mental illnesses and people who are homeless and struggling with desperation and poverty. And I believe those people are the people that would benefit the most from a court like Community Court. Certain people on that list are also part of the Trueblood class and should just not be capable of being prosecuted because of the severity of their mental illness as well. And so Community Court obviously would not be the right place for them. But again, prosecution or keeping them off of any kind of diversion list is not going to help people who just cannot be prosecuted because of a mental illness. I believe that the Community Court can work better if the City Attorney, the Public Defenders and the Judges - again - decide to work together and come to a policy that works for everybody on the same page. I don't think it's working right now because people are butting heads in the court and in the Public Defenders and the City Attorney. People need to be on the same side and that's the side of public safety and helping prevent poverty and homelessness. Thank you. [00:13:24] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. And Adam Eisenberg. [00:13:27] Judge Adam Eisenberg: Yes. So the thing that's most important to understand about Community Court is it's a triage court. It's meant to get people in the court system and out of the court system as quickly as possible, hook them up with social services, give them - if we can get them to housing, get them to housing - and move them on. The reality is some folks don't fit in Community Court. And while I don't necessarily agree that coming up with a list of 109 people or 110 or whatever is the best solution, the reality is that we need to figure out a way of addressing the folks who commit very low-level crimes, but don't succeed in Community Court. That's what this group is about. The group that doesn't succeed that keeps coming back. So while there's a great success rate as Judge Shadid talks about, how do we address the folks that don't fit? There is a dispute between the prosecutors and the public defenders - the prosecutor has discretion, judges have discretion as well. And I think over time we'll see that those folks will try to figure out more services that we can provide them with. But the reality is not everybody fits in Community Court and that group is the group we have to figure how to target. Thank you. [00:14:31] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Nyjat asked for some rebuttal time. [00:14:36] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Thank you. I just wanted to address the 80% of people who go into Community Court graduate. That number is very skewed because when you do review the court docket, there are also a number of people who fail to appear or don't even show up for court. So I believe that is a skewed number based on the fact that there are multiple Community Court offers, but a number of people who do not show up for court. Additionally, the City Attorney tried to negotiate and opt some people out because they felt they - [00:15:12] Crystal Fincher: That is time there and just another reminder - rebuttal is a 30-second period. Does anyone else want any rebuttal time, or are we good? We will move on to the next question. And we'll start with Judge Shadid. We have seen news of overcrowding in jails, asks from various jail employees - including corrections officers and public defenders - saying that they don't currently have the staffing to safely man the jails, asking to reduce the population. Should that be taken into account by judges when imposing sentences? [00:15:51] Judge Damon Shadid: Well the short answer is "No, but..." And there's a big but there - and that is that the criminal legal system should be steering away from incarceration because we know incarceration doesn't help people... the criminal legal system. And as a deterrent, it is very, very controversial of whether or not a jail deterrent is actually effective. What we need to do is be expanding programs for diversion, expanding programs for rehabilitation - that's what I've spent my career doing. That's why I created the new Community Court. That's why I brought together a Consolidated Calendar where people who are already working in the community with case workers can come on one-stop shopping to a court and can resolve their cases many times without the need of jail. That's why I've expanded Mental Health Court - so that we can create release plans for the most dangerous, most vulnerable in our community - people who need close supervision, and so we can release them with very close supervision with the aid of a court clinician. This is the direction the court should be going. Accountability should come from rehabilitation, from a person's willingness to engage with the social safety net services. I am proud to say that Seattle Municipal Court has not been booking people in jail up to the level of beds that we have available. We consistently come under that and we have lowered that number every year. And one of the big reasons, of course, is because of our diversion programs and I'm very proud of that fact. [00:17:20] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Next up is Nyjat. [00:17:26] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Yes, there has been a lot of issues with King County Jail, and as Judge Shadid stated, the court is not in charge of the jail and can't necessarily tell the jail what to do. I do think the court does have to factor that in when people are trying to be admitted into the jail and the jail is closed. So I think those are definitely some considerations that should be made when you are looking to maybe sentence someone to jail or determine whether bail is warranted. But I think that is done on a case-by-case basis. [00:18:03] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Adam Eisenberg. [00:18:08] Judge Adam Eisenberg: Thank you. I think the reality is judges are very much aware of the crowding in the jail. The job that we have is to decide - in this particular case, is this person a safety threat to the community? And that's really what drives most of the decisions to whether someone is going to be in jail or not. Is there substantial likelihood they're going to commit a violent crime? Are they going to interfere with the administration of justice? And then to a lesser extent, whether they're going to show up to court or if they've failed to show up multiple times. We are very much aware of the limitations of the jail. And there's also issues with staffing in general - because of COVID, they're not able to staff as well. So it's very challenging. We are booking fewer people - we've been doing that ever since COVID started. So I think that that shows that judges are very much aware of it. But at the end of the day, it comes down to - in this particular case, is this person a danger to the community or not? That's the primary driver of why someone's held in jail. And the judge has to make a decision based on that. Thank you. [00:19:06] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. And Pooja. [00:19:09] Pooja Vaddadi: Thank you. I do agree with Judge Shadid. The court should be steering away from incarceration. And so while over-crowding for sentencing should not necessarily be taken into consideration, I do think that sentencing needs to be, that culture around sentencing needs to change dramatically. Studies have shown that public safety is not improved with increased rates of incarceration. In fact, a lot like what Judge Shadid was saying as well, studies have shown that diversion programs really do help to promote public safety. With the increased rate of incarceration, with the increased rate of jail sentences between 15 to 60 days - all it does to the individual is destabilize them. Their mental health deteriorates significantly when in jail. They're faced with the overcrowding problem. They're faced with dealing with individuals that they'd never encounter in the system. And they're also cut off from all resources. I've had clients that have had a lot of problems getting their mental health meds or any other kind of medical assistance while in jail. And all it does is cut them off from the resources that can help them re-enter society more effectively, that can help them not reoffend in the future. We should focus more on diversion programs. We should teach individuals who do touch the criminal justice system to reincorporate with society a little bit better. That is what improves public safety. [00:20:40] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. And for this next question, we will start with Adam Eisenberg. What factors do you consider in granting and setting bail amounts for defendants? Should it strictly be based on whether or not someone is dangerous to society or a safety risk, therefore kind of making bail irrelevant, or does bail have a role to play in your court? How do you evaluate that? [00:21:06] Judge Adam Eisenberg: So judges are guided by Criminal Rule 3.2, which does provide that the least restrictive means is what's appropriate. And in order to set bail, you have to decide that there's a substantial likelihood someone's going to commit a violent crime if they're released, substantial likelihood that they will interfere with the administration of justice or witnesses - which could be violate no-contact orders, or continue to drink and drive after they've been charged with a DUI, or fail to appear. That is the legal requirement that we have. We're also supposed to consider whether the person has the ability to pay or not. The bail system was created over 100 years ago in our state through statutes that seem very out-of-date and don't really apply to the modern world, because clearly people who have financial means are able to bail out easier than those who don't. Although there is the Northwest Bail Fund, which actually is able to bail people out who aren't able to afford it up to a certain level. As a judge, those factors are the factors that are the ones that I'm guided by. In looking at a particular case, is this person a danger to the community? That is the primary concern that I have. The bail system is not a perfect system. California is experimenting with a no bail or bail, so you either decide to hold someone or you release them and there's not an option to bail them out. I don't know if that's a better system or not, but I'm guided by the rules and I apply it in a case-by-case basis. Thank you. [00:22:32] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Next up will be Pooja. I'll just repeat the question. What factors are considered in granting and setting bail amounts for defendants and what do you believe should be the primary consideration? [00:22:46] Pooja Vaddadi: Thank you. So that's correct - the setting of bail is determined by CrRLJ 3.2. It is what needs to be considered when determining whether a person should be released or not, or what the terms of that release are. It does need to be the least restrictive means. What I believe that a lot of judges do frequently forget though, is that the presumption of all pretrial release is actually release. Bail is not at all presumed. What this means is that unless the prosecutor can meet a very high burden in proving that that person is either a danger to the community, at risk of interfering with the administration of justice, or a risk for failure to appear - that person needs to be released from jail. The problem with bail right now is that the danger seems to be - the level of whether that person is a risk to community safety seems to be driven by how much that person can afford. The bail system, as everybody knows, is not perfect. In fact, it is incredibly flawed and it seems to incarcerate more people who simply are poor rather than anybody else. The bail and the setting of bail is also guided by the constitution and it never should be excessive. A judge needs to consider whether the setting of bail is going to do more harm than good. I've seen a client that was bound for diversion and dismissal made homeless by a capricious application of unnecessary bail in this court and I do think that the individual needs to be taken into consideration with this. Thank you. [00:24:19] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Damon? [00:24:23] Judge Damon Shadid: The plain fact of the matter is that all cash bail discriminates against poor people. That is just a fact. There's no getting around it. If you set bail on somebody, a rich person can afford to pay to get out, but a poor person can't. And that's why judges need more tools when it comes to release. That's the whole point of the Community Court, the Mental Health Court, and the Consolidated Calendar - is to give us more tools to allow people to be released on structured release programs that help them connect with services - even predisposition - so that they're safer in the community. Now, I've also started a larger project called the Jail Release Toolkit that I plan to start in Seattle and provide - and that's to try to give judges more options for structured release plans that conform with Rule 3.2, to allow us to follow the laws. Now, it also can't be ignored that the Supreme Court, when COVID started, very much told the judges that we need to only hold people in jail pretrial if they are a substantial risk of committing a violent crime. And so we've been following that, and we've learned really important things from that - and that is we don't have to hold as many people in jail pretrial as maybe we thought we did. And I think a lot of judges have learned from that as well, and so we're really in a great place right now where I believe judges are open to alternative structured releases that can make the community safer instead of just using jail. [00:25:55] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Nyjat? [00:25:57] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Yeah, so the presumption of release is where I start when reviewing a person's case. However, as everyone has said, the court is bound by looking at Rule 3.2. And other than whether or not someone is likely to commit a dangerous offense, you also will have to look at whether or not someone is actually going to come back to court. And if someone has a very high failure-to-appear rate, you have to maybe consider - if I release this person, will this person come back to court? For misdemeanor cases, the point of having alternatives and other types of programs is that these cases need to be addressed relatively quickly, and we can get the services to the people who need it. So in addition to maybe looking at someone's failure-to-appear history, maybe some other examples of things that can be done is maybe electronic home monitoring and/or day reporting, because the point is to make sure that people do not lose contact with the court. And how can we increase contact with people who are committing crimes in our community? [00:27:08] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. And we will start this with Pooja. If you observed a party in your courtroom being poorly represented by an unprepared or ineffective lawyer, how would you handle the situation? [00:27:22] Pooja Vaddadi: So a judge cannot get in between a client and their attorney. It's not my position to do that. All I can do is preside over the law. Now I'll have to rule, however - everything presents in there - and hopefully one of the attorneys speaks up in objection to the way that the representation is going on, but I can't let my personal bias get in there. Just because I think I might do the job differently doesn't mean that I would do it better than the attorney that's doing it right then and there. I should never be the one, as the judge, to substitute my own judgment for how an attorney is handling their case. They have the personal experience with their client. They have the personal experience with their particular case - the victim of the crime, the police officer, whatever it is that they're dealing with - they have that experience to know how to handle that case. Now if I do think that somebody is being unethical or anything like that, that might be a different situation where a judge might have the ability to rule on a particular ethical violation - something that is bound by the law. But again, I would never replace my own judgment nor question the authority of an attorney when they're dealing with their own case - that undermines the credibility of every attorney in that courtroom and it undermines people's confidence in the court. Thank you. [00:28:37] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Adam? [00:28:40] Judge Adam Eisenberg: Thank you. Well, I think that generally what Ms. Vaddadi has said is correct - the judges are not to interfere. However, there are certain circumstances - one day when I was a prosecutor actually, the defense attorney was drunk in the middle of a trial and her own attorney - the client is like, Your Honor, my attorney is drunk. And then the judge said, Judge Eisenberg - or sorry, Adam Eisenberg, I was his prosecutor - do you notice that she's drunk? Well, I'm sitting fairly close by and it put me in an awkward position, but the bottom line is that case resulted in a mistrial. And so there are circumstances where - and they're very rare, honestly - most attorneys that appear in front of us do a really good job. They may make tactical decisions that you might go, Why did you make that tactical decision - after the fact. But that's the area where the judge absolutely cannot invade. If you make a tactical decision to enter, submit evidence or not submit evidence - that's totally within the discretion of the attorney and the judge has to back away. If you have a situation where an attorney is obviously drunk in court or otherwise incapacitated in a way that's severe, you have to take some action. The nicest thing to do is reach out to the supervisor, ask the supervisor to come down, talk to the attorney, see if they can gauge what the situation is. In the case of the drunk attorney, that resulted in a mistrial. So that's an extreme case, I've only seen that once in the 30 years I've worked in the court system, but those things do happen. Thank you. [00:30:08] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Nyjat? [00:30:14] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Yeah, I think if I see someone in the courtroom that is treating their client badly and I'm on the bench - and it seems as if it's more than just a tactical decision, maybe it just seems as if it is just treating someone inhumanely - I would likely take a sidebar or maybe take a recess and take both prosecutor and the defense attorney into chambers and just basically explain what I'm seeing because judges can't have ex parte contact. So I would probably make a note of it to the attorney - that this behavior is not appropriate - especially again, if it's outside of trial tactics and it's just behavior that's just inhumane or treating their client disrespectfully, I would likely address it in chambers. [00:31:19] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. And Damon? [00:31:22] Judge Damon Shadid: We are very lucky in Seattle Municipal Court to have a very high level of representation both from the private bar, the Department of Public Defense, and the City Attorney's Office. I never stop being impressed with the level of representation that we have, but that doesn't mean that sometimes there doesn't come an attorney who comes and is doing a poor job representing their client. And what we have to avoid here is we have to avoid - one, the client not getting a fair shake. And number two, a setup for ineffective assistance of counsel so that all the work that went into that trial, all the jurors, all the court staff, and everyone else who spent days trying to go through this trial only to have it overturned because there was ineffective assistance of counsel. Now, I'll tell you what I wouldn't do. I certainly wouldn't take them into my chambers - I think that would be unethical. It needs to be on the record - everything you say needs to be on the record so the public can hear it. I would very much try not to embarrass the attorney in front of their client, and that's when a sidebar may be appropriate as long as it's recorded. But if the attorney doesn't seem to be catching on, then the case has to be continued so that they can get prepared. Or, as Judge Eisenberg said, sometimes it will rise to the level of a mistrial. So while I would normally keep hands off as much as I can, I'm not going to let a defendant and my court be misrepresented by an attorney. [00:32:55] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. I now have a question submitted from the audience during this forum, and it's a two-part question really. One, do you consider any types of crimes to be victimless? And for those that aren't, how will you work to assure that victims are listened to and considered when imposing a sentence or adjudicating a case? And we will be starting with Nyjat. [00:33:23] Nyjat Rose-Akins: I apologize. I didn't hear the last part. Do you consider any types of crimes victimless? And I didn't hear the last part of the question? [00:33:30] Crystal Fincher: Sure. How does each candidate work to assure that victims are listened to and considered when imposing a sentence or adjudicating a case? [00:33:42] Nyjat Rose-Akins: So do I think any crime is victimless? No, I do not. I think some cases are definitely going to be more impactful to victims. But I believe when people are committing crimes, even low-level crimes - if it's a crime that continues to be done every day, it is impacting the community. The community is the victim if people are calling the police or observing this behavior. So even though all crimes are not going to be created equal, some crimes are definitely going to be more severe than others and impact more people. But I think for - to make sure that victims are being listened to, I think the main thing is to make sure that they have a seat at the table, they understand the process, they understand what the court is doing. What I've realized over the last number of years is that a lot of people really don't understand how the court functions or how it works. So I think the prosecutor's office - they have victims advocates that - I think it's good for them to talk with the victims to make sure that they understand the system and what and how things are happening. And even make sure that they come to court to see the process. [00:35:06] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Damon Shadid? [00:35:13] Judge Damon Shadid: Sure, there are some victimless crimes - failure to transfer title, driving with license suspended in the third degree - I have trouble figuring out who would be a victim there. But I, in general, agree with my opponent that it's a matter of impacting - how does it impact the community? How does it impact the individual? Now in Washington, we have a Victims Bill of Rights. It used to only apply to felonies, but now it applies to misdemeanors as well. But I've always followed it, even before it applied to misdemeanors. If a victim comes into my court and wants to speak at any level of the prosecution, I will allow them to speak because it's difficult to come into court. It takes a lot of bravery to speak to the judge and to face the person who may have abused you. And so that person should be given a high amount of respect. But on the flip side of that, that person should be given a lot of respect if they, for instance, do not want to continue with prosecution. So you have to listen to both sides of it. As far as community crimes like that, there's a reason why we call it Community Court. And the way that we have people give back to the community is through things like community service work, or things like that that are going to actually give back to the community that's been taken from. So yes, victims will be listened to at all stages of the proceedings, and I have tried to do that. [00:36:40] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Pooja Vaddadi? [00:36:44] Pooja Vaddadi: By definition and in general, no crime is going to be completely victimless and especially not in a strictly criminal court. I do agree with Judge Shadid - there are certain crimes like driving while license suspended or any licensing-type situation that is a failure to pay fines - I find it hard to believe also that there would be a real victim attached to that. But property crimes, thefts, whatever - the ordinary administration of justice is the tool by which we address these wrongs. However, the temptation for any judge is to substitute their outrage for the narrow bounds of sentencing permitted under the laws - and it's a challenge that we must rise to be impartial. It's essential not to misapply the law or you do risk revictimizing everyone through a second trial. That includes oversentencing, because you as a judge may think that a certain crime is particularly outrageous, but the worst thing that can happen is for that case to come back to court for a second time for a retrial or a resentencing where the victim has to, again, readdress the court to get any kind of recourse. That's traumatizing for anybody involved in the system. I do think it's important to listen to victims as well, especially when the court is trying to help that individual. Sometimes there are victims that come into court that wish to have the no contact order lifted so that their partner can support their lifestyle and their children. And I've seen this court deny administratively those requests to rescind the no contact order. And I would like to prevent that. Thank you. [00:38:20] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Adam Eisenberg. [00:38:24] Judge Adam Eisenberg: Thank you. Yes, as everyone has mentioned, there are a few categories of crimes that perhaps are victimless, but most of the crimes that appear in front of us have some sort of victim. I'm most involved in the domestic violence cases. And one of the things that's unique about the Domestic Violence Intervention Project, which is the diversion program that I've described in my opening that is an alternative to jail for domestic violence offenders, is an individualized approach and a multidisciplinary team that includes victim advocates. So the voices of victims, not necessarily the victim of the particular crime, but victims - community victims or community advocates who are very familiar with the survivors of domestic violence are able to provide input into how to manage the intervention. The goal, of course, is to make it safer for the victims. We take victims very seriously - I know all my colleagues do when they come to court and wish to explain what they experienced. Sometimes they have to do it through the trial, sometimes they have to do it at sentencing. But I think even low-level crimes - if the victim wants to come to court and present, certainly the Revised Code of Washington provides for that - for them to be able to explain. And I think the court has to hear and consider their opinion, their concerns along with the other evidence that they've heard when they make a decision. So victims' voices are very, very important in our court. Thank you. [00:39:45] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. And thank you to the audience for that question. This next question will start with Judge Shadid. We've had several high profile incidents in Seattle where police officers' accounts of events may have differed from video evidence and other things turned up in subsequent investigations. Do judges have any responsibility or role in interrogating the honesty of police and law enforcement in the court? [00:40:12] Judge Damon Shadid: Well, that is a very difficult question because it depends on what stage of the proceedings that you're in - whether or not you're in a pretrial, a motion, or a trial - and what would be appropriate in each case. What I will say is this - if a police officer breaks the law by perjuring themselves in court, that police officer should be subject to the laws just like any other person who comes into the court and they should be prosecuted. I've never actually seen a police officer prosecuted for perjury, but I have seen police officers lie on the stand in my eight years. And that's pretty shocking to me - police officers not only should be held to the same standard as everyone else, but they should be held to a higher standard. And they should not be coming in to lie in order to get somebody convicted. They need to be able to prove their case just based upon the truth. What I will say is that - at least the prior administration of the City Attorney's Office regularly dismissed cases when they saw a discrepancy between the police officer's testimony and contravening evidence. I think that's the right move. But unless it meets a very high standard, a judge is not able to dismiss the case themselves, it is incumbent upon the prosecutor to do so. If there is a motion to dismiss, then the defense attorney would have to make their proof based upon the rules, particularly 8.3. [00:41:42] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Nyjat Rose-Akins. [00:41:49] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Sorry. I agree with my opponent that everyone has a role when it comes to the court, and the court cannot necessarily just summarily dismiss a case that has been brought by the prosecution. I will say that the court can - there are many points in a case - for instance, if there is information about an officer, for instance, they call it Brady information - so it's information that the prosecution has to turn over and if they do not turn that over, then the court can entertain motions to dismiss because that is a huge violation. So if an officer has been found to have lied on the stand or any other behavior that has been deemed under Brady that needs to be disclosed to defense. So those are some ways that the court can, I guess, intervene when there is an issue with an officer specifically. But yeah, so that is the main thing - I would say that as I myself have actually prosecuted a police officer - because I truly believe that we all should be held to the same standard. [00:43:15] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Judge Eisenberg. [00:43:19] Judge Adam Eisenberg: So you asked the question, can judges interrogate? Well, it's not really our role to necessarily interrogate. However, in certain hearings, we do have the opportunity, as the fact finder of the hearing, to ask questions. I can give you an example of a stage where I did find there was not probable cause for arrest and it was based on how the officer behaved. The officer saw the defendant driving late at night at a high rate of speed - that was pretty clear. He pulled him over and he asked him to step out of the car and he said - I smell some alcohol, I would like you to do some field sobriety tests. The defendant was very polite - I don't want to do any field sobriety tests because I know what happens next. If I do field sobriety tests, you take me to jail. And the officer's like, No, I'm not going to do that, but I just need to know. And what happened was 15 minutes of the officer trying to cajole the defendant to take field sobriety tests and the defendant clearly didn't want to. The defendant was Black, the officer was not. There was some question as to whether this was racially biased or not - it wasn't 100% clear, but it was very suspicious. And at the end of the probable cause hearing, I determined there wasn't probable cause for the arrest - the officer did not have enough information and the case was dismissed. Unfortunately, the officer left the courtroom before he could hear my ruling, but it was a very troubling situation. And that's a circumstance where a judge can see what an officer is doing because my job is to determine whether there's probable cause. And at that point, I could say the officer was inappropriate in what he did. [00:44:46] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Pooja Vaddadi. [00:44:50] Pooja Vaddadi: And so I agree with pretty much what everybody else has said already. It's not necessarily a judge's role to take it upon themselves to litigate a case where an officer maybe is lying or engaging in any misconduct. But I have seen, as a public defender, police officers engaging in racially biased policing, which in my opinion is bad and sometimes in a lot of cases worse than perjury in court. The judge is a gatekeeper for evidence and has the power to address Brady issues or entertain motions to dismiss under circumstances that Ms. Rose-Akins actually described. And they should. There must be some distance between judges and the police so that they don't enjoy a special relationship and show any kind of bias towards any officers that are in that court. I've taken a case to trial actually in which a white officer investigated a scene for 40 minutes before releasing one person and then pretty much deciding that he smelled alcohol on my client's breath. The officer in that situation was a white man. My client was a Black driver. Such a case would raise a suspicion for me, although there is not much I can do in that situation unless the defense attorney does raise a type of motion. And then we are then faced with the ability for me to make a decision on whether that officer should testify or whether there needs to be some other kind of hearing to exclude that kind of testimony. Judges are bound by the law and that is how they need to operate. But we shouldn't let people with a lot of authority just get away with blatant disregard for the law. [00:46:26] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. This next question, we're going to start with Adam Eisenberg. What do your endorsements say about you and what do you think your opponent's endorsements say about them? [00:46:41] Judge Adam Eisenberg: Well, I've been endorsed by The Seattle Times, eight of the nine sitting justices on the Supreme Court, retired Justice Bobbe Bridge, judges across the state who I've worked with on committees on statewide issues related to domestic violence, related to how do we have a jury trial in the middle of COVID - which I was assigned to be on the task force for that - on various rules that I have been engaged with. And I've also been endorsed by the union that supports our court clerks, I've been endorsed by public defenders, prosecutors, defense attorneys - male, female - and I've been rated Exceptionally Well Qualified by the bar associations I listed. I think that says that I try to do the best job I can and it seems like the legal community recognizes that. My opponent has been endorsed by a lot of the - I've been endorsed by some of the legislative districts, she's been endorsed by all of them. And she's been endorsed by, I believe, a lot of the progressive diversity groups. I don't really have a thought on what that says, but I'm very proud of the endorsements that I've gotten, including The Seattle Times - and including former Governor Christine Gregoire and many, many other Seattle City Councilmembers and County Councilmembers. So I feel like I have a pretty diverse background of support. Thank you. [00:48:07] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Pooja Vaddadi. [00:48:11] Pooja Vaddadi: I believe that my endorsements, which are all of the Democratic organizational endorsements - I believe that they say that people are looking for a change in Seattle - they're dissatisfied with the way that the judiciary has been operating, they're dissatisfied with the way that the City is being policed right now. What they see is an increase in crime and a decrease in the amount of services that are there for the people of Seattle - there has been an increase of homeless people on the streets, there has been an increase of encampments. And the judiciary and the leadership in Seattle has been doing nothing about that. And people are ready for a change - people are ready for the type of perspective that I bring there. My campaign is staffed by dozens of defense attorneys who are actually afraid to publicly endorse, or who aren't permitted by their leadership to endorse. My opponent's endorsements do tell me that there are two versions of him. There's the version of my opponent that his personal friends see - I'm sure he is a great friend. But there is a version of my opponent that I know there. And unfortunately, a lot of people are not able to speak publicly about some of the behavior that they've seen on the court. And I have their support and their volunteer, I have their support in private. But I do have the support of a lot of organizations that are looking to make a change in Seattle right now and I plan on doing that. [00:49:44] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Judge Shadid. [00:49:48] Judge Damon Shadid: I am proud to be endorsed by every civil Democratic organization and every one of those are sole endorsements. I'm proud to have the endorsement of eight current and former Supreme Court Justices, and community leaders, elected officials like Larry Gossett - who is my personal hero - Girmay Zahilay, Representative Sharon Tomiko Santos, Senator Rebecca Saldaña, City Councilperson Teresa Mosqueda, Tammy Morales, Andrew Lewis, Debora Juarez. I'm very proud - I've also got community leaders, including the president of the statewide NAACP endorsing me, 75 judges - elected judges across the spectrum. And I've actually gotten The Seattle Times and the Progressive Voters guide to agree that they should endorse me solely, which I don't know how many of us can brag that. So I'm very, very pleased with my endorsements - I think it's great. My opponent's been working hard. She's gotten some endorsements from judges and from former Mayor Durkan - who was a former prosecutor - as well as former Governor Gregoire, another former prosecutor. Her support definitely comes from the prosecution - that is clear - and she's been a career prosecutor all her life and so that makes a lot of sense to me. You go to the people that you know and who you've worked with in the past. But my support comes from across the spectrum - it's not single-focused. [00:51:20] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Nyjat Rose-Akins. [00:51:23] Nyjat Rose-Akins: I think my endorsements say that I'm not a politician. My endorsements say that I decided to run for this office because I believe that I am qualified. I'm endorsed by people who know my work and know what I have done and what I've done for the City for the last 12 years. I've been basically behind the scenes for the last 12 years, and this is my first time saying - I am going to put myself out there and be in the forefront because I know that I can make Seattle Municipal Court better based on all the work that I've done over the last 12 years collaborating and partnering with communities and with government officials. So I believe that's what my endorsements say about me. In regards to my opponent, I believe - he's been a sitting judge for the last eight years, so he has made those relationships. And usually, in all honesty, judicial candidates have difficulty because judges do not like to endorse against a sitting judge. So I think the fact that I've been able to get some endorsements from judges and retired judges - and mainly some Seattle Municipal Court judges, retired Seattle Municipal Court judges - I think that shows that I am more than capable of fulfilling this position. [00:52:52] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Now, we also asked each candidate to submit a question to ask their opponent. We will cover some of those questions right now. We will begin with a question from Judge Adam Eisenberg to Pooja Vaddadi - and I will read it verbatim. Candidates for judicial positions usually get vetted by the King County Bar Association and the minority bar associations. It's a rigorous process in which each bar association reaches out to more than 30 attorneys familiar with your work on the bench, and conducts individual interviews with the candidates. I've gone through the vetting process and have been rated "Exceptionally Well Qualified" for Seattle Municipal Court by a number of associations. Why have you chosen not to be vetted? [00:53:43] Pooja Vaddadi: So the answer to this question comes in two parts. I'm running a lot earlier than I meant to because it's urgent to bring change in the leadership in SMC. The court has been failing the people of Seattle. I saw that when I was a public defender in that court and I'm still seeing it right now. I enjoyed my career as a public defender and I was not planning on doing this quite this soon in my career, but here we are and I'm needed. Second, from what I've seen, judicial ratings seem to measure nothing more than tenure. Tenure and how often you've pro temmed in the court or tenure on how long you've been on a bench. They obviously don't look at practitioner surveys, they don't look at staff reviews and complaints, overturns on appeal for constitutional violations, or courtroom demeanor. I don't know if these bar associations have sat in my opponent's courtroom for a lengthy period of time. I don't think that I would have had a fair shake in front of these judicial ratings because they would have held my lack of tenure against me. I know I can do this job and I know I will be good at it. Thank you. [00:55:01] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Now I'm going to ask a question for Judge Adam Eisenberg from Pooja - verbatim. There's nothing more stressful than representing a client who is innocent and falsely accused; or when an innocent defendant insists on pleading guilty to get out of jail or to avoid a penalty for going to trial. Can you tell me about a time that these have happened in your courtroom and how you were personally impacted?? [00:55:55] Judge Adam Eisenberg: If someone's entered a guilty plea in front of me, I have to read the facts - and if there's a basis to support the plea, I have to accept the plea - so I'm not really sure there's - I understand the perspective of being a defense attorney and having a client who's doing something perhaps that you don't agree with or wish they would make a different choice. But people do make these choices to plead guilty for a variety of reasons and I don't often have - I very seldom have any understanding of why they're doing it specifically and their attorneys don't share that information with me. When someone enters a guilty plea, I try to give - if it involves a jail sentence, I try to give an appropriate sentence. If it's a guilty plea, the vast majority of times I agree with whatever the sentence is because it was a negotiated plea between the defense and the prosecution. If the defendant has agreed to a negotiated plea, I have no basis to disregard that. The perspective of a defense attorney isn't the same as the perspective on the bench when you hear someone entering a guilty plea. That's what I would say. Thank you. [00:57:07] Crystal Fincher: Pooja has asked for a rebuttal to that. [00:57:13] Pooja Vaddadi: Oh, sorry. I guess I needed to unmute. I just want to tell a brief story. I had a client in Snohomish County that was held on a DUI. It was a second lifetime DUI and he was held on a substantial amount of bail, a decision that a judge made. There was no blood test results yet and so we did not know what his Blood Alcohol Content was or if he had any drugs in his system. The prosecutor offered him a sentence that would have taken - and trial would have taken a lot longer to go. The point is - I'm running out of time - the point is he did have to plead guilty - [00:57:49] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Judge Eisenberg has also asked for a rebuttal. [00:57:55] Judge Adam Eisenberg: I just wanted to say that I'm really sorry about this situation that happened with her defendant that she represented in Snohomish County, but that doesn't really have anything to do with me or my court. [00:58:06] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Now I'm going to ask a question from Nyjat Rose-Akins to Damon Shadid. How does the court monitor a participant's connection with meaningful services if multiple cases are dismissed within 14 days of entering into Community Court? [00:58:28] Judge Damon Shadid: Each individual who comes into Community Court is vetted by a judge for their appropriateness to enter the court. They have certain - we call them connections - that the person has to make in order to graduate from the court. There are different levels of connections - 2 weeks, 30 days, and 45 days that the person goes through. But here's what's really important to remember. This is a predisposition court. We connect people with services and then it's the City Attorney who moves to dismiss the case. This is what the City Attorney has agreed to. The City Attorney has never sought to change when they dismiss the case and it is their discretion to do so. We monitor to make sure they've made their connections, to make sure they've done a life skills class, to make sure they've done community service. We individually structure the program to make sure that we're addressing their specific barriers. But this is really important - it takes multiple connections to services for them to take. And so this criticism that - Oh, you're not holding them there long enough - well, how long do you expect someone to keep coming to court for a trespass or for a theft of socks? The actual rehabilitation has to match the crime has been committed and that's what we're trying to do. If a person's not willing to make those connections, they are prosecuted in mainstream court to the full extent of the law. [00:59:59] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. I now have a question for Nyjat Rose-Akins from Damon Shadid. When I ran for Judge 8 years ago, I ran with specific plans for expanding and revitalizing Seattle's Therapeutic Courts. Over the past 8 years, I've delivered on those promises. I've not seen or heard any specific policy proposals that you would enact if you became a judge. Please give specific details of a policy proposal you would enact if elected. [01:00:28] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Thank you. So - when elected, I plan to revamp Community Court - reset the standards of accountability and requirements, review individual case history to determine if they are currently a good fit, limit the number of cases that can be addressed at one time, review the types of cases that are eligible, and redefine what is considered low-level crime. With doing that, I'd like to incorporate more probation and social services support to track and assist with program progress and participant needs. Also collaborate with more social service providers to bring them to the court to create a one-stop shop for individuals. I also want to collaborate more with nonprofits, other government agencies to create a pipeline - a proper pipeline for housing, mental health treatment, and job placement. I also would like to work more with probation services and resources, renew day reporting options - which would allow maybe Zoom options for people to check in with probation and not always have to come into court. And also maybe get more funding - not maybe, really try to get more funding - on electronic home monitoring for indigent defendants. So those are a few of the things I plan to do once elected. Thank you. [01:01:55] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Judge Shadid has asked for a rebuttal. [01:02:00] Judge Damon Shadid: Sure. So the one policy proposal my opponent has is to reform the court that I created, which is very interesting because she works for the City Attorney's Office and she has never come to a meeting [garbled] in court. She's never bothered to actually get to know what the court is. Instead, she's read a few dockets and she thinks she has an opinion on it. But why hasn't her boss ever asked for these changes? They haven't. So if she had been in the court for the past eight years, she'd know that we're already doing these things and that her policy is not policy. [01:02:37] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Nyjat, you have rebuttal time. [01:02:42] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Thank you. I think it is somewhat disingenuous to say that the City Attorney's Office has never asked to make some changes to Community Court. I believe the City Attorney's Office requested trying to opt some people out because they had way too many cases and my opponent said no. And that is why there was an issue with the high utilizers. Aditionally, revamping Community - we had 90 seconds to speak - I brought up one specific thing in regards to Community - [01:03:19] Crystal Fincher: I will allow a second round of rebuttals for both of you since we are in this conversation here. Judge Shadid. [01:03:26] Judge Damon Shadid: Community Court took two years to negotiate. My opponent doesn't seem to understand that all changes to Community Court have to come through negotiation. Her boss came to me with a requested change, which I disagreed with. That is how you negotiate. That requested change then went to the full bench and the bench voted to adopt the change. That's what negotiation is and that's how you create programs. [01:04:00] Crystal Fincher: And Nyjat. [01:04:01] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Yes, thank you. I also had the opportunity to review Community Court outside of Seattle. I went to Auburn Community Court and that program is a model structure for what a community court should be - where individuals actually engage with resources - it's a one-stop shop where they can come in and actually get the services they need and actually check-in with the court, check-in with their defense attorney, and check-in with the prosecution on a weekly and sometimes bi-week, bi-monthly basis based on the type of court. [01:04:37] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Now, these probably will be quick questions, but we'll see - two short ones - and we will begin with Nyjat Rose-Akins. Have you ever been disciplined by the bar association or state commission on judicial conduct? [01:04:53] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Have not. No, I have not. [01:04:56] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. And Damon Shadid? [01:05:00] Judge Damon Shadid: No. [01:05:02] Crystal Fincher: And Pooja? [01:05:05] Pooja Vaddadi: No. [01:05:07] Crystal Fincher: And Judge Eisenberg? [01:05:09] Judge Adam Eisenberg: No. [01:05:10] Crystal Fincher: Okay. Next question - are there any specific types of cases in which you know you'll have to find it necessary to disqualify or recuse yourself? We will start with Damon Shadid. [01:05:28] Judge Damon Shadid: There have been times when I've had to recuse myself. I was a public defender for quite some time before and I've had clients come into my courtroom who I represented in the past and I certainly recused myself from those cases. There have been times when I've made mistakes and I've agreed to recuse myself from a case. It happens to the best of us. It's very important to me that there is not only the fact of an impartial judge, but the appearance of one as well. And so if I even suspect that somebody is perceiving me as not being impartial, I'll recuse myself most of the time, unless I think that the attorney is forum shopping. So yes, a judge should be ready to recuse themselves whenever they feel that it's in the best interests of both the community and the defendant. [01:06:19] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Nyjat? [01:06:23] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Yes, I think the fairness is very, very important in court, so I would likely - I have not had to recuse myself as I've been pro temming in court, but I believe I would likely recuse myself from friends and/or people that I have worked closely with in the City Attorney's Office or even in City government. [01:06:49] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Adam Eisenberg? [01:06:55] Judge Adam Eisenberg: There have been some cases where I've had to recuse myself because I either knew some of the parties, or there was an incident with my neighbor that was reported to the police and I was actually a witness. So I made sure, right out of the gate, that when the case came to our court - because I suspected it would, based on the charge - I went and talked to the Presiding Judge and said, I can't have anything to do with this case because I saw the police arrive last night at the house. So those things happen - obviously, that happens very, very rarely. But otherwise, recusal is normal when you know parties or you have information about the case that you shouldn't have had, you heard - because of a neighbor talking or whatever. But there's not a particular type of case that I recuse myself from. It's really a - it's a case-by-case cir

Rajeh A. Saadeh leads a team of attorneys at The Law Office of Rajeh A.Saadeh, L.L.C., and devotes a substantial portion of his litigation practice to matrimonial and family law. In connection with his family law background, Rajeh served as an appointee to the Supreme Court of New Jersey's Family Practice Committee and is a trained family law mediator.  Prior to private practice, Rajeh served as the Judicial Law Clerk to the Honorable Hany A. Mawla, a former Presiding Judge of the Family Part in three New Jersey counties and current Judge of the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey. Rajeh graduated from the University of Pennsylvania Law School where he was elected Class Officer by his peers. At Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, where he earned a Bachelor of Arts, Rajeh was an Edward J. Bloustein Distinguished Scholar, a member of the Rutgers College Honors Program, and a frequenter on the Dean's List. Rajeh is licensed to practice law in the States of New Jersey and New York and authorized to appear before the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Listen to this informative The Confident Retirement episode with Rajeh Saadeh about legal family matters.   Here is what to expect on this week's show: ●     An ideal client is one who is responsive and realistic. ●     Why it's necessary to have representation when considering a divorce. ●     What makes a divorce complex? ●     What is a foreclosure? ●     What's the biggest future opportunity for Rajeh's practice?   Connect with Rajeh: Website: https://www.rajehsaadeh.com LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rajehsaadeh Firm's LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/rajehsaadeh/ Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/rajehsaadeh Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rajehsaadeh/   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dr. Sandie Morgan is joined by the Honorable Judge Joanne Motoike to discuss GRACE Court, a collaborative court designed to provide services to CSEC victims and rehabilitate them to be reintegrated back into the community. Honorable Joanne Motoike The Honorable Joanne Motoike serves as an associate justice of the 4th District Court of Appeal, Division 3. Previously, she was the Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court in Orange County, California where she also oversaw a unique collaborative court for child victims of commercial sexual exploitation called GRACE Court. She has also served as a senior deputy public defender at the Orange County Public Defender's Office, and as a trial attorney in the Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia at the Hague. Key Points GRACE (Generating Resources to Abolish Child Exploitation) Court was developed to provide youth and families with services as they went through the legal process in their cases. Juvenile Court is done with the mindset of rehabilitation of the youth coming through the court system to reduce the recidivism rates of that population. In comparison, Criminal Court is designed to punish in order to deter further conduct. GRACE Court is a speciality collaborative court to address the specific needs of CSEC victims. To start a collaborative CSEC court, start with contacting law enforcement and other key stakeholders that will play a significant role in providing services to potential victims. Resources EP. 112 – Juvenile Justice Inspiring Hope: An Interview with Hon. Maria Hernandez Orange County, California Collaborative Courts Love the show? Consider supporting us on Patreon! Become a Patron Transcript Dave [00:00:00] You're listening to the Ending Human Trafficking podcast. This is episode number 283, Why A Special Court for CSEC Victims, with Judge Joanne Motoike. Production Credits [00:00:12] Produced by Innovate Learning, maximizing human potential. Dave [00:00:31] Welcome to the Ending Human Trafficking podcast. My name is Dave Stachowiak. Sandie [00:00:37] And my name is Sandie Morgan. Dave [00:00:39] And this is the show where we empower you to study the issues, be a voice, and make a difference in ending human trafficking. Sandie, today a wonderful partner with us to really help us to understand more on the legal side of our work. And of course, so much of our work here at the Global Center for Women and Justice is about building partnerships across the legal community, law enforcement, government, so many wonderful experts that we've been able to talk with. And today, an expert that will help us to really get even more perspective on what happens inside the courtrooms. I'm so glad to welcome the Honorable Joanne Motoike. She serves as an associate justice of the Fourth District Court of Appeals Division Three. Previously, she was the presiding judge of the Juvenile Court in Orange County, California, where she also oversaw a unique collaborative court for child victims of commercial sexual exploitation called the GRACE Court. She has also served as a senior deputy public defender at the Orange County Public Defender's Office and as a trial attorney in the office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia at The Hague. Judge Motoike, welcome to our show today. Joanne [00:01:56] Thank you. Thank you so much for having me. Sandie [00:01:59] I'm excited about this conversation. First of all, congratulations on your appointment as an associate judge of the Fourth District Court of Appeal. That's so impressive. And I just love what I know you'll be able to accomplish in this new role. But today we're going to talk about your experience as presiding judge in juvenile court in Oran...

Many people know Brian Huff as the former Presiding Judge at Family Court. Others know him as a really great family attorney with a heart for children's well being. Still others know him as a huge Alabama fan with a great sense of humor... my team LOVED his energy in the studio! LOL! Me? That's all well and good... but i just know him as one of my AA sponsors and the reason i have chosen not to be "anonymous" about my alcoholism.

     Slam the Gavel welcomes Karielee Barrere, a single mother with an autistic son with special needs to the show as well as her reporter, Julie Reeder, publisher for 25 years of three papers and magazines. Julie runs the Village News and has one woman of the year in 2021.      There has been malfeasance reported in "sunny San Diego," California within the Family Court system. The issue at hand is a fraudulent document. However, when there are two judges, one being Michael T. Smyth who is the Presiding Judge in SanDiego along with the commissioner Ratekin and a Clerk of the Court, Kim Stucker as well as two prominent San Diego attorneys, Jim Fox and Amy Lass who have written declarations that state they were never in court and the fake judgement was filed by Mr. McEwen which gave himself everything in the divorce never happened and was false.     The judge whose name is on the fraudulent document is Judge Michael Washington said to the"victim" that he was aware of the fake document and admitted he never saw McEwen in his courtroom room. The Register of action has no record of this Judgement. However, the clerk of the court also found a fraudulent wage assignment that Mr. McEwn filed with his employer giving himself back his money to avoid paying a garnishment he had against him from monies owed to another person. The monies being sent to M. McEwen's own personal mailbox only HE had access to. The clerk of the Court, Kim Stucker called his employer to stop this fraudulent document and told his workplace that it was not real.     This individual has been allowed to hide behind the skirt of the DA. The family Court has to be made accountable to the length of time they hold someone to a fake judgment. Making this the perfect storm as well as a crime and showing how broken the Family Court is, they must be held accountable.     If you have been a victim of San Diego Family Court, please contact a group of San Deigns who have said ENOUGH IS ENOUGH to the corrupt DA and the fractured system of Family Court.  To Reach: clowncourtsandiego@gmx.comSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://beentheregotout.com/http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/Music by: mictechmusic@yahoo.comSupport the show

Today we will show you how to legally complain and remove a judge. The system has made it difficult, but Angel breaks down how to do it properly.   Michael's YouTube Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/MrPropriaPersona1 Want to help us fight judicial injustice? Donate to KidsMatter.charity  https://kidsmatter.charity/campaigns/kids-matter-donate/donate/ Transcript:  We have a returning guest Angel law. That's a pseudonym because she's so mixed up in so many cases. But she's here to explain something that I have a lot of interest in. And I'm sure a lot of you will, and that is how to properly complain and get your judges or attorneys in trouble for violating your rights or the law, or the million other things that they do so with that. Angel, let's talk about what it is that you've done and what you've figured out and what a lot of people don't know just an overview. Right. So what has recently happened was, I was a unique case, where I was able to remove a judge from my own matter by filing a motion to disqualify the judge based upon the judges. very terrible conduct. And this is the most difficult way to remove a judge. And it's fraught with obstacles, and it's something you wouldn't want to do. But in the course of figuring that out. Prior to asking the judge to remove himself because of his misconduct, I can first started off with making a complaint to the presiding judge of my courthouse. And this is really important because you can usually obtain a form by contacting the clerk of your court. And there's an official form that you can even fill out in handwriting. It's about two pages long so special complaint to the presiding judge and you send it in. The presiding judge has 30 days to respond, and they must respond within 30 days. Notice it's something I was looking for be a wonderful tool for all of us if we flood the court. And we drive the presiding judges into having an answer for the accordance conduct of their subordinate judges. We could maybe let them know hey, we know that you guys aren't supposed to be doing this. And Mr. Presiding or Mrs. Presiding Judge. You have an administrative and supervision advisory duty to do something about that. And maybe at least it's you know, just because they're they don't want to do the work. They might say to their subordinate judges. Hey, knock this off. I've got too many complaints to respond to so step number one, when you got to an awful judge is preparing to remove them with either a one or a coordinated effort where you're going to complain to the presiding and then you're going to complain to the BJP. But you don't want to complain. You thought though, I would just interject that doing it. This way to remove the judges is a lot harder than just go into 171 one 70.11 7.3 Or one 70.6 If you haven't recused anyone yet, right? And I, you know, in my experience, when I read the California Code of Civil Procedure, and this is not legal advice, this is my personal experience. I had a conversation with an appellate attorney, and a one 70.6 is a peremptory challenge. That means within 10 days of being appointed, a new judge, like your case is assigned to a new judicial officer. You're supposed to have 10 days and you left to complete your motion to challenge that judge and have an offense. Basically,

This week, Henry welcomes the Honorable Everett Mitchell, Presiding Judge of the Dane County Circuit Court Juvenile Division and candidate for Wisconsin Supreme Court. Judge Mitchell delves into why he's so passionate about systemic reform and recounts how recognizing marriage equality in his role as a pastor -- long before the Supreme Court legally recognized it -- started him on a path of advocacy and activism. Real Talk with Henry Sanders is presented by Park Bank.

Beacon Bonus Content: Welcome to part III in this Lindbergh Kidnapping podcast series. Lise Pearlman is a retired judge, filmmaker, award-winning historian and best-selling author.

Bridgeton Beacon Bonus Content: Welcome to part IV in this Lindbergh Kidnapping podcast series. Lise Pearlman is a retired judge, filmmaker, award-winning historian and best-selling author.

Lise Pearlman is a retired judge, filmmaker, award-winning historian and best-selling author.

Welcome back to the Lindbergh Kidnapping true-crime podcast series on NJ Criminal Podcast. This is the second part in Meg's conversation with Judge Lise Pearlman. Lise Pearlman is a retired judge, filmmaker, award-winning historian and best-selling author.

This week on Breaking Battlegrounds, Chuck and Sam re joined by Andy Gould, former Arizona Supreme Court Justice and current candidate for Attorney General. Later in the show, Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer stops by the studio to give us an update on this year's primary election. -Andy's path to public service began with his parents. Growing up, the Gould family never had a lot of material success, but they were rich in far greater ways. Andy's parents were good, hard-working people of great faith who stressed the importance of integrity, honesty and humility – values that inspired him to pursue a career in law. As a  prosecutor in Yuma, Andy tried every type of criminal case imaginable, including the prosecution of criminal organizations located in Mexico. In 2001, Andy was appointed by the Governor to fill a vacant seat on the Yuma County Superior Court, where he served in that capacity for eleven years. In 2006, while serving on the Superior Court bench, he was appointed as  the Presiding Judge for Yuma County. In 2012, Andy was appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals until he was given the honor of being appointed as Justice to the Arizona Supreme Court in 2016. Arizona needs an Attorney General who will be ready on day one to go to court and fight for their rights, and Andy Gould is the right person for the job. Andy understands the legal challenges facing Arizona because he has spent more than 30 years addressing and presiding over the most complex civil and criminal cases in the State. To show his commitment, Andy has stepped down from the Arizona Supreme Court – a decision that not many before him have made. But to quote Thomas Paine, “these are the times that try men's souls.” Arizona needs leaders who are willing to sacrifice something for its people, and Andy Gould has proven he will do just that. -Stephen took office as the 30th Maricopa County Recorder on January 4, 2021.  As Maricopa County Recorder, Stephen oversees a staff of approximately 165 full time employees who record over 1 million public documents annually, maintain the county's voter registration database of 2.6 million voters (second largest voting jurisdiction in the United States), and, together with the County Supervisors, administer elections for 62% of Arizona's voters.Prior to taking office, Stephen worked as a transactional lawyer, first at a large international law firm headquartered in Washington, DC, and later at a southwest law firm headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona.   Stephen has also accrued significant business experience, having started or managed several businesses.The race for the Recorder's Office was Stephen's first foray into elected politics.  He won the August 2020 Republican primary by the largest margin of any countywide race, and he defeated the incumbent Democrat in November 3, 2020 general election in a year when Maricopa County chose the Democrat candidates in the presidential and U.S. Senate races by significant margins.Stephen holds a B.A. from Tulane University and a M.A. and J.D. from The University of Chicago.  Stephen lives in South Phoenix with his wife, Lindsay, whom he met at The University of Chicago Law School.-Connect with us:www.breakingbattlegrounds.voteTwitter: www.twitter.com/Breaking_BattleFacebook: www.facebook.com/breakingbattlegroundsInstagram: www.instagram.com/breakingbattlegroundsLinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/breakingbattlegrounds This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit breakingbattlegrounds.substack.com

Picture it: you're at a formal dinner and get seated among strangers. Everyone goes around and shares their name and where they're from. One table mate says “I'm Susan, I'm from Galveston.” You can't help but say “Galveston? I can't hear that without thinking of Robert Durst.” People laugh knowingly. Did I mention the dinner was at CrimeCon? Aforementioned table mate says “I was the judge who presided over Bob Durst's trial in 2003, for the murder of Morris Black.”Friends, when I say my jaw dropped I need you to believe me! So this story is true and you can bet that I made good on my promise to contact Susan after CrimeCon to have her on the podcast.Today's guest is my dinner mate, Susan Criss. Former prosecutor, then judge, now criminal defense attorney. In addition to spilling some Durst tea, she also talks about her unique vantage point given her experience playing every role in a courtroom. Color me ECSTATIC.Susan Criss is a true crime enthusiast just like us. In fact, she is working on a book and went to CrimeCon for market research. I think I gave her more than she bargained for. Life is full of surprises. Please enjoy this episode.Did you enjoy this episode of DIE-ALOGUE? Please tell a friend, share on your social media, and consider becoming a DIE-HARD on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/creator-homeIf you loved the episode, please share it on Instagram and Twitter and tag @diealoguepod !This episode is sponsored by Athletic Greens: Visit athleticgreens.com/EMERGING for an exciting offer.DIE-ALOGUE is sponsored in part by She's Birdie – the stylish and effective, personal safety alarms that I honestly don't leave home without! You can get 10% off your Birdie purchase when you shop this link: https://www.shesbirdie.com/?rfsn=4885943.d5e5e8Follow us on social media — we are @diealoguepod across all platforms.Please rate and review DIE-ALOGUE if you haven't already?! Then share the show with your friends, family, foes, + true crime communities.Rate on apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/die-alogue-a-true-crime-conversation/id1470890320Rate on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/64IHCryN2jFaswrVIzMV8wThank you for joining the conversation. You can always drop a line via the website https://www.rebekahsebastian.com/discover/#contactor by email: rebekah@yellowtapemedia.com

The presiding judge of IMDb TV's Judy Justice and Emmy Award winning television show Judge Judy, speaks of the people who impacted her early … Read More