Podcasts about Restatement

Sustainability reporting and financial reporting are converging fast. But the controller who treats them as the same thing could get burned.In this episode, Dr. Lee Hui Mien of Singtel and Jonathan Gregory of The Hershey Company offer their views on one urgent question: what does it actually mean to bring sustainability reporting under the finance umbrella, and where does that process break down?
Chapters:0:00 — Intro2:30 — Dr. Lee Hui Mien on why sustainability data is fundamentally different8:45 — Why restatement in sustainability is a feature, not a failure13:20 — Scope 3 and why supply chain visibility can break down at tier two19:10 — Jonathan Gregory, Global Controller at The Hershey Company24:00 — AI governance and segregation of duties29:45 — What the next five years demand from controllers
Guests:Dr. Lee Hui Mien, Sustainability Leader, SingtelJonathan Gregory, Global Controller, The Hershey CompanySubscribe to The Pre-Read for more conversations at the intersection of finance, sustainability, audit, and risk.

Common law can feel like a chaotic patchwork of 50 different jurisdictions. But for the last century, the American Law Institute (ALI) has worked to distill that chaos into clear, persuasive principles. We sit down with Mark Hall, the lead reporter for the Restatement of the Law Third, Torts: Medical Malpractice, to discuss how these influential texts are written and why they often carry more weight than a standard law review article.In this episode, we cover:The "Goldilocks" Standard: How the ALI synthesizes the "best" version of the law from conflicting state approaches.Medical Malpractice Deep Dive: Defining the "Standard of Care" and navigating the controversial Loss of Chance doctrine.A "Secondary" Source with Primary Power: Why judges often rely on Restatements to settle issues of first impression.The Laboratory of the States: Why a little legal variation across the country is actually a good thing for the profession.(00:00) - Introduction: The Chaos of Common Law and the Role of the ALI (03:24) - What is a Restatement? Harmonizing 50 States into One Principle (04:36) - The Legacy of Torts: How the ALI Created Products Liability Law (07:17) - Defining the Standard of Care: "Competent" vs. "Average" (09:55) - The "Loss of Chance" Doctrine: Can You Sue for a Reduced Probability of Survival? (12:14) - Study Tips: Using Restatements to Outline for Finals and Understand Nuance (16:24) - Litigation Strategy: Making Arguments When the Law is Unsettled (20:00) - The "Laboratory of the States": Why Legal Variation is Beneficial (24:32) - Curriculum Design: Will Professors Teach from the Restatement? (27:38) - Host Debrief: How to Use Restatements as a Research Shortcut for Briefs (34:40) - Evidence vs. Torts: Why Codified Rules Feel Easier to Learn (42:02) - Networking Hacks: Using the ALI Member List to Find Mentors Click here to view the episode transcript.

This Day in Legal History: Free Speech at the MoviesOn this day in legal history, November 25, 1915, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, holding that motion pictures were not protected under the First Amendment. The case arose when Ohio enacted a law requiring films to be approved by a censorship board before public exhibition. Mutual Film Corporation challenged the statute, arguing it infringed upon free speech and press freedoms. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected that argument, declaring that movies were a business enterprise, not a medium of public expression deserving constitutional protection. The Court emphasized that films could be used for evil and lacked the inherent public value of newspapers or books.This ruling gave states and cities wide discretion to censor films, leading to the rise of local and state censorship boards that controlled what audiences could legally view. It also provided a legal foundation for the Motion Picture Production Code, or Hays Code, a system of industry self-censorship that dominated Hollywood for decades. For nearly 40 years, this decision limited the creative scope of filmmakers and allowed governments to suppress films based on moral, religious, or political grounds.It wasn't until Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson in 1952 that the Supreme Court reversed course, striking down New York's ban on a film deemed “sacrilegious” and recognizing movies as a significant medium for the communication of ideas. The reversal marked a turning point for First Amendment jurisprudence and artistic freedom. But on November 25, 1915, the legal system closed the door on film as protected speech—setting the stage for a long legal battle over cinema's place in American constitutional law.The U.S. Department of Justice's misconduct complaint against U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes was dismissed. The rare complaint accused Reyes of bias in her handling of a case challenging President Donald Trump's ban on transgender individuals serving in the military. Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan ruled in September that judicial misconduct proceedings were not the proper venue to raise such concerns, suggesting instead that the DOJ could have filed for Reyes' recusal if it believed she was unfit to preside.The complaint, filed in February before Reyes ruled on the case, alleged she had shown hostility during hearings by expressing disbelief, questioning a lawyer's religion, and engaging in behavior the DOJ claimed compromised the dignity of the courtroom. The Justice Department claimed her conduct showed potential bias. In March, Reyes blocked Trump's executive order, though her ruling is currently on hold pending appeal. The complaint was one of only two such filings by the DOJ amid broader tensions between Trump's administration and the judiciary. Neither Reyes nor the DOJ commented on the dismissal.US DOJ's misconduct complaint against judge in transgender military ban case gets tossed | ReutersA federal judge dismissed the criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James after finding that the prosecutor who brought the charges lacked lawful authority. The judge concluded that Lindsey Halligan, appointed by the Trump administration as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, was installed in violation of the Constitution's Appointments Clause and federal law governing interim U.S. attorney appointments. Because her appointment was invalid, every step she took—including securing indictments—was deemed an unlawful exercise of executive power and therefore had to be vacated. The judge rejected the Justice Department's argument that the attorney general could repeatedly make interim appointments without Senate confirmation, noting that doing so would sidestep the constitutionally required process. Attempts by Attorney General Pam Bondi to retroactively validate Halligan's actions—such as re-appointing her as a special attorney and “ratifying” the indictments—were also found ineffective.Under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and federal statute, U.S. Attorneys must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. When a vacancy arises, the Attorney General may make an interim appointment, but that appointment is limited by law to 120 days. If a permanent U.S. Attorney is not confirmed within that time, the district court may appoint a replacement to serve until the vacancy is officially filled. This process is designed to ensure both accountability and separation of powers, preventing the executive branch from indefinitely bypassing Senate oversight by cycling through temporary appointments. Repeated or back-to-back interim appointments without Senate confirmation undermine this framework, raising constitutional concerns about legitimacy and legality.The cases were dismissed without prejudice, leaving the door open to new prosecutions, though the expired statute of limitations appears to bar refiling against Comey. Defense lawyers had additionally characterized the charges as politically driven, but the court did not need to reach those claims because the appointment defect alone required dismissal. The ruling underscores that prosecutions must be brought by properly appointed officials, and that structural constitutional violations invalidate downstream actions—even in high-profile or politically charged cases.US judge tosses cases against ex-FBI chief Comey, New York AG James | ReutersA federal judge has denied Arkansas health worker Joy Gray's request for immediate reinstatement after she was fired over social media comments made following the murder of conservative figure Charlie Kirk. Gray sought a preliminary injunction requiring the Arkansas Department of Health to rehire her, continue paying her, or provide a “name-clearing hearing” to protect her reputation. However, U.S. District Judge Lee P. Rudofsky ruled that Gray failed to demonstrate the kind of irreparable harm necessary to justify emergency relief, emphasizing that job loss—even from a government position—does not automatically meet that legal standard. He cited controlling precedent, noting Gray did not show she couldn't be adequately compensated by monetary damages if she ultimately wins her case.The judge also rejected her claim that the department's actions were currently chilling her speech, pointing out that the firing was a past event and not part of an ongoing restriction. Additionally, her request for a name-clearing hearing was unlikely to succeed, as the court found no stigmatizing statements in the department's response. Rudofsky was careful to clarify that this ruling does not determine the outcome of Gray's broader First Amendment retaliation claim, which may involve more complex legal questions as the case proceeds.State Worker Fired for Kirk Posts Can't Revive Job During Trial This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this new episode format we give a very short briefing on financial news of the week.  This draws on our new weekly newsletter called "The Investor's Briefing". If you wish to read it, you can find it here.  ~*~ For full access to all of our updates and in-depth research reports become a Speedwell Member here. Please reach out to info@speedwellresearch.com if you need help getting us to become an approved research vendor in order to expense it. ~*~ You can get a free trial to AlphaSense through this link here and read 200k+ Expert Call Interviews. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Show Notes (0:00) — 100th Episode, New Product Announcement  (2:29 ) — The Investor's Briefing #1  -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- For full access to all of our updates and in-depth research reports, become a Speedwell Member here. Please reach out to info@speedwellresearch.com if you need help getting us to become an approved research vendor in order to expense it. *-*-*- Follow Us: Twitter: @Speedwell_LLC Threads: @speedwell_research Email us at info@speedwellresearch.com for any questions, comments, or feedback. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Disclaimer Nothing in this podcast is investment advice nor should be construed as such. Contributors to the podcast may own securities discussed. Furthermore, accounts contributors advise on may also have positions in companies discussed. This may change without notice. Please see our full disclaimers here:  https://speedwellresearch.com/disclaimer/

This conversation delves into the concept of strict liability in tort law, emphasizing its departure from traditional negligence principles. It explores the rationale behind strict liability, including risk distribution, consumer protection, and deterrence. The discussion covers abnormally dangerous activities, the liability of animal owners, and the significant area of products liability, detailing the types of defects and defenses available in strict liability cases. The conversation concludes with reflections on the future of strict liability in the context of emerging technologies and the balance between innovation and safety.TakeawaysStrict liability means liability without fault regarding the defendant's conduct.Understanding the core concept of strict liability is crucial for law students.Abnormally dangerous activities (ADAs) are defined by specific factors outlined in the Restatement.The risk of harm must be high and cannot be eliminated by reasonable care for an activity to be considered an ADA.Strict liability applies to animals, particularly wild animals and those with known dangerous tendencies.Products liability is a major area of strict liability, holding manufacturers accountable for defective products.There are three main types of product defects: manufacturing defects, design defects, and failure to warn.Defenses in strict liability cases include comparative fault, assumption of risk, and product misuse.The evolution of strict liability reflects ongoing debates in law, especially with emerging technologies.Understanding the balance between safety and innovation is crucial for future legal practitioners.strict liability, tort law, abnormally dangerous activities, products liability, animal liability, legal responsibility, negligence, risk distribution, consumer protection, legal frameworks

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded its latest Term. And over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has continued to duke it out with its adversaries in the federal courts.To tackle these topics, as well as their intersection—in terms of how well the courts, including but not limited to the Supreme Court, are handling Trump-related cases—I interviewed Professor Pamela Karlan, a longtime faculty member at Stanford Law School. She's perfectly situated to address these subjects, for at least three reasons.First, Professor Karlan is a leading scholar of constitutional law. Second, she's a former SCOTUS clerk and seasoned advocate at One First Street, with ten arguments to her name. Third, she has high-level experience at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), having served (twice) as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.I've had some wonderful guests to discuss the role of the courts today, including Judges Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) and Ana Reyes (D.D.C.)—but as sitting judges, they couldn't discuss certain subjects, and they had to be somewhat circumspect. Professor Karlan, in contrast, isn't afraid to “go there”—and whether or not you agree with her opinions, I think you'll share my appreciation for her insight and candor.Show Notes:* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Stanford Law School* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Wikipedia* The McCorkle Lecture (Professor Pamela Karlan), UVA Law SchoolPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any transcription errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat dot Substack dot com. You're listening to the seventy-seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, June 27.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.With the 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term behind us, now is a good time to talk about both constitutional law and the proper role of the judiciary in American society. I expect they will remain significant as subjects because the tug of war between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary continues—and shows no signs of abating.To tackle these topics, I welcomed to the podcast Professor Pamela Karlan, the Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School. Pam is not only a leading legal scholar, but she also has significant experience in practice. She's argued 10 cases before the Supreme Court, which puts her in a very small club, and she has worked in government at high levels, serving as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice during the Obama administration. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Professor Pam Karlan.Professor Karlan, thank you so much for joining me.Pamela Karlan: Thanks for having me.DL: So let's start at the beginning. Tell us about your background and upbringing. I believe we share something in common—you were born in New York City?PK: I was born in New York City. My family had lived in New York since they arrived in the country about a century before.DL: What borough?PK: Originally Manhattan, then Brooklyn, then back to Manhattan. As my mother said, when I moved to Brooklyn when I was clerking, “Brooklyn to Brooklyn, in three generations.”DL: Brooklyn is very, very hip right now.PK: It wasn't hip when we got there.DL: And did you grow up in Manhattan or Brooklyn?PK: When I was little, we lived in Manhattan. Then right before I started elementary school, right after my brother was born, our apartment wasn't big enough anymore. So we moved to Stamford, Connecticut, and I grew up in Connecticut.DL: What led you to go to law school? I see you stayed in the state; you went to Yale. What did you have in mind for your post-law-school career?PK: I went to law school because during the summer between 10th and 11th grade, I read Richard Kluger's book, Simple Justice, which is the story of the litigation that leads up to Brown v. Board of Education. And I decided I wanted to go to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and be a school desegregation lawyer, and that's what led me to go to law school.DL: You obtained a master's degree in history as well as a law degree. Did you also have teaching in mind as well?PK: No, I thought getting the master's degree was my last chance to do something I had loved doing as an undergrad. It didn't occur to me until I was late in my law-school days that I might at some point want to be a law professor. That's different than a lot of folks who go to law school now; they go to law school wanting to be law professors.During Admitted Students' Weekend, some students say to me, “I want to be a law professor—should I come here to law school?” I feel like saying to them, “You haven't done a day of law school yet. You have no idea whether you're good at law. You have no idea whether you'd enjoy doing legal teaching.”It just amazes me that people come to law school now planning to be a law professor, in a way that I don't think very many people did when I was going to law school. In my day, people discovered when they were in law school that they loved it, and they wanted to do more of what they loved doing; I don't think people came to law school for the most part planning to be law professors.DL: The track is so different now—and that's a whole other conversation—but people are getting master's and Ph.D. degrees, and people are doing fellowship after fellowship. It's not like, oh, you practice for three, five, or seven years, and then you become a professor. It seems to be almost like this other track nowadays.PK: When I went on the teaching market, I was distinctive in that I had not only my student law-journal note, but I actually had an article that Ricky Revesz and I had worked on that was coming out. And it was not normal for people to have that back then. Now people go onto the teaching market with six or seven publications—and no practice experience really to speak of, for a lot of them.DL: You mentioned talking to admitted students. You went to YLS, but you've now been teaching for a long time at Stanford Law School. They're very similar in a lot of ways. They're intellectual. They're intimate, especially compared to some of the other top law schools. What would you say if I'm an admitted student choosing between those two institutions? What would cause me to pick one versus the other—besides the superior weather of Palo Alto?PK: Well, some of it is geography; it's not just the weather. Some folks are very East-Coast-centered, and other folks are very West-Coast-centered. That makes a difference.It's a little hard to say what the differences are, because the last time I spent a long time at Yale Law School was in 2012 (I visited there a bunch of times over the years), but I think the faculty here at Stanford is less focused and concentrated on the students who want to be law professors than is the case at Yale. When I was at Yale, the idea was if you were smart, you went and became a law professor. It was almost like a kind of external manifestation of an inner state of grace; it was a sign that you were a smart person, if you wanted to be a law professor. And if you didn't, well, you could be a donor later on. Here at Stanford, the faculty as a whole is less concentrated on producing law professors. We produce a fair number of them, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the law school in some ways. Heather Gerken, who's the dean at Yale, has changed that somewhat, but not entirely. So that's one big difference.One of the most distinctive things about Stanford, because we're on the quarter system, is that our clinics are full-time clinics, taught by full-time faculty members at the law school. And that's distinctive. I think Yale calls more things clinics than we do, and a lot of them are part-time or taught by folks who aren't in the building all the time. So that's a big difference between the schools.They just have very different feels. I would encourage any student who gets into both of them to go and visit both of them, talk to the students, and see where you think you're going to be most comfortably stretched. Either school could be the right school for somebody.DL: I totally agree with you. Sometimes people think there's some kind of platonic answer to, “Where should I go to law school?” And it depends on so many individual circumstances.PK: There really isn't one answer. I think when I was deciding between law schools as a student, I got waitlisted at Stanford and I got into Yale. I had gone to Yale as an undergrad, so I wasn't going to go anywhere else if I got in there. I was from Connecticut and loved living in Connecticut, so that was an easy choice for me. But it's a hard choice for a lot of folks.And I do think that one of the worst things in the world is U.S. News and World Report, even though we're generally a beneficiary of it. It used to be that the R-squared between where somebody went to law school and what a ranking was was minimal. I knew lots of people who decided, in the old days, that they were going to go to Columbia rather than Yale or Harvard, rather than Stanford or Penn, rather than Chicago, because they liked the city better or there was somebody who did something they really wanted to do there.And then the R-squared, once U.S. News came out, of where people went and what the rankings were, became huge. And as you probably know, there were some scandals with law schools that would just waitlist people rather than admit them, to keep their yield up, because they thought the person would go to a higher-ranked law school. There were years and years where a huge part of the Stanford entering class had been waitlisted at Penn. And that's bad for people, because there are people who should go to Penn rather than come here. There are people who should go to NYU rather than going to Harvard. And a lot of those people don't do it because they're so fixated on U.S. News rankings.DL: I totally agree with you. But I suspect that a lot of people think that there are certain opportunities that are going to be open to them only if they go here or only if they go there.Speaking of which, after graduating from YLS, you clerked for Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court, and statistically it's certainly true that certain schools seem to improve your odds of clerking for the Court. What was that experience like overall? People often describe it as a dream job. We're recording this on the last day of the Supreme Court Term; some hugely consequential historic cases are coming down. As a law clerk, you get a front row seat to all of that, to all of that history being made. Did you love that experience?PK: I loved the experience. I loved it in part because I worked for a wonderful justice who was just a lovely man, a real mensch. I had three great co-clerks. It was the first time, actually, that any justice had ever hired three women—and so that was distinctive for me, because I had been in classes in law school where there were fewer than three women. I was in one class in law school where I was the only woman. So that was neat.It was a great Term. It was the last year of the Burger Court, and we had just a heap of incredibly interesting cases. It's amazing how many cases I teach in law school that were decided that year—the summary-judgment trilogy, Thornburg v. Gingles, Bowers v. Hardwick. It was just a really great time to be there. And as a liberal, we won a lot of the cases. We didn't win them all, but we won a lot of them.It was incredibly intense. At that point, the Supreme Court still had this odd IT system that required eight hours of diagnostics every night. So the system was up from 8 a.m. to midnight—it stayed online longer if there was a death case—but otherwise it went down at midnight. In the Blackmun chambers, we showed up at 8 a.m. for breakfast with the Justice, and we left at midnight, five days a week. Then on the weekends, we were there from 9 to 9. And they were deciding 150 cases, not 60 cases, a year. So there was a lot more work to do, in that sense. But it was a great year. I've remained friends with my co-clerks, and I've remained friends with clerks from other chambers. It was a wonderful experience.DL: And you've actually written about it. I would refer people to some of the articles that they can look up, on your CV and elsewhere, where you've talked about, say, having breakfast with the Justice.PK: And we had a Passover Seder with the Justice as well, which was a lot of fun.DL: Oh wow, who hosted that? Did he?PK: Actually, the clerks hosted it. Originally he had said, “Oh, why don't we have it at the Court?” But then he came back to us and said, “Well, I think the Chief Justice”—Chief Justice Burger—“might not like that.” But he lent us tables and chairs, which were dropped off at one of the clerk's houses. And it was actually the day of the Gramm-Rudman argument, which was an argument about the budget. So we had to keep running back and forth from the Court to the house of Danny Richman, the clerk who hosted it, who was a Thurgood Marshall clerk. We had to keep running back and forth from the Court to Danny Richman's house, to baste the turkey and make stuff, back and forth. And then we had a real full Seder, and we invited all of the Jewish clerks at the Court and the Justice's messenger, who was Jewish, and the Justice and Mrs. Blackmun, and it was a lot of fun.DL: Wow, that's wonderful. So where did you go after your clerkship?PK: I went to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where I was an assistant counsel, and I worked on voting-rights and employment-discrimination cases.DL: And that was something that you had thought about for a long time—you mentioned you had read about its work in high school.PK: Yes, and it was a great place to work. We were working on great cases, and at that point we were really pushing the envelope on some of the stuff that we were doing—which was great and inspiring, and my colleagues were wonderful.And unlike a lot of Supreme Court practices now, where there's a kind of “King Bee” usually, and that person gets to argue everything, the Legal Defense Fund was very different. The first argument I did at the Court was in a case that I had worked on the amended complaint for, while at the Legal Defense Fund—and they let me essentially keep working on the case and argue it at the Supreme Court, even though by the time the case got to the Supreme Court, I was teaching at UVA. So they didn't have this policy of stripping away from younger lawyers the ability to argue their cases the whole way through the system.DL: So how many years out from law school were you by the time you had your first argument before the Court? I know that, today at least, there's this two-year bar on arguing before the Court after having clerked there.PK: Six or seven years out—because I think I argued in ‘91.DL: Now, you mentioned that by then you were teaching at UVA. You had a dream job working at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. What led you to go to UVA?PK: There were two things, really, that did it. One was I had also discovered when I was in law school that I loved law school, and I was better at law school than I had been at anything I had done before law school. And the second was I really hated dealing with opposing counsel. I tell my students now, “You should take negotiation. If there's only one class you could take in law school, take negotiation.” Because it's a skill; it's not a habit of mind, but I felt like it was a habit of mind. And I found the discovery process and filing motions to compel and dealing with the other side's intransigence just really unpleasant.What I really loved was writing briefs. I loved writing briefs, and I could keep doing that for the Legal Defense Fund while at UVA, and I've done a bunch of that over the years for LDF and for other organizations. I could keep doing that and I could live in a small town, which I really wanted to do. I love New York, and now I could live in a city—I've spent a couple of years, off and on, living in cities since then, and I like it—but I didn't like it at that point. I really wanted to be out in the country somewhere. And so UVA was the perfect mix. I kept working on cases, writing amicus briefs for LDF and for other organizations. I could teach, which I loved. I could live in a college town, which I really enjoyed. So it was the best blend of things.DL: And I know, from your having actually delivered a lecture at UVA, that it really did seem to have a special place in your heart. UVA Law School—they really do have a wonderful environment there (as does Stanford), and Charlottesville is a very charming place.PK: Yes, especially when I was there. UVA has a real gift for developing its junior faculty. It was a place where the senior faculty were constantly reading our work, constantly talking to us. Everyone was in the building, which makes a huge difference.The second case I had go to the Supreme Court actually came out of a class where a student asked a question, and I ended up representing the student, and we took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. But I wasn't admitted in the Western District of Virginia, and that's where we had to file a case. And so I turned to my next-door neighbor, George Rutherglen, and said to George, “Would you be the lead counsel in this?” And he said, “Sure.” And we ended up representing a bunch of UVA students, challenging the way the Republican Party did its nomination process. And we ended up, by the student's third year in law school, at the Supreme Court.So UVA was a great place. I had amazing colleagues. The legendary Bill Stuntz was then there; Mike Klarman was there. Dan Ortiz, who's still there, was there. So was John Harrison. It was a fantastic group of people to have as your colleagues.DL: Was it difficult for you, then, to leave UVA and move to Stanford?PK: Oh yes. When I went in to tell Bob Scott, who was then the dean, that I was leaving, I just burst into tears. I think the reason I left UVA was I was at a point in my career where I'd done a bunch of visits at other schools, and I thought that I could either leave then or I would be making a decision to stay there for the rest of my career. And I just felt like I wanted to make a change. And in retrospect, I would've been just as happy if I'd stayed at UVA. In my professional life, I would've been just as happy. I don't know in my personal life, because I wouldn't have met my partner, I don't think, if I'd been at UVA. But it's a marvelous place; everything about it is just absolutely superb.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits at nexfirm dot com.So I do want to give you a chance to say nice things about your current place. I assume you have no regrets about moving to Stanford Law, even if you would've been just as happy at UVA?PK: I'm incredibly happy here. I've got great colleagues. I've got great students. The ability to do the clinic the way we do it, which is as a full-time clinic, wouldn't be true anywhere else in the country, and that makes a huge difference to that part of my work. I've gotten to teach around the curriculum. I've taught four of the six first-year courses, which is a great opportunityAnd as you said earlier, the weather is unbelievable. People downplay that, because especially for people who are Northeastern Ivy League types, there's a certain Calvinism about that, which is that you have to suffer in order to be truly working hard. People out here sometimes think we don't work hard because we are not visibly suffering. But it's actually the opposite, in a way. I'm looking out my window right now, and it's a gorgeous day. And if I were in the east and it were 75 degrees and sunny, I would find it hard to work because I'd think it's usually going to be hot and humid, or if it's in the winter, it's going to be cold and rainy. I love Yale, but the eight years I spent there, my nose ran the entire time I was there. And here I look out and I think, “It's beautiful, but you know what? It's going to be beautiful tomorrow. So I should sit here and finish grading my exams, or I should sit here and edit this article, or I should sit here and work on the Restatement—because it's going to be just as beautiful tomorrow.” And the ability to walk outside, to clear your head, makes a huge difference. People don't understand just how huge a difference that is, but it's huge.DL: That's so true. If you had me pick a color to associate with my time at YLS, I would say gray. It just felt like everything was always gray, the sky was always gray—not blue or sunny or what have you.But I know you've spent some time outside of Northern California, because you have done some stints at the Justice Department. Tell us about that, the times you went there—why did you go there? What type of work were you doing? And how did it relate to or complement your scholarly work?PK: At the beginning of the Obama administration, I had applied for a job in the Civil Rights Division as a deputy assistant attorney general (DAAG), and I didn't get it. And I thought, “Well, that's passed me by.” And a couple of years later, when they were looking for a new principal deputy solicitor general, in the summer of 2013, the civil-rights groups pushed me for that job. I got an interview with Eric Holder, and it was on June 11th, 2013, which just fortuitously happens to be the 50th anniversary of the day that Vivian Malone desegregated the University of Alabama—and Vivian Malone is the older sister of Sharon Malone, who is married to Eric Holder.So I went in for the interview and I said, “This must be an especially special day for you because of the 50th anniversary.” And we talked about that a little bit, and then we talked about other things. And I came out of the interview, and a couple of weeks later, Don Verrilli, who was the solicitor general, called me up and said, “Look, you're not going to get a job as the principal deputy”—which ultimately went to Ian Gershengorn, a phenomenal lawyer—“but Eric Holder really enjoyed talking to you, so we're going to look for something else for you to do here at the Department of Justice.”And a couple of weeks after that, Eric Holder called me and offered me the DAAG position in the Civil Rights Division and said, “We'd really like you to especially concentrate on our voting-rights litigation.” It was very important litigation, in part because the Supreme Court had recently struck down the pre-clearance regime under Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act]. So the Justice Department was now bringing a bunch of lawsuits against things they could have blocked if Section 5 had been in effect, most notably the Texas voter ID law, which was a quite draconian voter ID law, and this omnibus bill in North Carolina that involved all sorts of cutbacks to opportunities to vote: a cutback on early voting, a cutback on same-day registration, a cutback on 16- and 17-year-olds pre-registering, and the like.So I went to the Department of Justice and worked with the Voting Section on those cases, but I also ended up working on things like getting the Justice Department to change its position on whether Title VII covered transgender individuals. And then I also got to work on the implementation of [United States v.] Windsor—which I had worked on, representing Edie Windsor, before I went to DOJ, because the Court had just decided Windsor [which held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional]. So I had an opportunity to work on how to implement Windsor across the federal government. So that was the stuff I got to work on the first time I was at DOJ, and I also obviously worked on tons of other stuff, and it was phenomenal. I loved doing it.I did it for about 20 months, and then I came back to Stanford. It affected my teaching; I understood a lot of stuff quite differently having worked on it. It gave me some ideas on things I wanted to write about. And it just refreshed me in some ways. It's different than working in the clinic. I love working in the clinic, but you're working with students. You're working only with very, very junior lawyers. I sometimes think of the clinic as being a sort of Groundhog Day of first-year associates, and so I'm sort of senior partner and paralegal at a large law firm. At DOJ, you're working with subject-matter experts. The people in the Voting Section, collectively, had hundreds of years of experience with voting. The people in the Appellate Section had hundreds of years of experience with appellate litigation. And so it's just a very different feel.So I did that, and then I came back to Stanford. I was here, and in the fall of 2020, I was asked if I wanted to be one of the people on the Justice Department review team if Joe Biden won the election. These are sometimes referred to as the transition teams or the landing teams or the like. And I said, “I'd be delighted to do that.” They had me as one of the point people reviewing the Civil Rights Division. And I think it might've even been the Wednesday or Thursday before Inauguration Day 2021, I got a call from the liaison person on the transition team saying, “How would you like to go back to DOJ and be the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division?” That would mean essentially running the Division until we got a confirmed head, which took about five months. And I thought that this would be an amazing opportunity to go back to the DOJ and work with people I love, right at the beginning of an administration.And the beginning of an administration is really different than coming in midway through the second term of an administration. You're trying to come up with priorities, and I viewed my job really as helping the career people to do their best work. There were a huge number of career people who had gone through the first Trump administration, and they were raring to go. They had all sorts of ideas on stuff they wanted to do, and it was my job to facilitate that and make that possible for them. And that's why it's so tragic this time around that almost all of those people have left. The current administration first tried to transfer them all into Sanctuary Cities [the Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group] or ask them to do things that they couldn't in good conscience do, and so they've retired or taken buyouts or just left.DL: It's remarkable, just the loss of expertise and experience at the Justice Department over these past few months.PK: Thousands of years of experience gone. And these are people, you've got to realize, who had been through the Nixon administration, the Reagan administration, both Bush administrations, and the first Trump administration, and they hadn't had any problem. That's what's so stunning: this is not just the normal shift in priorities, and they have gone out of their way to make it so hellacious for people that they will leave. And that's not something that either Democratic or Republican administrations have ever done before this.DL: And we will get to a lot of, shall we say, current events. Finishing up on just the discussion of your career, you had the opportunity to work in the executive branch—what about judicial service? You've been floated over the years as a possible Supreme Court nominee. I don't know if you ever looked into serving on the Ninth Circuit or were considered for that. What about judicial service?PK: So I've never been in a position, and part of this was a lesson I learned right at the beginning of my LDF career, when Lani Guinier, who was my boss at LDF, was nominated for the position of AAG [assistant attorney general] in the Civil Rights Division and got shot down. I knew from that time forward that if I did the things I really wanted to do, my chances of confirmation were not going to be very high. People at LDF used to joke that they would get me nominated so that I would take all the bullets, and then they'd sneak everybody else through. So I never really thought that I would have a shot at a judicial position, and that didn't bother me particularly. As you know, I gave the commencement speech many years ago at Stanford, and I said, “Would I want to be on the Supreme Court? You bet—but not enough to have trimmed my sails for an entire lifetime.”And I think that's right. Peter Baker did this story in The New York Times called something like, “Favorites of Left Don't Make Obama's Court List.” And in the story, Tommy Goldstein, who's a dear friend of mine, said, “If they wanted to talk about somebody who was a flaming liberal, they'd be talking about Pam Karlan, but nobody's talking about Pam Karlan.” And then I got this call from a friend of mine who said, “Yeah, but at least people are talking about how nobody's talking about you. Nobody's even talking about how nobody's talking about me.” And I was flattered, but not fooled.DL: That's funny; I read that piece in preparing for this interview. So let's say someone were to ask you, someone mid-career, “Hey, I've been pretty safe in the early years of my career, but now I'm at this juncture where I could do things that will possibly foreclose my judicial ambitions—should I just try to keep a lid on it, in the hope of making it?” It sounds like you would tell them to let their flag fly.PK: Here's the thing: your chances of getting to be on the Supreme Court, if that's what you're talking about, your chances are so low that the question is how much do you want to give up to go from a 0.001% chance to a 0.002% chance? Yes, you are doubling your chances, but your chances are not good. And there are some people who I think are capable of doing that, perhaps because they fit the zeitgeist enough that it's not a huge sacrifice for them. So it's not that I despise everybody who goes to the Supreme Court because they must obviously have all been super-careerists; I think lots of them weren't super-careerists in that way.Although it does worry me that six members of the Court now clerked at the Supreme Court—because when you are a law clerk, it gives you this feeling about the Court that maybe you don't want everybody who's on the Court to have, a feeling that this is the be-all and end-all of life and that getting a clerkship is a manifestation of an inner state of grace, so becoming a justice is equally a manifestation of an inner state of grace in which you are smarter than everybody else, wiser than everybody else, and everybody should kowtow to you in all sorts of ways. And I worry that people who are imprinted like ducklings on the Supreme Court when they're 25 or 26 or 27 might not be the best kind of portfolio of justices at the back end. The Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education—none of them, I think, had clerked at the Supreme Court, or maybe one of them had. They'd all done things with their lives other than try to get back to the Supreme Court. So I worry about that a little bit.DL: Speaking of the Court, let's turn to the Court, because it just finished its Term as we are recording this. As we started recording, they were still handing down the final decisions of the day.PK: Yes, the “R” numbers hadn't come up on the Supreme Court website when I signed off to come talk to you.DL: Exactly. So earlier this month, not today, but earlier this month, the Court handed down its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, reviewing Tennessee's ban on the use of hormones and puberty blockers for transgender youth. Were you surprised by the Court's ruling in Skrmetti?PK: No. I was not surprised.DL: So one of your most famous cases, which you litigated successfully five years ago or so, was Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court held that Title VII does apply to protect transgender individuals—and Bostock figures significantly in the Skrmetti opinions. Why were you surprised by Skrmetti given that you had won this victory in Bostock, which you could argue, in terms of just the logic of it, does carry over somewhat?PK: Well, I want to be very precise: I didn't actually litigate Bostock. There were three cases that were put together….DL: Oh yes—you handled Zarda.PK: I represented Don Zarda, who was a gay man, so I did not argue the transgender part of the case at all. Fortuitously enough, David Cole argued that part of the case, and David Cole was actually the first person I had dinner with as a freshman at Yale College, when I started college, because he was the roommate of somebody I debated against in high school. So David and I went to law school together, went to college together, and had classes together. We've been friends now for almost 50 years, which is scary—I think for 48 years we've been friends—and he argued that part of the case.So here's what surprised me about what the Supreme Court did in Skrmetti. Given where the Court wanted to come out, the more intellectually honest way to get there would've been to say, “Yes, of course this is because of sex; there is sex discrimination going on here. But even applying intermediate scrutiny, we think that Tennessee's law should survive intermediate scrutiny.” That would've been an intellectually honest way to get to where the Court got.Instead, they did this weird sort of, “Well, the word ‘sex' isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment, but it's in Title VII.” But that makes no sense at all, because for none of the sex-discrimination cases that the Court has decided under the Fourteenth Amendment did the word “sex” appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's not like the word “sex” was in there and then all of a sudden it took a powder and left. So I thought that was a really disingenuous way of getting to where the Court wanted to go. But I was not surprised after the oral argument that the Court was going to get to where it got on the bottom line.DL: I'm curious, though, rewinding to Bostock and Zarda, were you surprised by how the Court came out in those cases? Because it was still a deeply conservative Court back then.PK: No, I was not surprised. I was not surprised, both because I thought we had so much the better of the argument and because at the oral argument, it seemed pretty clear that we had at least six justices, and those were the six justices we had at the end of the day. The thing that was interesting to me about Bostock was I thought also that we were likely to win for the following weird legal-realist reason, which is that this was a case that would allow the justices who claimed to be textualists to show that they were principled textualists, by doing something that they might not have voted for if they were in Congress or the like.And also, while the impact was really large in one sense, the impact was not really large in another sense: most American workers are protected by Title VII, but most American employers do not discriminate, and didn't discriminate even before this, on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender identity. For example, in Zarda's case, the employer denied that they had fired Mr. Zarda because he was gay; they said, “We fired him for other reasons.”Very few employers had a formal policy that said, “We discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” And although most American workers are protected by Title VII, most American employers are not covered by Title VII—and that's because small employers, employers with fewer than 15 full-time employees, are not covered at all. And religious employers have all sorts of exemptions and the like, so for the people who had the biggest objection to hiring or promoting or retaining gay or transgender employees, this case wasn't going to change what happened to them at all. So the impact was really important for workers, but not deeply intrusive on employers generally. So I thought those two things, taken together, meant that we had a pretty good argument.I actually thought our textual argument was not our best argument, but it was the one that they were most likely to buy. So it was really interesting: we made a bunch of different arguments in the brief, and then as soon as I got up to argue, the first question out of the box was Justice Ginsburg saying, “Well, in 1964, homosexuality was illegal in most of the country—how could this be?” And that's when I realized, “Okay, she's just telling me to talk about the text, don't talk about anything else.”So I just talked about the text the whole time. But as you may remember from the argument, there was this weird moment, which came after I answered her question and one other one, there was this kind of silence from the justices. And I just said, “Well, if you don't have any more questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.” And it went well; it went well as an argument.DL: On the flip side, speaking of things that are not going so well, let's turn to current events. Zooming up to a higher level of generality than Skrmetti, you are a leading scholar of constitutional law, so here's the question. I know you've already been interviewed about it by media outlets, but let me ask you again, in light of just the latest, latest, latest news: are we in a constitutional crisis in the United States?PK: I think we're in a period of great constitutional danger. I don't know what a “constitutional crisis” is. Some people think the constitutional crisis is that we have an executive branch that doesn't believe in the Constitution, right? So you have Donald Trump asked, in an interview, “Do you have to comply with the Constitution?” He says, “I don't know.” Or he says, “I have an Article II that gives me the power to do whatever I want”—which is not what Article II says. If you want to be a textualist, it does not say the president can do whatever he wants. So you have an executive branch that really does not have a commitment to the Constitution as it has been understood up until now—that is, limited government, separation of powers, respect for individual rights. With this administration, none of that's there. And I don't know whether Emil Bove did say, “F**k the courts,” or not, but they're certainly acting as if that's their attitude.So yes, in that sense, we're in a period of constitutional danger. And then on top of that, I think we have a Supreme Court that is acting almost as if this is a normal administration with normal stuff, a Court that doesn't seem to recognize what district judges appointed by every president since George H.W. Bush or maybe even Reagan have recognized, which is, “This is not normal.” What the administration is trying to do is not normal, and it has to be stopped. So that worries me, that the Supreme Court is acting as if it needs to keep its powder dry—and for what, I'm not clear.If they think that by giving in and giving in, and prevaricating and putting things off... today, I thought the example of this was in the birthright citizenship/universal injunction case. One of the groups of plaintiffs that's up there is a bunch of states, around 23 states, and the Supreme Court in Justice Barrett's opinion says, “Well, maybe the states have standing, maybe they don't. And maybe if they have standing, you can enjoin this all in those states. We leave this all for remind.”They've sat on this for months. It's ridiculous that the Supreme Court doesn't “man up,” essentially, and decide these things. It really worries me quite a bit that the Supreme Court just seems completely blind to the fact that in 2024, they gave Donald Trump complete criminal immunity from any prosecution, so who's going to hold him accountable? Not criminally accountable, not accountable in damages—and now the Supreme Court seems not particularly interested in holding him accountable either.DL: Let me play devil's advocate. Here's my theory on why the Court does seem to be holding its fire: they're afraid of a worse outcome, which is, essentially, “The emperor has no clothes.”Say they draw this line in the sand for Trump, and then Trump just crosses it. And as we all know from that famous quote from The Federalist Papers, the Court has neither force nor will, but only judgment. That's worse, isn't it? If suddenly it's exposed that the Court doesn't have any army, any way to stop Trump? And then the courts have no power.PK: I actually think it's the opposite, which is, I think if the Court said to Donald Trump, “You must do X,” and then he defies it, you would have people in the streets. You would have real deep resistance—not just the “No Kings,” one-day march, but deep resistance. And there are scholars who've done comparative law who say, “When 3 percent of the people in a country go to the streets, you get real change.” And I think the Supreme Court is mistaking that.I taught a reading group for our first-years here. We have reading groups where you meet four times during the fall for dinner, and you read stuff that makes you think. And my reading group was called “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” and it started with the Albert Hirschman book with that title.DL: Great book.PK: It's a great book. And I gave them some excerpt from that, and I gave them an essay by Hannah Arendt called “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” which she wrote in 1964. And one of the things she says there is she talks about people who stayed in the German regime, on the theory that they would prevent at least worse things from happening. And I'm going to paraphrase slightly, but what she says is, “People who think that what they're doing is getting the lesser evil quickly forget that what they're choosing is evil.” And if the Supreme Court decides, “We're not going to tell Donald Trump ‘no,' because if we tell him no and he goes ahead, we will be exposed,” what they have basically done is said to Donald Trump, “Do whatever you want; we're not going to stop you.” And that will lose the Supreme Court more credibility over time than Donald Trump defying them once and facing some serious backlash for doing it.DL: So let me ask you one final question before we go to my little speed round. That 3 percent statistic is fascinating, by the way, but it resonates for me. My family's originally from the Philippines, and you probably had the 3 percent out there in the streets to oust Marcos in 1986.But let me ask you this. We now live in a nation where Donald Trump won not just the Electoral College, but the popular vote. We do see a lot of ugly things out there, whether in social media or incidents of violence or what have you. You still have enough faith in the American people that if the Supreme Court drew that line, and Donald Trump crossed it, and maybe this happened a couple of times, even—you still have faith that there will be that 3 percent or what have you in the streets?PK: I have hope, which is not quite the same thing as faith, obviously, but I have hope that some Republicans in Congress would grow a spine at that point, and people would say, “This is not right.” Have they always done that? No. We've had bad things happen in the past, and people have not done anything about it. But I think that the alternative of just saying, “Well, since we might not be able to stop him, we shouldn't do anything about it,” while he guts the federal government, sends masked people onto the streets, tries to take the military into domestic law enforcement—I think we have to do something.And this is what's so enraging in some ways: the district court judges in this country are doing their job. They are enjoining stuff. They're not enjoining everything, because not everything can be enjoined, and not everything is illegal; there's a lot of bad stuff Donald Trump is doing that he's totally entitled to do. But the district courts are doing their job, and they're doing their job while people are sending pizza boxes to their houses and sending them threats, and the president is tweeting about them or whatever you call the posts on Truth Social. They're doing their job—and the Supreme Court needs to do its job too. It needs to stand up for district judges. If it's not willing to stand up for the rest of us, you'd think they'd at least stand up for their entire judicial branch.DL: Turning to my speed round, my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as a more abstract system of ordering human affairs.PK: What I liked least about it was having to deal with opposing counsel in discovery. That drove me to appellate litigation.DL: Exactly—where your request for an extension is almost always agreed to by the other side.PK: Yes, and where the record is the record.DL: Yes, exactly. My second question, is what would you be if you were not a lawyer and/or law professor?PK: Oh, they asked me this question for a thing here at Stanford, and it was like, if I couldn't be a lawyer, I'd... And I just said, “I'd sit in my room and cry.”DL: Okay!PK: I don't know—this is what my talent is!DL: You don't want to write a novel or something?PK: No. What I would really like to do is I would like to bike the Freedom Trail, which is a trail that starts in Montgomery, Alabama, and goes to the Canadian border, following the Underground Railroad. I've always wanted to bike that. But I guess that's not a career. I bike slowly enough that it could be a career, at this point—but earlier on, probably not.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?PK: I now get around six hours of sleep each night, but it's complicated by the following, which is when I worked at the Department of Justice the second time, it was during Covid, so I actually worked remotely from California. And what that required me to do was essentially to wake up every morning at 4 a.m., 7 a.m. on the East Coast, so I could have breakfast, read the paper, and be ready to go by 5:30 a.m.I've been unable to get off of that, so I still wake up before dawn every morning. And I spent three months in Florence, and I thought the jet lag would bring me out of this—not in the slightest. Within two weeks, I was waking up at 4:30 a.m. Central European Time. So that's why I get about six hours, because I can't really go to bed before 9 or 10 p.m.DL: Well, I was struck by your being able to do this podcast fairly early West Coast time.PK: Oh no, this is the third thing I've done this morning! I had a 6:30 a.m. conference call.DL: Oh my gosh, wow. It reminds me of that saying about how you get more done in the Army before X hour than other people get done in a day.My last question, is any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?PK: Yes: do what you love, with people you love doing it with.DL: Well said. I've loved doing this podcast—Professor Karlan, thanks again for joining me.PK: You should start calling me Pam. We've had this same discussion….DL: We're on the air! Okay, well, thanks again, Pam—I'm so grateful to you for joining me.PK: Thanks for having me.DL: Thanks so much to Professor Karlan for joining me. Whether or not you agree with her views, you can't deny that she's both insightful and honest—qualities that have made her a leading legal academic and lawyer, but also a great podcast guest.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat at Substack dot com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat dot substack dot com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, July 23. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

What are the pre-political grounds of property rights? What are the just uses of property according to natural rights and the natural law? In this Anchoring Truths Podcast episode, Prof. Eric Claeys, presents his research on these questions inspired by his new book Natural Property Rights. Claeys, discusses the ways a natural right to property is justified and limited, drawing on sources from ancient, medieval and contemporary analytic philosophy. Claeys also describes the history of how a natural right understanding of property has influenced American positive law and jurisprudence. Eric R. Claeys is Professor of Law at the Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University. In his scholarship, Professor Claeys studies theories of natural law and natural rights and their implications in property law. Professor Claeys is a member of the American Law Institute, he serves on the ALI's Members' Consultative Group for the first Restatement of Copyright, and he also serves as an adviser to the Restatement (Fourth) of the Law of Property.Professor Claeys received his AB from Princeton University and his JD from the University of Southern California Law School. After law school, Professor Claeys clerked for the Hon. Melvin Brunetti, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the Hon. William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States. He has also taught at Saint Louis University, the University of Chicago Law School, and Harvard Law School, and he is a member of the Princeton Politics Department's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions.  

ABOUT Eric Schliesser is professor of Political Science, with a focus on Political Theory, at the University of Amsterdam. He was previously affiliated with Syracuse University, Leiden University, and Ghent University among others. Schliesser has published on early modern philosophy, philosophy of economics, the history of analytic philosophy, the history of feminism, and metaphilosophy. His publications include his monograph, Adam Smith: Systematic philosopher and Public Thinker (OUP, 2017). He has edited numerous volumes including (inter alia) Newton and empiricism. (OUP, with Zvi Biener, 2014); Sympathy, a History of a Concept (OUP, 2015); Ten Neglected Classics of philosophy (Oxford, 2017), Neglected Classics of Philosophy, Vol 2 (Oxford 2022), and a translation of Sophie de Grouchy's Letters on Sympathy (together with Sandrine Berges, Oxford 2019). He keeps a daily blog Digressionsnimpressions.

Today's podcast show features a discussion with Professor Gregory Klass of Georgetown University Law School about an article he co-authored with Professor Ian Ayres, entitled “How to Use the Restatement of Consumer Contracts: A Guide for Judges.” The article will be published this year in the Harvard Business Law Review (vol 15), and is available here. The abstract of the article states: “In the absence of major legislation or regulatory action, U.S. consumers will continue to look to courts and the common law for protection when businesses engage in unfair and deceptive contracting practices. In May 2022, the American Law Institute approved the Restatement of the Law, Consumer Contracts. This new Restatement provides a valuable resource for courts tasked with deciding the legal effects of standard terms that businesses draft and consumers do not read. This essay identifies six pieces of the new Restatement we believe courts should pay special attention to and discusses the importance of each. It also charts several ways courts might go beyond the new Restatement to protect consumers against abusive contracting practices. Unless and until legislators and regulators step in, U.S. courts should continue to reshape the common law to address risks that new technologies of contracting create.” We discuss the following questions related to this Restatement: The history and scope of the Restatement of Consumer Contracts project Why was there perceived to be a need for a separate restatement for consumer contract law when there has been a Restatement of Contracts for many decades? Was it wise to publish a Restatement of Consumer Contracts as opposed to a Statement of Principles since the document to a large extent focuses on what the law should be, rather than on what the law is? The identification of several parts of the Restatement to which Professor Klass believes the courts should pay special attention: a.      The “reasonable expectations” rule in Section 4; b.     The unconscionability defense in Section 6; c.      The deception defense in Section 7; and, d.      The Parol Evidence rule Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel and former chair for 25 years of the Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts the discussion.  

On January 4 of this year, we released a podcast show entitled; “A look at a new approach to consumer contracts”. Our special guest at that time was Professor Andrea Boyack, a Professor at the University of Missouri School of Law. That podcast was based on a then recent law review article published by Professor Boyack entitled “The Shape of Consumer Contracts, 101 Denv L. Rev. 1 (2023). Today, we are joined again by Professor Boyack who has written a follow-up article entitled: “Abuse of Contract: Boilerplate Erasure of Consumer Counterparty Rights,” University of Missouri School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2024-03, which is the subject of our new show. The abstract of her article accurately describes the points that Professor Boyack made during the podcast show: Contract law and the new Restatement of the Law of Consumer Contracts generally treats the entirety of the company's boilerplate as presumptively binding. Entrusting the content of consumer contracts to companies creates a fertile legal habitat for abuse through boilerplate design. There is no consensus on how widespread or severe abuse of contract is. Some consumer law scholars have warned of dangers inherent in granting companies unrestrained power to sneak waivers into their online terms, but others contend that market forces adequately constrain potential abuse. On the other hand, in the absence of adequate consumer knowledge and power, market competition might instead fuel the spread of abusive boilerplate provisions as companies compete to insulate themselves from costs. The new Restatement and several prominent scholars claim that existing protective judicial doctrines siphon off the worst abuses among adhesive contracts. They are willing to accept those abuses that slip through the cracks as the unavoidable cost of a functioning, modern economy. The raging debate over how to best constrain contractual abuse relies mainly on speculation regarding the proliferation and extent of sneak-in waivers. This article provides some necessary missing data by examining the author's study of 100 companies' online terms and conditions (the T&C Study). The T&C Study tracked the extent to which the surveyed companies' boilerplate purported to erase consumer default rights within four different categories, thereby helping to assess the effectiveness of existing market and judicial constraints on company overreach. Evidence from the T&C Study shows that the overwhelming majority of consumer contracts contain multiple categories of abusive terms. The existing uniformity of boilerplate waivers undermines the theory that competition and reputation currently act as effective bulwarks against abuse. After explaining and discussing the T&C Study and its results, this article suggests how such data can assist scholars and advocates in more effectively protecting and empowering consumers. We also discuss two separate CFPB initiatives pertaining to consumer contracts. On June 4 of this year, the CFPB issued Circular 2024-03 (“Circular”) warning that the use of unlawful or unenforceable terms and conditions in contracts for consumer financial products or services may violate the prohibition on deceptive acts or practices in the Consumer Financial Protection Act. We previously drafted a blog post and Law360 article about this circular. The CFPB has also issued a proposed rule to establish a system for the registration of nonbanks subject to CFPB supervision that use “certain terms or conditions that seek to waive consumer rights or other legal protections or limit the ability of consumers to enforce their rights.” Arbitration provisions are among the terms that would trigger registration. The CFPB has not yet finalized this proposed rule and it seems likely that it will never be finalized in light of its very controversial nature and the fact that Director Chopra will be replaced on January 20 with a new Acting Director. Alan Kaplinsky, the former Chair of Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group for 25 years and now Senior Counsel, hosts this episode.

Advance your career success with better communication skills Simple steps to become an effective communicator Episode 213 (Ty is based in Toronto, Canada) In this conversation with Ty Hoesgen, we explore: The lack of proper communication skills for students The danger of depending only on your technical expertise Communication is a learnable skill Even shy, clumsy introverts can learn how to communicate Why people start talking before they speak The importance of relevant structure and organization Coaching your team to improve How to use the PREP structure (Point, Reason, Example, Point) About our guest, Ty Hoesgen: Ty Hoesgen grew up as a shy, awkward farm kid near a town of 800 people. He's the author of "Elite Communication Skills". You can take the free course, "Speak like a Confident Leader in 7 Days: at https://howtospeakbetter.com/ Follow at https://www.instagram.com/tyhoesgen/ Connect at https://www.linkedin.com/in/tyhoesgen/ ----- Excerpts from this conversation with Ty Hoesgen: There's a famous scene from the show The Office, if any of your listeners have seen the office, and it's Michael Scott, who is the head boss there, and he says, Sometimes I just start a sentence. And I don't really know where it's going. But I just hope I find it along the way. And that's what a lot of people seem to do, especially in the corporate world, when it matters the most, to be clear, to have people understand, to be persuasive to be powerful. And so one of the biggest mistakes is just having no structure, no organization, in the way that you are explaining something, you're just rolling the dice and hoping for the best when you open your mouth. ----- So how can someone better structure their message?   This is something that should absolutely be taught in schools structuring your message. So first, what is your intended message? This is something that you should know, before you start speaking. I teach a framework that a lot of my clients find very easy, and they find it very useful. It's called the PRP framework. So it's point. Reason. Point. It's very simple. If you get asked a question, you start with your main point first. So your intended message first, what's really the main thing you want them to know? Then the reasons so why do you think this? Where did this point come from? Why do you believe this? And so you give your reasons for that. And then because people tend to hear and remember the things that they hear first, and the things that they hear last the most. Whereas you want to restate our point at the end, because we want the last thing they hear to be that main message. So we've got our point, first, than our reason or reasons. And we restate it with a point at the end, the Restatement at the end, very underrated and necessary. Because if you ever been in a situation where the conversation just kind of gets off track, sometimes that's because somebody has ended their point with something that's a little bit off. And people respond to whatever they hear most recently. So if we restate the main point, at the end, it's a lot less likely those conversations are going to get off track. ----- ----more---- Your Intended Message is the podcast about how you can boost your career and business success by honing your communication skills. We'll examine the aspects of how we communicate one-to-one, one to few and one to many – plus that important conversation, one to self. In these interviews we will explore presentation skills, public speaking, conversation, persuasion, negotiation, sales conversations, marketing, team meetings, social media, branding, self talk and more.     Your host is George Torok George is a specialist in communication skills. Especially presentation. He's fascinated by the links between communication and influencing behaviors. He delivers training and coaching programs to help leaders and promising professionals deliver the intended message for greater success.   Connect with George www.SpeechCoachforExecutives.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/georgetorokpresentations/ https://www.youtube.com/user/presentationskills https://www.instagram.com/georgetorok/  

Our special guest is Andrea Boyack, Professor, University of Missouri School of Law. We first discuss the principles that underlie our current system of consumer contracts and the system's role in promoting transactional efficiency and other objectives. Prof. Boyack then provides her views on why the application of traditional contract law to the modern consumer contract context is not in the best interests of consumers and offers a different approach to consumer contracts in which a consumers can shape the terms of their contracts. In particular, she explains how this approach would treat a consumer's choice to do business with a company as legally distinct from assent to particular terms in the company's contracts.  Prof. Boyack also shares her views on the recent Restatement of the Law of Consumer Contracts. We conclude with a discussion of the controversy that surrounds arbitration provisions, how Prof. Boyack's new approach to consumer contracts would impact the use of such provisions, and what legal changes would be necessary to implement her approach. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts the conversation.

0:00 Intro 2:17 Restatement 16:06 The Luciferian Plot - #Israel is taking significant losses in armor as #Hamas fighters hit them a point blank range - Israel's "Iron Dome" is failing as missiles lose guidance and return to strike Israel itself - Freemason Albert Pike wrote letter in 1871 predicting THREE world wars: - World War III would involved #Zionists and Islamists destroying each other - Christians would be devastated to see #Israel destroyed, losing faith in God - Western nations to be economically and morally exhausted - The "Rapture" was invented in the mid-1800s by John Nelson Darby - #Rapture appears nowhere in the #Bible - Christians aren't going to be physically lifted into the sky to meet God - When that Rapture doesn't happen, while Israel is destroyed, Christians will lose faith - At this moment, Lucifer seduces the world to turn to him - Many disillusioned #Christians turn to #Lucifer and Christianity suffers greatly - TODAY'S NEWS: #Israel bombs a major university in Gaza as atrocities continue - Top Israeli government official suggests dropping a nuclear bomb on #Gaza - Mass migration of Muslims into western countries is part of the plan for causing strife - This is why the U.S. southern border is kept wide open For more updates, visit: http://www.brighteon.com/channel/hrreport NaturalNews videos would not be possible without you, as always we remain passionately dedicated to our mission of educating people all over the world on the subject of natural healing remedies and personal liberty (food freedom, medical freedom, the freedom of speech, etc.). Together, we're helping create a better world, with more honest food labeling, reduced chemical contamination, the avoidance of toxic heavy metals and vastly increased scientific transparency. ▶️ Every dollar you spend at the Health Ranger Store goes toward helping us achieve important science and content goals for humanity: https://www.healthrangerstore.com/ ▶️ Sign Up For Our Newsletter: https://www.naturalnews.com/Readerregistration.html ▶️ Brighteon: https://www.brighteon.com/channels/hrreport ▶️ Join Our Social Network: https://brighteon.social/@HealthRanger ▶️ Check In Stock Products at: https://PrepWithMike.com

a) Restatement of the Rhetorical Aims of the Gorgias; the Inconsistency Between the View Presented on Rhetoric in the Gorgias and that in Other Dialogues. Philosophers must defend the virtues of the many-- chiefly, self-restraint, sophrosune, and justice--if they are to rule, and if they are to have anything to rule at all.

In this thought-provoking podcast, Kapil Balhara from Global Demos delves into the significance of the legal profession in the judicial process and the ethical aspects that govern it. The legal profession has played a pivotal role throughout history in upholding rights and values, ensuring the rule of law prevails, and fostering a commitment to public service. Lawyers, as officers of the court, carry the responsibility of maintaining sincerity, integrity, and a fiduciary relationship with their clients and colleagues. Taking a historical perspective, the podcast traces the evolution of the legal profession during the British period in India. We explore the impact of significant developments like the Mayor's Courts, the Regulating Act, the Charter of 1753, and the Indian High Courts Act of 1861. These acts not only established key legal institutions but also brought about a transformation in legal practice and representation in India. After India gained independence, the All India Bar Committee emerged as a significant force in advocating for a unified legal profession. The podcast analyzes the All India Bar Council proposal and its influence on shaping the Advocates Act of 1961. This landmark legislation simplified and unified the legal profession, established the Bar Council of India as the highest authority, and set comprehensive rules and principles for legal practice. Ethics and professional conduct are of utmost importance for lawyers. The podcast emphasizes the significance of ethical standards in the legal profession, including responsibilities towards clients, the court, opponents, and the public. We explore the Bar Council of India rules that govern ethical conduct, safeguard the rights of advocates, and ensure impartiality in upholding the rule of law. With a focus on the role of lawyers in the judicial process, the podcast highlights the multifaceted responsibilities they shoulder. Lawyers are instrumental in providing legal advice, drafting legal documents, and facilitating litigation and lawmaking. They act as guardians of the rule of law, ensuring equal treatment, and fairness in the legal process. Their role is vital in upholding dignity and promoting peace and order in society. Throughout the episode, Kapil Balhara emphasizes the importance of ethical conduct for lawyers. Upholding the trust between litigants and courts, adhering to professional standards, and ensuring justice is delivered with integrity are the key principles that govern the legal profession. The podcast also delves into the Indian judiciary's recognition of ethics in the judicial process and the adoption of the "Restatement of Values of Judicial Life" by the Supreme Court. Join us in this insightful podcast episode as we explore the legal profession's historical development, its transformation, and the crucial role it plays in upholding justice, integrity, and trust in the judicial process. Keywords: Legal Profession, Lawyers, Bar Council of India, Professional Ethics, Advocates, Judicial Process, Ethical Conduct, Advocates Act, Rule of Law #ethics #kapilbalhara #globaldemos #legalprofession #upsc #crackupsc # ugcnet #judicialexam

We're back with a new FAB 15! This time it's the FAB 15 TV Show Themes. It's a fun talk. Your Uncle Derek and Papa Dave are on stunningly different pages this time, so you get to hear about a whole lot of songs! Check it out! Companion Blog: http://emptychecking.blogspot.com Email: db@derekbrink.com 0:00 - Intro 17:26 - #15 - It should be higher / It's an obscure pull 22:49 - #14 - If you wanna start talking, I'll Google. 27:47 - #13 - Derek explains Butt-Rock. 33:43 - #12 - I dipped into kids shows. 39:40 - #11 - Would you like a banana? 50:50 - #10 - Too many alongs... 57:22 - #9 - You're over there giggling. 1:06:08 - #8 - Ya' hear that, Daniel Dae Kim? 1:14:24 - #7 - It WAS written for the show. 1:17:20 - #6 - Snaps and whistling... 1:23:46 - #5 - I changed bananas to nuts. 1:32:04 - #4 - INELIGIBLE 1:39:24 - #3 - Making the final list is going to be so hard... 1:42:58 - #2 - Senior Pranks... 1:50:02 - #1 - You will NEVER HEAR IT. 1:53:41 - Figuring out the 15... 1:53:58 - Music Break to symbolize time passing - Lectio Divina 1:54:27 - A FAB 15, in principle... 1:55:48 - Picking #1 2:01:28 - Honorable Mentions, Alan Thicke, and Bob Ross. 2:19:47 - Restatement of the final list and outro. (TV Static used in the "15" was listed for free use at https://depositphotos.com/80510860/stock-photo-tv-damage-television-static-noise.html)

Brandon Butler is a rockstar in the copyright world, focusing on libraries and fair use. He has now opened a law firm that focuses on documentary films and fair use, among other subjects. He joins us for an hour. The law firm, Jaszi Butler, can be found at https://www.usefairuse.com/. We talk about the state of fair use, and in particular the current case at the U.S. Supreme Court about an Andy Warhol painting of Prince. We also discuss whether fair use applies to people taking pictures of patterns in quilt shops. (Towards the end of the interviews)Here is his bio: Brandon Butler is a copyright lawyer and expert on the lawful use of archival materials. Brandon is currently the Director of Information Policy at the University of Virginia Library. Previously, he was the Practitioner-in-Residence at the American University Washington College of Law's Samuelson-Glushko Intellectual Property Clinic, where he taught courses on copyright and fair use, and supervised student attorneys in the representation of artists, filmmakers, publishers, authors, and entrepreneurs in a variety of intellectual property matters. Brandon was also the Director of Public Policy at the Association of Research Libraries, where he advocated for fair copyright and intellectual freedom on behalf of the nation's most prominent academic and research libraries. Brandon graduated from the University of Virginia School of Law and was an associate at Dow Lohnes LLP (later merged with Cooley LLP), in Washington, D.C. Brandon is the Law and Policy Advisor to the Software Preservation Network, and is an Advisor to the American Law Institute's Restatement of the Law, Copyright. He is on the editorial board of the Journal of Copyright in Education and Libraries and is the author of a variety of journal articles and book chapters about copyright and fair use. In college, Brandon was the local music reporter for Athens, GA alt-weekly The Flagpole, and he took a semester off to tour the country as a substitute guitarist in his friends' punk band.Brandon is admitted to the bar in Washington, D.C.

E-commerce and electronic contracting are more important than ever as we move into the post-COVID 19 era. We first review legal requirements for electronic contracting and disclosures including the E-SIGN Act, state Uniform Electronic Transactions Acts, FTC guidance on delivery of disclosures and comments on use of “dark patterns,” and DOJ comments on website accessibility. We then review recent case law on e-contracting and disclosures and the Restatement's provisions on contract adoption and manifestation of consumer assent. We conclude with a discussion of best practices for establishing an e-contracting process that clearly evidences the consumer's manifestation of assent. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts the conversation, joined by Michael Guerrero, a partner in the Group, and Mark Levin, Senior Counsel in the Group.

Nuisance. "Nuisance" is traditionally used to describe an activity which is harmful or annoying to others such as indecent conduct or a rubbish heap. Nuisances either affect private individuals (private nuisance) or the general public (public nuisance). The claimant can sue for most acts that interfere with their use and enjoyment of their land. In English law, whether activity was an illegal nuisance depended upon the area and whether the activity was "for the benefit of the commonwealth", with richer areas subject to a greater expectation of cleanliness and quiet. The case Jones v Powell (1629) provides an early example, in which a person's professional papers were damaged by the vapors of a neighboring brewery. Although the outcome of this case is unclear, Whitelocke of the Court of the King's Bench is recorded as saying that since the water supply in area was already contaminated, the nuisance was not actionable as it is "better that they should be spoiled than that the commonwealth stand in need of good liquor". In English law, a related category of tort liability was created in the case of Rylands v Fletcher (1868): strict liability was established for a dangerous escape of some hazard, including water, fire, or animals as long as the cause was not remote. In Cambridge Water Company Limited v Eastern Counties Leather plc (1994), chemicals from a factory seeped through a floor into the water table, contaminating East Anglia's water reservoirs. The Rylands rule remains in use in England and Wales. In Australian law, it has been merged into negligence. Economic torts. Economic torts typically involve commercial transactions, and include tortious interference with trade or contract, fraud, injurious falsehood, and negligent misrepresentation. Negligent misrepresentation torts are distinct from contractual cases involving misrepresentation in that there is no privity of contract; these torts are likely to involve pure economic loss which has been less-commonly recoverable in tort. One criterion for determining whether economic loss is recoverable is the "foreseeability" doctrine. The economic loss rule is highly confusing and inconsistently applied and began in 1965 from a California case involving strict liability for product defects; in 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted the doctrine in East River SS Corporation v Transamerica Deleval, Incorporation. In 2010, the supreme court of the U.S. state of Washington replaced the economic loss doctrine with an "independent duty doctrine". Economic antitrust torts have been somewhat submerged by modern competition law. However, in the United States, private parties are permitted in certain circumstances to sue for anticompetitive practices, including under federal or state statutes or on the basis of common law tortious interference, which may be based upon the Restatement (Second) of Torts §766. Negligent misrepresentation as tort where no contractual privity exists was disallowed in England by Derry v Peek ; however, this position was overturned in Hedley Byrne v Heller in 1964 so that such actions were allowed if a "special relationship" existed between the plaintiff and defendant. United States courts and scholars "paid lip-service" to Derry; however, scholars such as William Prosser argued that it was misinterpreted by English courts. The case of Ultramares Corporation v Touche (1932) limited the liability of an auditor to known identified beneficiaries of the audit and this rule was widely applied in the United States until the 1960s. The Restatement (Second) of Torts expanded liability to "foreseeable" users rather than specifically identified "foreseen" users of the information, dramatically expanding liability and affecting professionals such as accountants, architects, attorneys, and surveyors. As of 1989, most U.S. jurisdictions follow either the Ultramares approach or the Restatement approach. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

An ultrahazardous activity in the common law of torts is one that is so inherently dangerous that a person engaged in such an activity can be held strictly liable for injuries caused to another person, even if the person engaged in the activity took every reasonable precaution to prevent others from being injured. In the Restatement of the Law 2nd, Torts 2nd, the term has been abandoned in favor of the phrase "inherently dangerous activity." Categories of ultrahazardous activity. Several categories of activities are commonly recognized as being inherently hazardous; those who engage in them are subject to strict liability. These include: Transportation, storage, and use of dynamite and other explosives. Transportation, storage, and use of radioactive materials. Transportation, storage, and use of certain hazardous chemicals Keeping of wild animals (for example animals that are not normally domesticated in that area). Note that in this context, "domesticated" does not merely refer to animals that are commonly bred and raised in captivity, such as alligators. Keeping of domesticated animals that have a known propensity for dangerous behavior (for example keeping a dog that has attacked people before). Someone who is injured by one of these inherently hazardous activities while trespassing on the property of the person engaged in the activity is barred from suing under a strict liability theory. Instead, they must prove that the property owner was negligent. In the United Kingdom, this area of law is governed by the rule established in Rylands v Fletcher. Deep pocket as a slang term. The term “deep pockets” (also given as “deep pocket” and “deep pocketed") is attested sparsely in the 1940s through the 1960s but became popular with the litigation explosion of the 1970s. A person with “short arms and deep pockets” is a person (sometimes derided as “miserly” or “cheap") who saves money and doesn't often spend it. The term “short arms and deep/long pockets” is cited in print from at least 1952. In Ireland, this phrase was attached to a wealthy businessman from Tipparary who, upon his round of drinks, would break his glass on the floor, knowing the owner of the pub would ask him to leave. This was also called the “O'Shea Fiddle”. A writ of execution (also known as an execution) is a court order granted to put in force a judgment of possession obtained by a plaintiff from a court. When issuing a writ of execution, a court typically will order a sheriff or other similar official to take possession of property owned by a judgment debtor. Such property will often then be sold in a sheriff's sale and the proceeds remunerated to the plaintiff in partial or full satisfaction of the judgment. It is generally considered preferable for the sheriff simply to take possession of money from the defendant's bank account. If the judgment debtor owns real property, the judgment creditor can record the execution to "freeze" the title until the execution is satisfied. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

CHAPTER VI.Restatement of the difficulty of a silent Heaven - The solution must be found in Scripture, and notably in the Epistles of Paul - But the discussion assumes that these Epistles contain the revelation of Christianity - This thesis discussed - Christianity distinguished from the religion of Christendom

Kristin Henning is the Blume Professor of Law and Director of the Juvenile Justice Clinic and Initiative at Georgetown Law, where she and her law students represent youth accused of delinquency in Washington, DC. Kris was previously the Lead Attorney for the Juvenile Unit of the D.C. Public Defender Service and is currently the Director of the Mid-Atlantic Juvenile Defender Center. She has been representing children accused of a crime for more than 25 years. Kris trains state actors across the country on the impact of racial bias in the juvenile and criminal legal systems. Her workshops help stakeholders recognize their own biases and develop strategies to counter them. Kris also worked closely with the McArthur Foundation's Juvenile Indigent Defense Action Network to create a 41-volume Juvenile Training Immersion Program (JTIP), a national training curriculum for juvenile defenders.She now co-hosts, with the National Juvenile Defender Center (NJDC), an annual week-long JTIP summer academy for defenders. In 2019, Kris partnered with NJDC to launch a Racial Justice Toolkit for youth advocates, and again in 2020, to launch the Ambassadors for Racial Justice program, a year-long program for juvenile defenders committed to challenging racial injustice in the juvenile legal system through litigation and systemic reform.​Kris writes extensively about race, adolescence, and policing. Her new book, The Rage of Innocence: How America Criminalizes Black Youth, is forthcoming with Pantheon Books (Penguin Random House) on September 28, 2021. Her previous work appears in journals and books such as Policing the Black Man: Arrest, Prosecution and Imprisonment (2017, edited by Angela J. Davis) and Punishment in Popular Culture (2015, edited by Charles J. Ogletree, Jr. and Austin Sarat). The race features prominently in her articles such as The Reasonable Black Child: Race, Adolescence and the Fourth Amendment, 67 Am. U. L. Rev. 1513 (2018), Race, Paternalism and the Right to Counsel, 54 Amer. Crim. L. Rev. 649 (2017), and Criminalizing Normal Adolescent Behavior in Communities of Color: The Role of Prosecutors in Juvenile Justice Reform, 98 Cornell L. Rev. 383 (2013). Professor Henning is also an editor and co-author of the anthology Rights, Race, and Reform: Fifty Years of Child Advocacy in the Juvenile Justice System (2018).​Henning serves on the Board of Directors for the Center for Children's Law and Policy and is the Director of the Mid-Atlantic Juvenile Defender Center. She has served as an expert juvenile justice consultant to several state and federal agencies, including the USDOJ's Civil Rights Division, and was the Reporter for the ABA Task Force on Dual Jurisdiction Youth. She is also a lead contributor to the Juvenile Law and Practice chapter of the District of Columbia Bar Practice Manual and has served as an investigator in eight state assessments of the access to counsel and quality of representation for accused juveniles. ​Professor Henning is the recipient of many honours, including the 2021 Juvenile Leadership Prize, the Robert E. Shepherd, Jr. Award for Excellence in Juvenile Defense from NJDC, and the Shanara Gilbert Award from the American Association of Law Schools for her commitment to justice on behalf of children, selection to the American Law Institute (ALI), an appointment as an Adviser to ALI's Restatement on Children and the Law project. In 2005, Professor Henning was selected as a Fellow in the Emerging Leaders Program of the Duke University Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy and the Graduate School of Business at the University of Cape Town, South Africa. Professor Henning travelled to Liberia in 2006 and 2007 to aid the country in juvenile justice reform. She received her B.A. from Duke University, a J.D. from Yale Law School, and an LL.M. from Georgetown Law. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. Become at member at: https://plus.acast.com/s/tobyonathursday.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Deliberation, Reactions, and Control: Tentative Definitions and a Restatement of Instrumental Convergence, published by Oliver Sourbut on June 27, 2022 on The AI Alignment Forum. This analysis is speculative. The framing has been refined in conversation and private reflection and research. To some extent it feels vacuous, but at least valuable for further research and communication. A cluster of questions fundamental to many concerns around risks from artificial systems regard the concepts of search, planning, and 'deliberateness'. How do these arise? What can we predict about their occurrence and their consequences? How strong are they? What are they anyway? Here is laid out one part of a conceptual decomposition which maps well onto many known systems and may allow further work towards answering more of those questions. The ambition is to really get at the heart of what is algorithmically happening in 'optimising systems', including humans, animals, algorithmic optimisers like SGD, and contemporary and future computational artefacts. That said, I do not have any privileged insight into the source code (or its proper interpretation!) for the examples discussed, so while this framing has already generated new insights for me, it may or may not be 'the actual algorithmic truth'. We start with the analysis: a definition of 'deliberation' and its components, then of 'reactions' and 'control'. Next we consider, in light of these, what makes a deliberator or controller 'good'. We find conceptual connections with discussions of instrumental convergence. Little attention is given here to how to determine what the goals are, which is obviously also important. These concepts were generated by contemplating various aspects of many different goal-directed systems and pulling out commonalities. Some readers may prefer to start with the examples, which include animals, plants, natural selection, gradient descent, bureaucracies, and others. Here in the conceptual section I'll footnote particularly relevant concrete examples where I anticipate them helping to convey my point. A full treatment is absent, but two major deferences to embedded agency underlie this analysis. A Cartesian separation need not be assumed, except over 'actor-moments' rather than temporally-extended 'actors'. And a major driver for this sequence is a fundamental recognition that any goal-directed behaviour instantiated in the real world must have bounded computational capacity per time[1]. Inspiration and related My (very brief) 'Only One Shot' intuition pump for embedded agency may help to convey some background assumptions (especially regarding how time and actor-moments fit into this picture). Scott Garrabrant's (A→B)→A talks about 'agency' and 'doing things on purpose'. I'm trying to unpack that further. The (open) question Does Agent-like Behaviour Imply Agent-like Architecture? is related and I hope for the perspective here to be useful toward answering that question. Alex Flint's excellent piece The ground of optimization informs some of the perspective here, especially a focus on scope of generalisation and robustness to perturbation. Daniel Filan's Bottle Caps Aren't Optimisers and Abram Demski's Selection vs Control begin discussing the algorithmic internals of optimising systems, which is the intent here also. Risks from Learned Optimization is of course relevant. John Wentworth's discussions of abstraction (for example What is Abstraction?) especially with regards its predictive properties for a non-omniscient computer, are central to the notion of abstraction employed here. Related are the good and gooder regulator theorems, which touch closely computationally upstream of the aspects discussed here while making fewer concessions to embedded agency. Definitions Deliberation A deliberation is any p...

United States. Equitable estoppel. Equitable estoppel is the American counterpart to estoppel by representation. Its elements are summarized as: Facts misrepresented or concealed, Knowledge of true facts, Fraudulent intent, Inducement and reliance, Injury to complainant, and, Clear, concise, unequivocal proof of actus (not by implication). For example, in Aspex Eyewear v Clariti Eyewear, eyeglass frame maker Aspex sued competitor Clariti for patent infringement. Aspex waited three years, without responding to a request that it list the infringed patent claims, before asserting its patent in litigation. During this period, Clariti expanded its marketing and sales of the products. The Federal Circuit found that Aspex misled Clariti to believe it would not enforce its patent, and thus estopped Aspex from proceeding with the suit. Another example of equitable estoppel is the case of Sakharam Ganesh Pandit, an Indian emigrant and lawyer who was granted American citizenship in 1914 due to his designation as "white". Subsequently, Pandit bought property, was admitted to the California bar, married a white woman, and renounced his rights to property and inheritance in British India. Following the Supreme Court case United States v Thind, which found that Indians were considered non-white, and in which Pandit represented the applicant, Bhagat Singh Thind, the US government moved to strip Pandit of his "illegally procured" citizenship. Pandit successfully challenged the denaturalization, arguing that under equitable estoppel, he would be unjustly harmed by losing his citizenship, as it would cause him to become stateless, lose his profession as a lawyer, and make his marriage illegal. In U.S. v Pandit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld Pandit's citizenship, ending denaturalization processes against him and other Indian-Americans. Promissory estoppel. In many jurisdictions of the United States, promissory estoppel is an alternative to consideration as a basis for enforcing a promise. It is also sometimes called detrimental reliance. The American Law Institute in 1932 included the principle of estoppel into § 90 of the Restatement of Contracts, stating: A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. — Restatement (Second) removed the requirement that the detriment be "substantial". However: Equitable estoppel is distinct from promissory estoppel. Promissory estoppel involves a clear and definite promise, while equitable estoppel involves only representations and inducements. The representations at issue in promissory estoppel go to future intent, while equitable estoppel involves statement of past or present fact. It is also said that equitable estoppel lies in tort, while promissory estoppel lies in contract. The major distinction between equitable estoppel and promissory estoppel is that the former is available only as a defense, while promissory estoppel can be used as the basis of a cause of action for damages. — 28 American Jurisprudence 2d Estoppel and Waiver § 34 --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

With ALI's members poised to approve the current draft of the new Restatement, providers need to understand the Restatement's impact on their consumer agreements, particularly those entered into online. After reviewing the rationale for the new Restatement and ALI's approach to developing the rules it contains, we look at the issues covered by each section, such as the rules that deal with assent to contract terms, change in terms, unconscionability, and deception. We also discuss how businesses can use the Restatement to their benefit and ALI's next steps for finalizing the draft. Alan Kaplinsky, Ballard Spahr Senior Counsel, leads the conversation.

False imprisonment or unlawful imprisonment occurs when a person intentionally restricts another person's movement within any area without legal authority, justification, or the restrained person's permission. Actual physical restraint is not necessary for false imprisonment to occur. A false imprisonment claim may be made based upon private acts, or upon wrongful governmental detention. For detention by the police, proof of false imprisonment provides a basis to obtain a writ of habeas corpus. Under common law, false imprisonment is both a crime and a tort. Imprisonment. Within the context of false imprisonment, an imprisonment occurs when a person is restrained from moving from a location or bounded area, as a result of a wrongful intentional act, such as the use of force, threat, coercion, or abuse of authority. Detention that is not false imprisonment. Not all acts of involuntary detention amount to false imprisonment. An accidental detention will not support a claim of false imprisonment since false imprisonment requires an intentional act. The law may privilege a person to detain somebody else against their will. A legally authorized detention does not constitute false imprisonment. For example, if a parent or legal guardian of a child denies the child's request to leave their house, and prevents them from doing so, this would not ordinarily constitute false imprisonment. By country. United States. Under United States law, police officers have the right to detain individuals based on probable cause that a crime has been committed and the individual was involved, or based on reasonable suspicion that the individual has been, is, or is about to be engaged in a criminal activity. Elements. To prevail under a false imprisonment claim, a plaintiff must prove: 1. Willful detention in a bounded area 2. Without consent; and 3. Without authority of lawful arrest. (Restatement of the Law, Second, Torts) --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

Occasionally we get a court case that has ripple effects across the fiduciary, asset management and investment management industries. In this episode, we're going to look at the Potentially massive implications of the recent Supreme Court case, Hughes vs Northwestern The original issue before the Court was whether or not the 403(B) plan participants had properly plead their case in their complaint. The lower courts had dismissed the case, relying on a concept known as the “menu of options” defense. The basic argument of the “menu of options” defense has been that plans satisfy their fiduciary duties under ERISA as long they offered a mixture of investment options-- even if some of those investment options would be considered imprudent under applicable legal standards. In a unanimous 8-0 vote, the Court rejected the “menu of options” defense. The implications of this case could be far-reaching and include investment fiduciaries of all stripes including trustees and potentially RIA's and other wealth management firms. To help us understand the case and its impact on ERISA matters and the fiduciary landscape in general, I'm going to speak to JAMES WATKINS. Jim provides all manner of fiduciary counsel- He is a Certified Financial Planner® professional, owns the Watkins Law Firm out of Georgia, and has been an attorney since 1981. His career also includes serving as a compliance officer with several national brokerage firms and as the director of financial planning quality assurance for the advisory division of an international insurance corporation. Finally, he is the creator of the Active Management Value Ratio™, a metric that allows investors, investment fiduciaries and attorneys to quickly and easi!y calculate the prudence of actively-managed mutual funds. OUTLINE What are the fiduciary responsibilities of the providers of a fiduciary plan?This falls within ERISA . . . help us understand thatCodification of Restatement of TrustsWhat was at issue in Hughes vs. Northwestern?What happens going forward in this case?With this ruling, there will be a big increase in scrutiny in the stewardship of these plans- what does this look like?Increase in cases (401K and 403B)- against 401K and 403B and BY plans vs advisers. (404A each investment must be prudent)Increase in discovery (and other issues like kickbacks?)Increase in costs for plans?  Fewer providers? E&O Coverage +++Reduce cost of planReduce optionsMonitor planA change in the way investments and stewardship are analyzed and deemed appropriate?Menu doesn't work anymoreProof of a manager selection process?A new Cost/benefit analysis? (Actively Managed Value Ratio)Who could be liable?  Plan Trustees? Investment Consultants? others?How could this spill over into other areas?Restatement 3rd Sec. 90 Prudent Investor RuleDiversificationCost-EfficiencyCase Law (Tibble et al . . . )Other trustees / fiduciaries?Personal trustsInvestment fiduciariesFoundationsActive vs Passive (Proliferation of cost benefit analysis- AMVR?)Investment consultants giving opinion letters?Private Investments?Intersection with SEC, FINRA other regulatory bodies?  Prudent Investor Rule? LINKS: Hughes vs. Northwestern (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1401_m6io.pdf) Faegre Drinker Summary https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2022/1/supreme-court-decides-hughes-v-northwestern-university Jim Watkins on Rick Ferri's Podcast https://www.podbean.com/ew/pb-k2fbd-1169847 How do we keep in touch? investsense.com. https://iainsight.wordpress.com/ Twitter: @investsense https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Actually-Intelligent-Decision-Making-1-ebook/dp/B07FPQJJQT/

We've all heard the phrase you were given two ears and one mouth for a reason. On this episode we talk about active listening and the key to winning the war on focusing on the conversation. Do you spend more time formulating the response to your team in your head when you ask for an explanation? Do you have a preconceived idea and don't listen to the story? If so you are doing yourself and your team a huge disservice. As leaders we need to be locked into what someone is saying to be truly listening to what someone is saying instead of formulating our response or having a preconceived notion before the person talks. Restatement is the key to success, slow down and listen, when you reflect back to whoever you are talking to you are giving them, point one, two three of what you have hear. When you are actively listening you are giving the attention to the conversation that it deserves.With open ears and open minds, join in and comment on the conversation and discover if you are truly listening or are you formulating your response and missing the story.

Trespass to chattels is a tort whereby the infringing party has intentionally (or, in Australia, negligently) interfered with another person's lawful possession of a chattel (movable personal property). The interference can be any physical contact with the chattel in a quantifiable way, or any dispossession of the chattel (whether by taking it, destroying it, or barring the owner's access to it). As opposed to the greater wrong of conversion, trespass to chattels is argued to be actionable per se. The origin of the concept comes from the original writ of trespass de bonis asportatis. As in most other forms of trespass, remedy can only be obtained once it is proven that there was direct interference regardless of damage being done, and the infringing party has failed to disprove either negligence or intent. In some common-law countries, such as the United States and Canada, a remedy for trespass to chattels can only be obtained if the direct interference was sufficiently substantial to amount to dispossession, or alternatively where there had been an injury proximately related to the chattel. (Restatement (Second) of Torts, 1965.) United States law. The Restatement of Torts, Second § 217 defines trespass to chattels as "intentionally… dispossessing another of the chattel, or using or intermeddling with a chattel in the possession of another." Harm to personal property or diminution of its quality, condition or value as a result of a defendant's use can also result in liability under § 218(b) of the Restatement. Certain specific circumstances may lend themselves to liability for the action. The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 218 states further that: One who commits a trespass to a chattel is subject to liability to the possessor of the chattel if, but only if, a. he dispossesses the other of the chattel, or b. the chattel is impaired as to its condition, quality, or value, or c. the possessor is deprived of the use of the chattel for a substantial time, or d. bodily harm is caused to the possessor, or harm is caused to some person or thing in which the possessor has a legally protected interest. The trespass to chattels cause of action, frequently asserted in recent years against Internet advertisers and email spammers, is often included in complaints against spyware companies. These electronic messaging cases, and their progeny, which have cropped up over the last decade, will typically turn on the situations described in (b) or (d), and, as detailed below, the question of harm caused is a big issue. In sum, the basic elements of a claim of trespass to chattels are: 1) the lack of the plaintiff's consent to the trespass, 2) interference or intermeddling with possessory interest, and 3) the intentionality of the defendant's actions. Actual damage is not necessarily a required element of a trespass to chattels claim. Features of the claim. Lack of consent. A vendor can attempt to dispute a trespass claim on the grounds that the user consented to the terms of the contract. Even if consent was given for certain access, a user may still have a valid trespass to chattels complaint if the vendor has exceeded the contractual terms, if the contract is found to misrepresent the actual functioning of the product, or if the consent has been withdrawn. A vendor can be held liable for "any use exceeding the consent" given. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

Trespass is an area of criminal law or tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to chattels, and trespass to land. Trespass to the person historically involved six separate trespasses: threats, assault, battery, wounding, mayhem (or maiming), and false imprisonment. Through the evolution of the common law in various jurisdictions, and the codification of common law torts, most jurisdictions now broadly recognize three trespasses to the person: assault, which is "any act of such a nature as to excite an apprehension of battery"; battery, "any intentional and unpermitted contact with the plaintiff's person or anything attached to it and practically identified with it"; and false imprisonment, the "unlaw obstruct or deprive of freedom from restraint of movement". One can retrieve wounded or expired game from neighboring properties and boundaries even if the neighboring landowner does not give permission as long as there are no weapons in possession while retrieving game causes injury". Trespass to chattel does not require a showing of damages. Simply the "intermeddling with or use of … the personal property" of another gives cause of action for trespass. Since CompuServe Incorporated v Cyber Promotions, Inc., various courts have applied the principles of trespass to chattel to resolve cases involving unsolicited bulk e-mail and unauthorized server usage. Trespass to land is today the tort most commonly associated with the term trespass; it takes the form of "wrongful interference with one's possessory rights in property". Generally, it is not necessary to prove harm to a possessor's legally protected interest; liability for unintentional trespass varies by jurisdiction. "in common law, every unauthorized entry upon the soil of another was a trespasser"; however, under the tort scheme established by the Restatement of Torts, liability for unintentional intrusions arises only under circumstances evincing negligence or where the intrusion involved a highly dangerous activity. Trespass has also been treated as a common law offense in some countries. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

Responsibility for criminal law and criminal justice in the United States is shared between the states and the federal government. Sources of law. The federal government and all the states rely on the following. Common law. Common law is law developed by judges through legal opinions, as opposed to statutes adopted through the legislative process or regulations issued by the executive branch. A common law crime is thus a crime which was originally defined by judges. Common law crimes no longer exist at the federal level, because of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v Hudson and Goodwin, (1812). The validity of common law crimes varies at the state level. Although most states have abolished common law crimes, some have enacted "reception" statutes recognizing common law crimes when no similar statutory crime exists. Statutes. All 50 states have their own penal codes. Therefore, for any particular crime somewhere, it would be necessary to look it up in that jurisdiction. However, statutes derive from the common law. For example, if a state's murder statute does not define "human being," that state's courts will rely on the common-law definition. State vs. federal. The states, since they possess the police power, have the most general power to pass criminal laws in the United States. The federal government, since it can only exercise those powers granted to it by the Constitution, can only pass criminal laws which are related to the powers granted to Congress. For example, drug crimes, which comprise a large percentage of federal criminal cases, are subject to federal control because drugs are a commodity for which there is an interstate market, thus making controlled substances subject to regulation by Congress in the Controlled Substances Act which was passed under the authority of the Commerce Clause. Gonzales v Raich affirmed Congress's power to regulate drug possession under the Controlled Substances Act under the powers granted to it by the Commerce Clause. Model Penal Code. The Model Penal Code ("MPC") was created by the American Law Institute ("ALI") in 1962. In other areas of law, the ALI created Restatements of Law, usually referred to just as Restatements. For example, there is a Restatement of Contracts and a Restatement of Torts. The MPC is their equivalent for criminal law. Many states have wholly or largely adopted the MPC. Others have implemented it in part, and still others have not adopted any portion of it. However, even in jurisdictions where it has not been adopted, the MPC is often cited as persuasive authority in the same way that Restatements are in other areas of law. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

Jingyi Jessica Li | Statistical Hypothesis Testing versus Machine Learning Binary Classification Jingyi Jessica Li  (UCLA) discusses her paper "Statistical Hypothesis Testing versus Machine Learning Binary Classification". Jingyi noticed several high-impact cancer research papers using multiple hypothesis testing for binary classification problems. Concerned that these papers had no guarantee on their claimed false discovery rates, Jingyi wrote a perspective article about clarifying hypothesis testing and binary classification to scientists. #datascience #science #statistics 0:00 – Intro 1:50 – Motivation for Jingyi's article 3:22 – Jingyi's four concepts under hypothesis testing and binary classification 8:15 – Restatement of concepts 12:25 – Emulating methods from other publications 13:10 – Classification vs hypothesis test: features vs instances 21:55 - Single vs multiple instances 23:55 - Correlations vs causation 24:30 - Jingyi's Second and Third Guidelines 30:35 - Jingyi's Fourth Guideline 36:15 - Jingyi's Fifth Guideline 39:15 – Logistic regression: An inference method & a classification method 42:15 – Utility for students 44:25 – Navigating the multiple comparisons problem (again!) 51:25 – Right side, show bio-arxiv paper

Host Corrie Woods interviews fellow appellate attorneys Dan McLane and Tom Sanchez  of Eckert Seamans to discuss Pittsburgh Logistics Sys., Inc. v. Beemac Trucking, LLC, a case in which the Court held unanimously that the Restatement test for no-hire/no-poach provisions ancillary to a services contract between two business entities governs in Pennsylvania and finding the subject no-hire/no-poach provision to be unenforceable. Show Notes:Justice Mundy's OpinionUnited States Department of Justice's "No-Poach Approach"Bloomberg Law SummaryRead more about Pittsburgh Logistics Sys., Inc. v. Beemac Trucking, LLC and all of SCOPA's cases on SCOPAblog.

A Video Explaining Wear and Tear and Inherent Vice https://zalma.com/blog Wear and Tear It is inevitable that objects deteriorate over time and wear out. Even the pyramids in Egypt show wear and tear after more than 4000 years being abused by sand and wind storms. Recent decisions of the courts of appeal have gone through such changes that even an inherent vice of the insured property—a condition certain to result in loss—rarely falls within the parameters of a non-fortuitous loss. The Restatement of Contracts 291, Comment a, holds that a loss is not fortuitous “if it results from an inherent defect in the object damaged, from ordinary wear and tear, or from the intentional misconduct of the insured.” In a case dealing with a boat that was left completely uncovered in the Bahamas during the rainy season, ‘normal wear and tear' resulted in the sinking of the boat. Rainwater entered the boat, forcing the bilge pump to operate continuously for several days. This drained the boat's battery, causing the pump to stop functioning. Batteries do not last forever. While the battery may have had enough power to start the engine, it obviously did not have enough power to operate the bilge pump for two days. The deterioration of a battery constitutes normal wear and tear, is not fortuitous, and is not compensable under a policy of insurance. We think it inappropriate to cause the insured to suffer a forfeiture by concluding, with the aid of hindsight, that no fortuitous loss occurred, when at the time the insurance took effect only a risk was involved as far as the parties were aware. See Millers Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Murrell, 362 S.W. 2d 868, 870 (Tex. Civ. App. 1962). De Guinee v. Insurance Co., 724 F. 2d 369 (3rd Cir. 12/22/1983). In Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee v. Insurance Company of North America, 724 F. 2d. 369 (3d Cir. 1983), an insured brought suit against its all-risk insurer to recover business interruption losses arising from the structural failure, collapse, and deformation of a tippler building and crusherhouse used in the mining of bauxite ore. The trial court found no coverage because the damage resulted from the defective design of the building and was not fortuitous. Latent Defect Cases that provide coverage despite an exclusion for latent defects fall generally within two categories. The court determines either that: "the defect could have been discovered through appropriate testing and it is therefore, not latent; or the loss resulted from a contributory covered risk." In Tzung v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 873 F.2d 1338 (9th Cir.1989), the court first held that damage due in part to inadequate protection against soil expansion was excluded under a policy exclusion for “faulty materials or workmanship.” Because the design and construction defects at issue in Tzung—described as “imbedded in the ground”—were discoverable only through expert examination of the apartment building “and the soils beneath it,” they were not “readily discoverable.” --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma/support

Welcome to Episode Eighty-Two of Lucretius Today. I am your host Cassius, and together with my panelists from the EpicureanFriends.com forum, we'll walk you through the six books of Lucretius' poem, and discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. We encourage you to study Epicurus for yourself, and we suggest the best place to start is the book, "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Canadian professor Norman DeWitt. For anyone who is not familiar with our podcast, please visit EpicureanFriends.com where you will find our goals and our ground rules. If you have any questions about those, please be sure to contact us at the forum for more information. In this Episode 82 we will read approximately Latin lines 1 through 67 as we open Book Six. Now let's join Don reading today's text.Browne 1743[01] Renowned Athens, first to wretched man gave the sweet fruits, and human life refreshed, and published laws; but comforts nobler far than these she gave, when to the world she showed great Epicurus, formed with such a soul; who from his mouth delivered sublime truths, as from an oracle, whose fame for so divine discoveries dispersed every way abroad and was raised after death above the skies.[09] For when he saw how little would suffice for necessary use, and by what small provisions life might be preserved; that Nature had prepared every thing ready to support mankind; that men abounded with wealth, and were loaded with honor and applause, and happy in their private concerns, in the good character of their children, and yet their minds were restless at home, complaining and lamenting the misery of their condition; he perceived the vessel itself (the mind) was the cause of the calamity, and by the corruption of that, every thing, though ever so good, that was poured into it was tainted: it was full of holes, and run out, and so could never by any means by filled; and whatever it received within, it infected with a stinking smell. And therefore he purged the mind by true philosophy, and set bounds to our desires and our fears. He laid open to us the chief good, that point of happiness we all aim at, in what it consists, and showed us the direct way that leads to it, and puts us into the straight road to obtain it. He taught what misfortunes commonly attend human life, whether they flow from the laws of nature or from chance, whether from necessity or by accident; and by what means we are to oppose those evils, and strive against them. And he has fully proved that men torment themselves in vain, and are tossed about in a tempestuous ocean of cares to no purpose. For as boys tremble and fear every thing in the dark night, so we in open day fear things as vain, and little to be dreaded, as those that children quake at in the dark. and fancy advancing towards them. This terror of the mind, this darkness then, not the Sun's beams nor the bright rays of day can scatter, but the light of nature and the rules of reason; and therefore I shall the more readily proceed to execute what I have begun.[43] And since I taught the fabric of the world was mortal, and that the heavens are formed of corruptible seeds, and whatever they do, or ever will contain, must necessarily be dissolved; attend now to what remains, especially since the hope of carrying the prize has encouraged me to ascend the chariot and engage in so noble a race; and since the difficulties that once attended the course are removed, and the roughness of the way is made favorable and easy. The various wonders men behold in the earth and in the heavens perplex their minds, trembling and in suspense, and make them humble with the fear of the gods, and press them groveling to the ground; and being ignorant of the cause of these events, they are forced to confess the sovereignty and give up everything to the command of these deities. And the effects they are unable to account for by reason they imagine were brought about by the influence of the gods; for such as well know that the gods lead a life of tranquility and ease, if they should still wonder by what power the world is carried on, especially in the the things they see over their heads in the heavens above, they relapse again into their old superstition; they raise over themselves a set of cruel tyrants who, the wretches fancy, can do all things, because they know nothing of what can or what cannot be, or by what means a finite power is fixed to every being, and a boundary immovable which it cannot pass. Such are more liable to mistakes and to be carried widely from the right way.

In this episode Marty Stetzer (President of EKT Interactive in Houston) talks with Deb Ryan, Head Low Carbon Market Analytics at S&P Global Platts about oil and gas sustainability reporting. How will emission targets and regulations impact reserve values? ---------------- Feedback is welcome, along with ideas for topics you would like to see us cover in future podcasts, fill out the short form You can also send your feedback to thespegcspodcast@spegcs.org   Make sure to subscribe and follow on Apple Podcast, Podbean, and Spotify to get the latest episodes. ---------------- If you want to learn more about the SPE Gulf Coast Section, go to www.spegcs.org. You can access recorded webinars in the on-demand library and contribute to the Scholarship Endowment Fund (SEF) If you are not an SPE member and would like to join, visit www.SPE.org/join and enjoy all the SPE membership benefits.

Thanks for listening to the SPE-GCS Podcast Channel on the EKT Interactive Oil and Gas Podcast Network. Transcript In this episode Marty Stetzer (President of EKT Interactive in Houston) talks with Deb Ryan, Head Low Carbon Market Analytics at S&P Global Platts about oil and gas sustainability reporting. How will emission targets and regulations impact […] The post "Restatement of Reserves" featuring Deb Ryan appeared first on EKT Interactive.

The TransUnion v. Ramirez  decision from the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to have massive implications for standing for class certification and class actions, and potentially for the en banc petition seeking a rehearing on the panel opinion issued in Hunstein v. Preferred Collection & Mgmt. Servs. Inc. In the 5-4 opinion written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court held that the class in the case did not have standing to sue—only the original plaintiff, Sergio Ramirez. Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan dissent on the opinion, ACA International previously reported.On this episode of ACA Cast,  Jason Tompkins and Jonathan Hoffmann, partners at Balch & Bingham LLP, talk with ACA Director of Education Kelli Krueger about the implications of the Supreme Court's decision on other case law and at the state level.They also reference a footnote in the court's opinion:For the first time in this court, the plaintiffs also argue that TransUnion “published” the class members' information internally—for example, to employees within TransUnion and to the vendors that printed and sent the mailings that the class members received. That new argument is forfeited. In any event, it is unavailing. Many American courts did not traditionally recognize intra-company disclosures as actionable publications for purposes of the tort of defamation. See, e.g., Chalkley v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 150 Va. 301, 326–328, 143 S. E. 631, 638–639 (1928). Nor have they necessarily recognized disclosures to printing vendors as actionable publications. See, e.g., Mack v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 639 Fed. Appx. 582, 586 (CA11 2016). Moreover, even the plaintiffs' cited cases require evidence that the defendant actually “brought an idea to the perception of another,” Restatement of Torts Section 559, Comment a, p. 140 (1938),  the defendant actually “brought an idea to the perception of another,” Restatement of Torts Section 559, Comment a, p. 140 (1938), and thus generally require evidence that the document was actually read and not merely processed, cf. Ostrowe v. Lee, 256 N. Y. 36, 38–39, 175 N. E. 505, 505–506 (1931) (Cardozo, C. J.).That evidence is lacking here. In short, the plaintiffs' internal publication theory circumvents a fundamental requirement of an ordinary defamation claim—publication—and does not bear a sufficiently “close relationship” to the traditional defamation tort to qualify for Article III standing.Contact ACA Cast host, ACA Director of Education Kelli Krueger, at krueger@acainternational.org or Member Services at memberservices@acainternational.org  if you have a podcast idea for ACA Cast.Support the show (http://www.acainternational.org)

49 Organizational citizen behavior Learn about both basic and niche topics in Work and Organizational Psychology in less than five minutes a week. If you are an HR professional, you will get inspired to explore new areas beyond recruiting and payroll. If you are a CEO or entrepreneur, you will get an overview on the applied science of human factors at work. Psychologist, author and consultant from Hamburg /Germany (*1979). Married, two sons. MA in psychology from the University of Hamburg. More than 14 years of experience teaching psychology as well as a consultant for UNICEF, Terre des Hommes, IOM, the EU and private companies. Podcasts in 21 languages. References: Organ, D. W. (1988). A Restatement of the Satisfaction-Performance Hypothesis. Journal of Management, 14(4), 547-57. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142. Smith, A., Organ D. W., & Near J. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653-663. Contact gerhard.j.ohrband@gmail.com https://thegomethod.org/ On Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gerhard-j%C3%B6rg-ohrband-22525147/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/JOhrband We are proud to have made it into the Top 5 of Industrial and Organizational Psychology podcasts: https://blog.feedspot.com/industrial_organizational_psychology_podcasts/ If you want to discover my secrets for learning more than 21 languages, please check out my book “The GO Method” on Amazon. Benefit from a free webinar: https://www.thegomethod.org/services/free/ Intro music: Josef Liebeskind - Symphony No. 1 in A minor, Op. 4.The recording is in the public domain. Listen hereto the entire composition.

49 Organizational citizen behavior Learn about both basic and niche topics in Work and Organizational Psychology in less than five minutes a week. If you are an HR professional, you will get inspired to explore new areas beyond recruiting and payroll. If you are a CEO or entrepreneur, you will get an overview on the applied science of human factors at work. Psychologist, author and consultant from Hamburg /Germany (*1979). Married, two sons. MA in psychology from the University of Hamburg. More than 14 years of experience teaching psychology as well as a consultant for UNICEF, Terre des Hommes, IOM, the EU and private companies. Podcasts in 21 languages. References: Organ, D. W. (1988). A Restatement of the Satisfaction-Performance Hypothesis. Journal of Management, 14(4), 547-57. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142. Smith, A., Organ D. W., & Near J. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653-663. Contact gerhard.j.ohrband@gmail.com https://thegomethod.org/ On Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gerhard-j%C3%B6rg-ohrband-22525147/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/JOhrband We are proud to have made it into the Top 5 of Industrial and Organizational Psychology podcasts: https://blog.feedspot.com/industrial_organizational_psychology_podcasts/ If you want to discover my secrets for learning more than 21 languages, please check out my book “The GO Method” on Amazon. Benefit from a free webinar: https://www.thegomethod.org/services/free/ Intro music: Josef Liebeskind - Symphony No. 1 in A minor, Op. 4.The recording is in the public domain. Listen hereto the entire composition.

49 Organizational citizen behavior Learn about both basic and niche topics in Work and Organizational Psychology in less than five minutes a week. If you are an HR professional, you will get inspired to explore new areas beyond recruiting and payroll. If you are a CEO or entrepreneur, you will get an overview on the applied science of human factors at work. Psychologist, author and consultant from Hamburg /Germany (*1979). Married, two sons. MA in psychology from the University of Hamburg. More than 14 years of experience teaching psychology as well as a consultant for UNICEF, Terre des Hommes, IOM, the EU and private companies. Podcasts in 21 languages. References: Organ, D. W. (1988). A Restatement of the Satisfaction-Performance Hypothesis. Journal of Management, 14(4), 547-57. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142. Smith, A., Organ D. W., & Near J. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653-663. Contact gerhard.j.ohrband@gmail.com https://thegomethod.org/ On Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gerhard-j%C3%B6rg-ohrband-22525147/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/JOhrband We are proud to have made it into the Top 5 of Industrial and Organizational Psychology podcasts: https://blog.feedspot.com/industrial_organizational_psychology_podcasts/ If you want to discover my secrets for learning more than 21 languages, please check out my book “The GO Method” on Amazon. Benefit from a free webinar: https://www.thegomethod.org/services/free/ Intro music: Josef Liebeskind - Symphony No. 1 in A minor, Op. 4.The recording is in the public domain. Listen hereto the entire composition.

49 Organizational citizen behavior Learn about both basic and niche topics in Work and Organizational Psychology in less than five minutes a week. If you are an HR professional, you will get inspired to explore new areas beyond recruiting and payroll. If you are a CEO or entrepreneur, you will get an overview on the applied science of human factors at work. Psychologist, author and consultant from Hamburg /Germany (*1979). Married, two sons. MA in psychology from the University of Hamburg. More than 14 years of experience teaching psychology as well as a consultant for UNICEF, Terre des Hommes, IOM, the EU and private companies. Podcasts in 21 languages. References: Organ, D. W. (1988). A Restatement of the Satisfaction-Performance Hypothesis. Journal of Management, 14(4), 547-57. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142. Smith, A., Organ D. W., & Near J. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653-663. Contact gerhard.j.ohrband@gmail.com https://thegomethod.org/ On Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gerhard-j%C3%B6rg-ohrband-22525147/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/JOhrband We are proud to have made it into the Top 5 of Industrial and Organizational Psychology podcasts: https://blog.feedspot.com/industrial_organizational_psychology_podcasts/ If you want to discover my secrets for learning more than 21 languages, please check out my book “The GO Method” on Amazon. Benefit from a free webinar: https://www.thegomethod.org/services/free/ Intro music: Josef Liebeskind - Symphony No. 1 in A minor, Op. 4.The recording is in the public domain. Listen hereto the entire composition.

In today's episode, Rick and Sam are joined by Mary Rasenberger, CEO of the Authors Guild and Authors Guild Foundation, to discuss freedom of expression in the context of book publishing, the internet age and our civil society. We discuss the importance of defending intellectual property rights, the demand for a healthy civil discourse, and the need for freedom of expression even when we disagree. Mary Rasenberger is the CEO of the Authors Guild (authorsguild.org) and Authors Guild Foundation. Prior to joining the Guild in November 2014, Mary practiced law for over 25 years in roles that spanned private practice, the government and corporate sector, as a recognized expert in copyright and media law. From 2002 to 2008 Mary worked for the U.S. Copyright Office and Library of Congress as senior policy advisor and program director for the National Digital Preservation Program. Immediately prior to coming to the Guild in late 2014, Mary was a partner at Cowan, DeBaets, Abrahams & Sheppard, and previously Counsel at Skadden Arps, where she counseled and litigated on behalf of publishing, media, entertainment, and internet companies, as well as authors and other creators, in all areas of copyright and related rights. Earlier in her career, Mary worked at other major New York law firms and for a major record company. Mary is a frequent speaker, lecturer and writer on copyright law and authors' rights. She is on the Council of the American Bar Association's Intellectual Property Section; an Advisor to the Executive Committee of the Copyright Society of the USA; a founder of Copyright Awareness Week, and an Adviser to the American Law Institute's Restatement of Law, Copyright. Mary received her J.D. from Harvard Law School, an M.A. in Philosophy from Boston College, and her B.A. from Barnard College. Sam Scinta is President and Founder of IM Education, a non-profit, and Lecturer in Political Science at University of Wisconsin-La Crosse and Viterbo University. Rick Kyte is Endowed Professor and Director of the DB Reinhart Institute for Ethics in Leadership at Viterbo University. Music compliments of Bobby Bridger- “Rendezvous” from "A Ballad of the West"

Follow Dan on LinkedIn at linkedin.com/in/cotterdan Follow Pat on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/donald-patrick-eckler-69880814/ Follow the show at: https://www.linkedin.com/company/podium-and-panel-podcast Predictions Sure To Go Wrong: Bycor: Affirm Blackford" Affirm Reece: Affirm Oral arguments in Brycor v. Alexander can be found here: http://content.ilight.net/supremecourt/04222021_1100am.mp3 Oral arguments in Teresa Blackford v. Welborn Clinic can be found here: https://mycourts.in.gov/arguments/default.aspx?&id=2545&view=detail&yr=&when=&page=1&court=sup&search=&direction=%20ASC&future=False&sort=&judge=&county=&admin=False&pageSize=20 The Indiana Business Trust Act is here: https://law.justia.com/codes/indiana/2011/title23/article5/chapter1/ Oral arguments in Reece v. Tyson can be found here: https://mycourts.in.gov/arguments/default.aspx?&id=2547&view=detail&yr=&when=&page=1&court=sup&search=&direction=%20ASC&future=False&sort=&judge=&county=&admin=False&pageSize=20 Past's post on the appellate court decision in Reece can be found here: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/donald-patrick-eckler-69880814_reece-v-tyson-activity-6709015892451217408-PvEX/ Pat's LinkedIn post with the decision in Midwest can be found here: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6793848886453710848/?updateEntityUrn=urn%3Ali%3Afs_feedUpdate%3A%28V2%2Curn%3Ali%3Aactivity%3A6793848886453710848%29 The Phil Luckett coin toss is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zki61ZmKf4U My column on the Restatement of Liability Insurance is here: https://www.pretzel-stouffer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/When-Reasonable-is-Unreasonable.pdf --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

In this episode we jump into our first technique to help you implement Applied Critical Thinking. Problem Restatement is all about opening your perspectives to see things differently.

In a significant development, the Business Roundtable issued a restatement of general corporate purpose.  The restatement embraces a number of important social trends and awareness of ethical culture and broader principles.  While the statement is laudatory, the proof will be in tangible actions taken to implement the broad and important purposes. In this Episode, Michael Volkov examines the Business Roundtable Restatement and reflects on the important role that corporate boards should play in the oversight of a company's ethical culture.

It struck me that as we kick off our program year this fall, I want to build on sermons I preached last fall – which could be labelled “The Restatement of the Obvious.” I hope that while I will be “restating the obvious,” I will restate it in ways that remind us who we are and why we are here in this congregation of God’s people. I want to begin with “Why Worship?” Why attend church, Sunday morning, nearly every week? Why sing hymns, listen to anthems, speak to God to confess our sins, reflect on our lives, ask God’s forgiveness or help or intervention or comfort or understanding? Rev. Dr. Larry Hayward preaches on the 23rd Sunday in Ordinary Time. The Scripture lesson is 1 Thessalonians 5:12-28.

8 WAYS TO PERSIST TOWARD YOUR GOALS Joe likes spreadsheets. Kori likes bullet-points. They both like taking action! In this episode Kori & Joe outline 8 ways to enhance the tenacity and persistence that you approach your goals with so that action, momentum, and a growth mindset reign! 00:15 Review of Podcast 48; PERMA model of happiness 01:40 Message from a Client 03:50 Goals must be attached to values. The value of having a life-unifying project. 05:55 1. Become aware of the Character Strengths (esp. Top 5) 06:20 2. Use them in the context of your life 07:00 3. Notice the good. Extend gratitude. Acknowledge your efforts. 08:10 4. Use what's not ideal to notice all that IS ideal. 09:10 5. Make the tasks too easy NOT to do. 11:25 6. Have a challenge network AND a support network. 13:15 7. Learn to toggle between the outcome & the process 14:30 8. Understand the difference between pleasure & enjoyment 18:20 Joe's summary & reflections 21:15 Restatement of the 8 WAYS Thanks for visiting! Kori Propst, PhD, and Joe Klemczewski, PhD, merge their voices to create life-enhancing conversations and content you can use every day. Kori is the Vice President and Wellness Director of The Diet Doc, LLC—a health and weight-loss licensing company founded by Joe more than 20 years ago. Together, Joe and Kori help hundreds of Diet Doc Program Owners build industry-leading nutrition coaching platforms around the world. Now they're bringing their talent to a daily podcast where nothing is off limits. Motivation, nutrition, weight loss, career, relationships, fitness entrepreneurship, and even guest interviews and features will be dissected and categorized for convenient listening or viewing. What happens when you mix 30 years of psychology, nutrition, physiology, social anthropology, and even literary journalism education with 40 years of business-building experience and almost 90 years (should I say that?) of combined real life? Let's find out! SUBSCRIBE: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-diet-doc-life-mastery-podcast/id1385194556?mt=2&i=1000412057177 http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=thedietdocweightloss FITNESS ENTREPRENEUR? Find out how to become The Diet Doc expert in your community! https://www.dropbox.com/s/mv4mwtiignpxkn2/The%20Diet%20Doc%20MEDIA%20KIT%202018.pdf?dl=0 FREE QUIZ: DO YOU HAVE WHAT IT TAKES TO MEET YOUR GOALS? https://www.dropbox.com/s/thmmokbc3kd8uw3/Principles%20of%20Persistent%20Pursuit%20-%20Free%20Assessment.pdf?dl=0 LET'S CONNECT! Website: https://www.thedietdoc.com Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/TheDietDoc Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/dietdocglobal Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/thedietdocweightloss Podcast: https://soundcloud.com/thedietdoc