Podcast appearances and mentions of richard goldstone

This Day in Legal History: Federal Housing AdministrationOn June 27, 1934, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) was created through the National Housing Act, marking a major shift in the federal government's role in the housing market. The FHA was designed to address the housing crisis of the Great Depression, when foreclosures were rampant and private lenders were reluctant to issue long-term mortgages. By insuring loans made by private lenders, the FHA significantly reduced the risk of default, making it easier and more affordable for Americans to buy homes.The FHA introduced standardized, amortized 20- and 30-year mortgages—innovations that quickly became industry norms. These reforms expanded access to home financing for middle-class families and jump-started suburban development. However, the agency's early policies also entrenched racial segregation through redlining, where predominantly Black neighborhoods were systematically denied FHA-backed loans.While the FHA has since evolved and is now part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), its legacy is a mix of increased homeownership and the deepening of racial disparities in wealth and housing. The legal framework it helped establish continues to shape U.S. housing policy today, making it a pivotal moment in both real estate law and civil rights history. Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy voiced alarm over the state of American political discourse during a recent international judicial forum, warning that the tone of current debates poses a threat to democracy and freedom. Speaking without directly referencing President Trump, Kennedy criticized the rise of identity politics and emphasized that civil discourse should be about issues, not partisan affiliations. He argued that judges are essential to a functioning democracy and must be protected—both physically and in terms of public respect.Other speakers, including South African jurist Richard Goldstone and U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, echoed Kennedy's concerns. Goldstone condemned personal attacks on judges who ruled against the current administration, while Salas highlighted the growing danger judges face, referencing her own experience with targeted violence and the record-high levels of threats now being reported in the U.S.The event underscored a growing consensus among jurists worldwide: that political attacks on the judiciary undermine democratic institutions and risk eroding the rule of law.Retired US Supreme Court Justice Kennedy warns 'freedom is at risk' | ReutersA federal judge has rejected a joint attempt by Ripple Labs and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to finalize a reduced settlement in their long-running legal battle over unregistered XRP token sales. U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres criticized both parties for proposing a $50 million fine in lieu of a previously imposed $125 million penalty and for attempting to nullify a permanent injunction she had ordered.Judge Torres ruled in 2023 that Ripple's public XRP sales weren't securities, but $728 million in sales to institutional investors violated federal securities laws. While both sides appealed, they later proposed to settle—if the court would cancel the injunction and approve the reduced fine. Torres refused, stating they lacked authority to override a court's final judgment involving a violation of congressional statute.She emphasized that exceptional circumstances justifying the request were not present and that vacating a permanent injunction would undermine the public interest and the administration of justice. The SEC and Ripple still have the option to continue their appeals or drop them entirely.The case is notable amid a broader shift under President Trump's second term, during which the SEC has dropped several high-profile crypto enforcement actions. XRP remains one of the top cryptocurrencies by market value.SEC, Ripple wants to settle crypto lawsuit, but US judge rebuffs them | ReutersThe Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to move forward with its plan to end automatic birthright citizenship by narrowing the scope of judicial injunctions. Previously, lower courts had issued nationwide injunctions blocking the policy, but the Court ruled these injunctions should apply only to the parties involved in the lawsuits. This means that the policy can now proceed in most states, except those like New Hampshire where separate legal challenges remain in effect. The Court's decision followed ideological lines, with the conservative majority backing the administration and liberal justices dissenting. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, emphasized that courts must not overreach their authority even when they find executive actions unlawful. In contrast, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned the ruling could erode the rule of law by allowing inconsistent application of federal policy across states.The ruling does not address the constitutionality of ending birthright citizenship, leaving that question open for future litigation. The Trump administration's executive order, issued on January 20, 2025, reinterprets the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause to exclude children born in the U.S. to non-citizen or non-resident parents. This reinterpretation challenges the longstanding understanding established by the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which confirmed that nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil are citizens. The administration has argued that judges lack the authority to impose broad injunctions and that states challenging the policy lack standing. While the policy remains blocked in certain jurisdictions, the administration can now continue planning for its implementation and potentially face a patchwork of future legal challenges.Supreme Court curbs injunctions that blocked Trump's birthright citizenship planIn a piece I wrote for Forbes yesterday, the Trump administration briefly floated Section 899, a provision dubbed the “revenge tax,” as a retaliatory measure against countries imposing taxes deemed discriminatory toward U.S. companies—particularly tech giants. This measure, hidden within the broader One Big Beautiful Bill Act, proposed punitive tax increases on income earned in the U.S. by individuals and entities linked to “discriminatory foreign countries.” The policy was a response to international developments like the OECD's Pillar 2 framework and digital services taxes (DSTs), which the U.S. perceived as disproportionately targeting American firms.Section 899 would have enabled the Treasury to impose annual 5% tax hikes on everything from dividends to real estate gains, even overriding exemptions for sovereign wealth funds. What made the provision particularly aggressive was its vague triggering criteria—any foreign tax Treasury considered “unfair” could activate the penalties, without congressional oversight.Despite its bold intent, Section 899 was ultimately abandoned. It generated concern among investors and foreign governments alike, with critics warning it would destabilize capital markets and act as an unofficial sanctions regime. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent eventually signaled its withdrawal, citing improved diplomatic relations. Though shelved for now, the idea may resurface if international tax disputes escalate.Section 899—The ‘Revenge Tax' That Didn't SurviveA double dose of me this week, another piece I wrote for Forbes:The Pro Codes Act, currently before Congress as H.R.4072, poses a serious threat to public access to the law by allowing private organizations to retain copyright over technical standards—even after those standards are incorporated by reference into statutes and regulations. Although pitched as a transparency measure, the bill effectively transforms enforceable legal obligations into intellectual property governed by restrictive licenses and online viewer limitations.The Act would require standards to be “publicly accessible,” but this access might mean only being able to view documents behind login walls, with no ability to download, search, or integrate them into legal or compliance tools. This is particularly troubling in areas like tax law, where these standards often form the basis for determining eligibility for deductions or credits.By commodifying access to legal standards, the Pro Codes Act would introduce a two-tiered system: well-resourced firms could pay for commercial access, while small legal clinics, nonprofits, and individuals could find themselves effectively barred from the rules they're legally obligated to follow. The result is an unequal legal landscape where justice becomes contingent on financial capacity.The bill directly undermines a key legal principle reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 2020: laws and materials carrying the force of law cannot be copyrighted. Permitting private entities to control access to mandatory standards shifts power away from the public and toward entities seeking to monetize compliance.Pro Codes Act—Or, What If The Law Came Behind A Paywall?This week's closing theme is Variations sérieuses, Op. 54 by Felix Mendelssohn—a composer whose elegance, intellect, and structural precision made him one of the early Romantic era's brightest voices. Born into a wealthy, culturally vibrant German-Jewish family in 1809, Mendelssohn was a child prodigy whose musical maturity arrived astonishingly early. He played a pivotal role in reviving J.S. Bach's legacy and was admired for his orchestral works, choral music, and virtuosic piano writing.Composed in 1841, the Variations sérieuses reflect a side of Mendelssohn that is often overshadowed by his lighter, more lyrical pieces. Written as a contribution to a fundraising album for a monument to Beethoven, the work pays tribute to that master's weight and depth. In this set of 17 variations on a solemn original theme, Mendelssohn channels both Classical form and Romantic intensity. The variations begin introspectively but grow in technical difficulty and emotional force, culminating in a stormy, almost defiant finale.Unlike many variation sets of the time, which favored decorative flourishes, Mendelssohn's sérieuses live up to their name: they are dense, architecturally rigorous, and deeply expressive. The piece showcases his command of counterpoint, his sensitivity to dynamic contrasts, and his ability to build drama without sacrificing formal clarity. It's music that demands both interpretive depth and virtuosity—qualities that have kept it central to the serious piano repertoire for over 180 years. Mendelssohn once described music as a language too precise for words, and this piece speaks volumes in that tongue. It is a fitting and focused way to close the week.Without further ado, Variations sérieuses, Op. 54 by Felix Mendelssohn – enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Richard Goldstone, former Justice of the Constitutional Court in South Africa and vice-chair of Integrity Initiatives International (III), stressed the imperative for global action against grand corruption, emphasizing the International Anti- Corruption Court as a vital tool to combat kleptocracy and State Capture worldwide.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

El juez Richard Goldstone, un judío sudafricano, quien había servido previamente como fiscal de las Naciones Unidas tanto en Yugoslavia como también en Ruanda, presentó su reporte patrocinado por las Naciones Unidas. Este reporte estaba basado en la misión de investigación para determinar detalles sobre el conflicto Israel-Hamas en Gaza entre diciembre 2008 y enero 2009. El reporte, comúnmente conocido como el Goldstone Report, fue sumamente crítico para los dos bandos, Israel y Hamas, en cuanto a sus respectivas acciones durante el primero de los tres enfrentamientos militares más grandes entre las entidades (2008-2014). Muchos se mostraron en desacuerdo con los descubrimientos del reporte y con la metodología del mismo, considerándolo en contra de Israel y sin evidencias para sustentar ciertos reclamos. El día primero de abril de 2011, en un artículo de opinión del Washington Post, Goldstone se retractó sobre porciones del reporte que sugerían que las fuerzas israelíes mataban intencionalmente a civiles. Aunque no exonera totalmente a Israel, aun así, expresó que sus métodos investigativos eran deficientes e incompletos. También reiteró el “derecho de Israel a la soberanía y su obligación a defenderse a sí mismo y a sus ciudadanos.”

How to set up a new court - an International Anti-Corruption Court. With Maia Groff and Richard Goldstone.

Few people have a better understanding of the power of the law to engender changes for the better in our troubled world. Whether it is the end of apartheid in South Africa or the establishment of a court to bring criminals to justice, the need for international enforcement mechanisms is vital in a globalized world.For more information about this episode and the Global Governance Forum visit GlobalGovernanceForum.org

Bonus: why Norm Finkelstein thinks BDS is a cult. https://www.patreon.com/posts/why-norm-thinks-15090184 We talk to Norm FInkelstein, controversial scholar, author, activist and the son of survivors of the Auschwitz and Majdanek concentration camps. He busts myths about and repeated by Israel and reminisces on the dishonesty of Alan Dershowitz. He also wonders if Richard Goldstone was blackmailed into retracting his report on Gaza. If you want to support WBAI and get Norm's book as well as Eli Valley's amazing book of political cartoons and Kareem Estefan's book "Assuming Boycott," about BDS.

Richard Goldstone, a former chief prosecutor of the U.N. international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, discusses war crimes and the mechanisms for holding those who committed them accountable, including the International Criminal Court. Goldstone served as a judge in South Africa for 23 years, the last nine as a justice of the Constitutional Court. (April 13, 2015, University of Virginia School of Law)

Richard Goldstone, an adjunct professor at UVA Law, is the former chief prosecutor of the U.N. international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. He served as a judge in South Africa for 23 years, the last nine as a justice of the Constitutional Court.

Israel is trying to improve its image by using Richard Goldstone's back peddling on the Goldstone Report on the Israeli invasion of Gaza in 2008/2009 where over 1300 Palestinians were killed by Israel while Israel just had 13 deaths.  The U.S. Senate demonstrates its faithful subservience to Israel by passing a resolution to condemn the Goldstone Report even though the 3 other major members of the committee continue to stand by the original report.

Richard Goldstone är en respekterad sydafrikansk domare med gedigna meriter. Bland annat som åklagare mot krigsförbrytelser i Ruwanda och på Balkan. Nu står han mitt i stormen som ansvarig för Goldstone-rapporten. Rapporten, som Goldstone gjort för FN:s organ för mänskliga rättigheter, är en redogörelse för krigsförbrytelser under kriget i Gaza förra vintern. Goldstone anklagar både Hamas och Israel för krigsförbrytelser. Den starkaste kritiken riktas mot Israel och rapporten har fördömts i mycket hårda ordalag av den israeliska regeringen. En hel del av kritiken riktas mot Goldstones person; Han är själv jude och sionist vilket framkallat starka känslor i Israelvänliga kretsar. Richard Goldstone intervjuades av Tomas Ramberg.

Bill Moyers talks with Judge Richard Goldstone, who headed up the controversial UN Human Rights Council investigation into the fighting in Gaza between Israel and Hamas.

Bill Moyers talks with Judge Richard Goldstone, who headed up the controversial UN Human Rights Council investigation into the fighting in Gaza between Israel and Hamas.

Bill Moyers talks with Judge Richard Goldstone, who headed up the controversial UN Human Rights Council investigation into the fighting in Gaza between Israel and Hamas. And Bill Moyers remembers Texas judge William Wayne Justice.