Podcast appearances and mentions of roberta kaplan

This Day in Legal History: Scopes Monkey TrialOn July 24, 1925, John Scopes, a high school teacher in Dayton, Tennessee, was found guilty of teaching evolution, a violation of the Butler Act. This state law prohibited the teaching of any theory that denied the divine creation of man as taught in the Bible, specifically targeting Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. The trial, famously known as the Scopes Monkey Trial, became a focal point for the intense debate between modern science and religious fundamentalism. Scopes was represented by the prominent attorney Clarence Darrow, while William Jennings Bryan, a three-time presidential candidate, argued for the prosecution.The courtroom drama was a media sensation, highlighting the cultural clash of the Roaring Twenties. Although Scopes was found guilty and fined $100, the trial's significance extended far beyond the verdict. It sparked national discussion on academic freedom, the separation of church and state, and the role of science in education. The conviction was later overturned on a technicality, but the Butler Act remained in force until 1967. The trial's legacy endures, symbolizing the ongoing struggle between progressive and conservative values in American society.Attorneys are rallying behind Vice President Kamala Harris as she ascends to the top of the Democratic ticket following President Joe Biden's decision to step down. Around 100 law firm partners showed interest in fundraising for Harris right after Biden's announcement. Jon Henes, a former Kirkland & Ellis partner, is organizing a significant event for her campaign, highlighting a vigorous four-month effort to the election. Harris has a history of strong support from the legal community, with lawyers contributing over $5 million to her previous campaigns. Notable attorneys like David Frederick and Roberta Kaplan have pledged their support, emphasizing the importance of defeating the former president and preserving the rule of law. The legal sector has proven to be a reliable fundraising source for Harris, with her receiving substantial donations from firms such as Paul Weiss and Kirkland. Prominent figures like Brad Karp and Brian Mathis are mobilizing Democratic supporters, while liberal mega-donors have already begun to contribute significantly. The Biden campaign infrastructure has transitioned to support Harris, with key leaders and an experienced legal team staying in place. Former US Attorney General Eric Holder and his firm are assisting in vetting potential running mates for Harris.Big Law Donors Jump to Pad Harris' War Chest for White House BidTop Industries, federal election data for Kamala Harris, 2020 cycle • OpenSecretsDonald Trump's campaign filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), contesting Vice President Kamala Harris's takeover of funds raised by President Joe Biden's reelection campaign. After Biden, who was competing closely with Trump, endorsed Harris and ended his bid for reelection, Harris assumed control of Biden's campaign accounts. The Trump campaign accused Harris of committing a significant campaign finance violation, describing it as a "brazen money grab."David Warrington, Trump's campaign general counsel, asserted that Harris's actions represented the largest campaign finance violation in American history. However, Saurav Ghosh from the Campaign Legal Center stated that Harris, as the vice presidential candidate, should legally have access to the funds. The FEC has not commented on the unresolved matter and is unlikely to settle the dispute before the November 5 presidential election.Meanwhile, Harris's campaign has dismissed the complaint, emphasizing their strong fundraising success, having raised $100 million since Biden's endorsement. Harris campaign spokesperson Charles Kretchmer Lutvak criticized the complaint as a baseless legal tactic by Republicans to distract from their efforts to mobilize voters and win the election.Trump campaign files complaint against Harris taking over Biden war chest | ReutersTrump Files Complaint Over Biden Giving Harris $96 MillionElectric vehicle manufacturer Rivian Automotive will face trial over allegations that it encouraged employees who left Tesla to steal trade secrets. This decision follows a tentative ruling by Judge Theodore C. Zayner of the Santa Clara County Superior Court, who denied Rivian's motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The judge determined that Tesla had provided sufficient evidence to proceed to trial, citing that some Rivian employees were not thoroughly investigated or disciplined regarding the alleged thefts.The dispute began in 2020 when Tesla accused Rivian of systematically poaching its employees and misappropriating confidential information. Although Rivian presented evidence of its internal investigation into the allegations, the judge found it insufficient to conclusively prove the adequacy of their efforts. Rivian has consistently denied the accusations, while Tesla has yet to comment on the recent ruling. A final hearing on the matter is scheduled for Wednesday in Santa Clara court.Rivian to face trial in Tesla trade secrets theft case, judge says | ReutersA federal judge has upheld the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) ban on noncompete agreements, rejecting a challenge by ATS Tree Services, a small Pennsylvania company. Judge Kelley Brisbon Hodge ruled that the FTC has clear authority to issue rules to prevent unfair competition methods. ATS Tree Services, which employs about 12 people, failed to show it would suffer irreparable harm if the ban took effect and could not prove the FTC lacked authority.This ruling contrasts with a July 3 decision by Judge Ada Brown in Texas, who sided with a Texas tax firm and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, arguing the FTC lacks the authority to enforce such rules. The White House praised Hodge's decision as a victory for workers and small businesses, while the FTC spokesperson highlighted that the ruling supports the FTC's role in banning noncompete clauses.ATS Tree Services argued that banning noncompete agreements would harm its business by undermining employee training investments, but the judge found insufficient evidence to support this claim. The case reflects a judicial split, with another final ruling on the challenge due by August 30, potentially impacting the rule set to go into effect on September 4.FTC Gets Win on Noncompete Ban After Loss in Another Court (3)A bipartisan group of Congress members introduced the Ending Corporate Bankruptcy Abuse Act to target the "Texas Two-Step" bankruptcy tactic used by companies like Johnson & Johnson to manage mass liabilities. The tactic involves placing an affiliate into bankruptcy to evade responsibility and delay justice for consumers. The proposed legislation aims to prevent such maneuvers by presuming bad faith in bankruptcies with clear signs of being a Texas Two-Step.Indicators of bad faith include manufacturing a connection to the bankruptcy venue, gaining a litigation advantage, prearranged deals capping liability funds, recent formation through divisional mergers, fraudulent transfers, or lack of valid reorganization purpose. The bill seeks to standardize federal rules for dismissing such bankruptcies across circuit courts. Additionally, it prohibits litigation pauses for nonbankrupt affiliates involved in a Texas Two-Step within the past four years, specifically targeting cases with over 100 tort claims.Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a co-sponsor, emphasized that the bill ensures victims get their day in court. Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas) criticized corporations for using the tactic to avoid accountability. The bill is also backed by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Rep. Emilia Sykes (D-Ohio).Bipartisan Bill Aims to Deter ‘Texas Two-Step' Bankruptcy Tactic This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The federal right to abortions in the United States has been overturned, access to contraception and IVF services are threatened in many states, and the gender wage gap persists. It feels like an era of backsliding for women's rights and freedoms. What can we do to reverse the trend and get back on the road to progress? Three experts and crusaders for women's and family rights meet on stage at the 2024 Aspen Ideas Festival for a conversation and strategy session on standing up for women. U.S. Representative (D-CA) Katie Porter, NYU law professor and constitutional law scholar Melissa Murray, and litigator Roberta Kaplan discuss recent Supreme Court decisions, the presidential debate, and the policy priorities and messages they'd like to see from lawmakers and candidates. Journalist Katie Couric moderates the conversation and takes audience questions. The talk was held on June 28. aspenideas.org

Last week, a federal judge granted a motion to dismiss and strike a lawsuit brought by X Corp, formerly known as Twitter, against a nonprofit research outfit called The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). To learn more about why the ruling matters, Justin Hendrix spoke to Alex Abdo, the litigation director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University; Imran Ahmed, the CEO and founder of the Center for Countering Digital Hate; and Roberta Kaplan, a partner at the law firm of Kaplan, Hecker, and Fink, which represented CCDH in this matter.

Former Senator Al Franken parses through the remains of the Republicans' vibes-based impeachment of President Biden. Lawyer Roberta Kaplan along with Imran Ahmed, who is the founder of Countering Digital Hate, detail their victory over Elon Musk in court. Slate senior editor Dahlia Lithwick examines the horrors of today's Supreme Court on Mifepristone.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Renowned litigator Roberta (Robbie) Kaplan says she's a born fighter. In January she won one of those fights when a jury ordered Donald Trump to pay Kaplan's client, E. Jean Carroll, $83.3 million dollars for defamation. Kara and Robbie talk about why Trump's behavior in and out of the court cost him. They also discuss the state of LGBTQ+ rights more than a decade after Kaplan successfully championed same-sex marriage before the Supreme Court. And Kaplan unpacks how Elon Musk and others with deep pockets are using the law to try to silence their critics (and why they won't win). Questions? Comments? Email us at on@voxmedia.com or find us on social media. We're on Instagram/Threads as @karaswisher and @nayeemaraza Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode of Passing Judgment, we dive into the high-profile defamation cases filed by journalist E. Jean Carroll against former President Donald Trump. Our guest for today is Erica Orden, a reporter for Politico, who was at the forefront of the courtroom proceedings. Join us as we explore the legal intricacies of the case, the jury's decision, the behavior of the involved parties, and the impact of Trump's presence during the trial. Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:1️⃣ Trump's Behavior: Trump's conduct in the courtroom likely influenced the jurors' decision in the second trial. It raises questions about his ability to comply with court etiquette and handle upcoming criminal trials where his presence is mandated.2️⃣ Judge Kaplan's Firm Hand: Judge Kaplan's strict demeanor and rules within the courtroom shed light on the tension and emotion present during key testimonies, and provide insights into the judiciary's handling of complex legal battles.3️⃣ Attorney Roberta Kaplan's Effort: Renowned for her pivotal legal battles, Roberta Kaplan's role in advocating for her client, E. Jean Carroll, demonstrates the significance of a well-prepared and experienced legal team in navigating high-stakes trials.Follow Our Host:On Threads: @LevinsonJessica

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comWelcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here. Thanks!What does it feel like to call out Donald Trump—with Trump sitting five feet away?Not many lawyers have had that experience, but Shawn Crowley has. Along with Roberta Kaplan, a previous guest on this podcast, Crowley represented writer E. Jean Carroll in her defamation lawsuit against former president Donald Trump. Delivering a closing statement that the New York Times called “an animated and passionate rebuttal,” Crowley called on the jury to “make him pay enough so that he will stop” defaming Carroll—which the jury did, issuing an $83.3 million verdict.The 40-year-old Crowley is one of the country's leading trial lawyers. During her six-plus years as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, she worked on several headline-making cases—including the trial and conviction of the so-called “Chelsea Bomber,” Ahmad Khan Rahimi, for perpetrating a terrorist attack in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan in October 2016.You'll be hearing a lot more about Shawn for years to come, so get to know her through this wide-ranging podcast interview. And congrats again to her and her colleagues at Kaplan Hecker & Fink on an epic win.Show Notes:* Shawn G. Crowley bio, Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP* Jury Orders Trump to Pay Carroll $83.3 Million After Years of Insults, by Benjamin Weiser, Jonah E. Bromwich, Maria Cramer, and Kate Christobek, for the New York Times* E. Jean Carroll attorney: Trump verdict proves ‘your lies' catch up to you, All In With Chris HayesPrefer 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@nexfirm.com.

How do you unleash Your Brand's Potential?Meet Chase Neely!Chase is the President and Co-Founder of Leverage Brands. He works with book and music publishing companies, artist and author management companies, tech start-ups, recording artists, songwriters, athletes, actors, and authors, including two New York Times Bestselling authors, allowing each the capacity to express their creativity and vision across all media.In a world where your personal brand can make or break your professional journey, understanding how to leverage it is key. Join us on this enlightening episode of the Speaking and Communicating Podcast, where host Roberta Ndlela delves into the art of personal branding with Chase Neely, the President and Founder of Leverage Brands.Chase, a former intellectual property attorney turned branding expert, shares his unique story of transitioning from law to the forefront of digital marketing. Discover how his approach to embracing fear and failure has fueled his success and how it can do the same for you. Learn the importance of authenticity, the power of a compelling 'why,' and the strategic execution that can set your brand apart in a saturated market.Whether you're an entrepreneur, professional, or just looking to refine your communication skills, this episode is packed with actionable insights. And if crafting your personal brand is your next step, Chase has a special offer for our listeners: a FREE 15-minute consultation to discuss digital marketing strategy and core messaging. Don't miss out on this opportunity to elevate your brand and your message!Connect with Chase:Website: https://leveragecreative.lpages.co/call-invite/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/chaseneely/And remember, the world needs your unique message. Tune in, subscribe, and leave us a review on Apple and Spotify to continue your journey to effective communication and leadership.

E. Jean Carroll and attorney Robbie Kaplan join us to share the process and aftermath of Carroll's defamation lawsuit against Donald Trump-- in which a jury just awarded her $83.3 million. What was Trump's vibe in the courtroom? Will he actually pay up? And what does E. Jean plan to do with all that money? Melissa, Kate, and Leah get all these answers and more.Read the NYT's piece on Robbie Kaplan: "In Trump's Bitter, Yearslong Brawl With Roberta Kaplan, He Keeps Losing"Read E. Jean Carroll's 2019 book in which she tells her story: What Do We Need Men For?: A Modest Proposal Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, Threads, and Bluesky

In this exclusive interview, attorney Roberta Kaplan discusses her recent victory in a defamation case against former President Donald Trump, where a verdict of $83 million was awarded to her client, E. Jean Carroll. Join George Conway, Sarah Longwell, Roberta Kaplan and Matthew Craig! Love the show but hate the ads? Bulwark+ members get access to an exclusive, ad-free version of George Conway Explains It All (To Sarah Longwell). Sign up today! https://plus.thebulwark.com/subscribe

The recent remarks of E. Jean Carroll during an interview on 'The Rachel Maddow Show' sparked a wave of indignation, as it was perceived they threatened to destabilize her defamation lawsuit against Donald Trump, the previous US president. Recently, a federal jury decreed that Trump was obligated to hand over a significant $83.3 million sum to Carroll. This ruling was predicated on the denial made by Trump concerning an allegation of sexual assault in the 1990s leveled against him by her. This heated segment of the media tour revolved around Maddow, the MSNBC presenter, questioning Carroll regarding her past communications. The discussions touched upon the potential allocation of any reparations she might receive from Trump towards buttressing the cause of 'women's rights.' Carroll confirmed this sentiment fervently, painting vivid, hopeful images of the potential impact of such a financial boon. The exchange became more enthusiastic when Carroll elaborated on her intentions for the anticipated awards: 'Alright, Rachel, you and I, we need to go shopping.' This comment was buoyed by a series of shopping fantasies involving new wardrobes, shoes, and even a motorcycle for her lawyer, Shawn Crowley. She didn't stop there, adding a new fishing rod for her other attorney, Roberta Kaplan, and playfully asking Rachel Maddow about her hypothetical wish list, even suggesting a penthouse or a trip to France. While Maddow chuckled about her guest's excited musing, Carroll's legal counsel interjected to assert that the plans were all in jest. The specific segment containing these comments attracted immense attention online. Critics pointed out that the lighthearted tone and nature of Carroll's remark could potentially undermine the seriousness of Carroll's case and claims.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

E. Jean Carroll and Roberta Kaplan discuss their significant victory over President Trump and what's next in their quest for justice. The Al Frank Show's Al Franken analyzes the posturing among his former colleagues regarding immigration reform. Brian Klaas introduces his new book, 'Fluke: Chance, Chaos, and Why Everything We Do Matters'.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Feel Focused, Energetic and Rested Today, click the link belowhttps://www.c60evo.com/redpill78/Use coupon code REDPILL78 to get an extra 10% offIt gets worse as more details come out about the pre-existing relationship between Judge Kaplan and E. Jean Carroll's lawyer, Roberta Kaplan.Save $200 off a 3 month supply of food: http://www.PrepareWithRedPill78.comBe Prepared - Click hereGet your chlorine dioxide kitshttps://onenessdrops.comUse code rp78 for 15% discountSupport My Pillow & RedPill78: https://www.mypillow.comUse Promo code - RP78 , or call 800-890-4893PROTECT YOURSELF!  https://zstacklife.com/?ref=azbl62h8hdGet Dr. Z's Z Stack today and support this showULTRA MAGA Collection from Rise Attire: https://riseattireusa.com/ultramaga/PLEASE CONSIDER SUPPORTING THE CHANNEL: http://www.redpill78news.com/donatehttps://libertylinks.io/RedPill78 Audio Podcast: https://app.studeo.fm/channels/130http://www.redpill78news.com/podcast Telegram: https://t.me/OfficialRedPillNews NEW MAILING ADDRESS: Zak Paine - RedPill78250 Palm Coast Pkwy NESuite 607-180Palm Coast, FL32137-8225 MAKE DONATIONS PAYABLE TO CASH OR REDPILL78Cash: $ZakPaineSubscribestar: https://www.subscribestar.com/redpill78Donate: http://www.redpill78news.com/donateKo-Fi: https://ko-fi.com/redpill78Crypto Donations:Bitcoin Donations - 33zU6nAmpz9xCNHuVAUugTAvV5cAeM4PJbBitcoin Cash - qqwzw2s5z9ru434p5zhzfjaegllcvk5nq5atsetvm2Ethereum Donations - 0xa418De68a42a02Ab395013f6CBe516721acAd706LiteCoin Donations - MRMyqJPi7ar6z76dkKhbuRvZ6i3XDD2cg9LBRY Coin: bJTUi5NSYPMsSxnLDFidR9AKmFkrbtrnH5

Trump's defense team slammed a new report from Judge Engoron's Financial Monitor, claiming the "monitor" is not conducting an unbiased inquiry into the Trump Org., but is instead grifting millions of dollars in fees through the legal process.E. Jean Carroll's lawyer Roberta Kaplan previously worked with the same Judge who presided over the Trump trial that resulted in the $83 million verdict. Judge Kaplan and Roberta Kaplan worked at the same firm in the 90s, according to Roberta's representative and the NYPost.Fani Willis' prosecutors admitted they were contacted twice by Biden's White House Counsel via letters to Fulton County, but only to discuss "logistics" and "procedural" issues, and nothing else worthy of being disclosed to the defense. Judge McAfee in Georgia will decide.

This Day in Legal History: Shoe Bomber SentencedOn this day, January 30th, in the year 2003, a significant event in the annals of legal and aviation history unfolded when Richard Reid, a British national, received a life sentence in the United States for an act of terrorism that gripped the world. Reid's infamous attempt to destroy an American passenger plane with a bomb concealed in his shoe marked a chilling moment in aviation security.It was on December 21, 2001, when Reid boarded a flight at Miami International Airport, destined for Paris, with a sinister plan. Hidden within his shoe was an explosive device, a fact unknown to fellow passengers and crew as the flight commenced. The calm of the flight was shattered when Reid made his move to ignite the explosive device. However, the narrative took a dramatic turn as alert passengers and crew members quickly intervened. Displaying remarkable courage and presence of mind, they restrained Reid, thwarting what could have been a catastrophic tragedy in mid-air. This act of collective bravery averted potential loss of life and highlighted the importance of vigilance in air travel.Reid's arrest and subsequent trial brought to light the ever-present threats in aviation and the need for stringent security measures. His conviction and life sentence, handed down on this day, served as a stark reminder of the ongoing battle against terrorism and the importance of international cooperation in ensuring the safety of air travel.Richard Reid's case not only transformed airport security protocols worldwide but also became a case study in counter-terrorism strategies. It underscored the reality that threats can come in the most unexpected forms and from seemingly ordinary individuals. Today, as we look back on this day in legal history, we are reminded of the thin line between normalcy and chaos in our interconnected world.Legal malpractice claims against law firms are on the rise, both in frequency and in financial magnitude. This trend is driven by a combination of factors, including large insurance policies held by law firms, client reluctance to pay fees, and the involvement of investors in litigation. As a result, law firms increasingly find themselves as defendants in costly lawsuits.Clients are suing their legal counsel for various alleged missteps, such as conflicts of interest and failure to file documents on time. This has led to a specialty emerging among attorneys in suing law firms. Bethany Kristovich, a litigation partner, observes a growing tendency for clients to view law firms as just another source of financial compensation.A 2023 report by Ames & Gough highlights the escalating scale of these claims, with seven out of ten insurers of top law firms paying claims over $50 million in recent years, and two exceeding $150 million. The most common areas for malpractice claims are trusts and estates, and business and commercial transactions.Law firms' perceived financial backing by substantial insurance policies makes them attractive targets for malpractice suits. Economic pressures further exacerbate this vulnerability, leading clients to dispute fees, especially during tough business conditions. High-profile cases, such as X Corp.'s (owned by Elon Musk) lawsuit against Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz over $90 million fees, illustrate this trend.Attorneys, once reluctant to sue fellow law firms, now pursue these cases more freely, as seen in the success of Reid Collins & Tsai in securing substantial settlements from such lawsuits. The firm's approach often involves a pre-suit process, maintaining discretion and good relations with insurance carriers and law firms.Kristovich predicts an increase in claims related to breaches of fiduciary duties and conflicts of interest. She notes a shift in the nature of allegations, with law firms now more likely to be sued for their association with a client's alleged crimes, rather than just their legal advice. This changing landscape suggests a more challenging environment for legal practices in managing their professional risks.Legal Malpractice Claims Grow in Size as Clients Turn on CounselJustice Sonia Sotomayor, during an appearance at the University of California, Berkeley's law school, expressed that she is feeling the strain of an increasingly demanding workload at the Supreme Court. Sotomayor, who was appointed by President Barack Obama in 2009 and is the first Latina justice, mentioned the court's packed schedule, which includes significant cases on abortion, guns, social media, and a Trump ballot issue. She noted the growing number of emergency cases and briefs from outside groups as factors contributing to her exhaustion.Sotomayor remarked that the court's emergency calendar is now active almost weekly, a significant change from when the justices had a substantial summer break. In response to UC Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky's query about how to address student disillusionment with the Supreme Court and the Constitution, Sotomayor emphasized the importance of continuing to fight for justice. She referenced historical figures like Justice Thurgood Marshall, Rep. John Lewis, and civil rights activists, highlighting their sacrifices and the necessity of persevering against challenges.Sotomayor conveyed her own sense of obligation and commitment, despite the frustrations and emotional toll of her work. She stressed that change requires persistent effort and dedication, underscoring the importance of not yielding to despair in the pursuit of justice.Sotomayor Calls Supreme Court Pace, Workload More Demanding (1)Donald Trump's lawyer, Alina Habba, has raised questions about a potential conflict of interest involving U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, who presided over E. Jean Carroll's recent defamation trial. Habba's skepticism stems from a New York Post article that highlighted an alleged prior working relationship between Judge Kaplan and Carroll's lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, at the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison in the early 1990s. This claim, based on an unnamed source, suggests that Roberta Kaplan sought to stand out as an associate and Judge Kaplan was "like her mentor."Habba finds this relationship "particularly concerning" and suggests it could be grounds for a new trial. She also accuses Judge Kaplan of being "overtly hostile" towards Trump's side and showing "preferential" treatment to Carroll's, which she believes might support her call for a retrial. Trump's team is planning to appeal the recent $83.3 million verdict against him, which was a result of his 2019 denial of raping Carroll in the 1990s.However, skepticism about these claims might be warranted given the lack of immediate response from Judge Kaplan's chambers, spokespeople for Carroll and Roberta Kaplan, and Paul Weiss. Furthermore, Habba's argument primarily relies on a single media report and an unnamed source, which might not provide the most reliable foundation for such serious allegations. The situation is complicated by the large amount of money involved in the verdict and the ongoing appeal of a previous $5 million award against Trump in a similar case, making the context of these allegations particularly charged.Trump lawyer says judge's possible conflict may taint $83 million Carroll verdict | ReutersIn my column on nonprofit hospitals and tax reform, I discuss the significant tax benefits these institutions receive while often contributing less than 1% of their revenue to charity care. This disparity between tax advantages and charitable contributions raises concerns about the societal benefits these hospitals provide. Given that nonprofit hospitals make up a considerable portion of the healthcare system and are known for high executive compensation, it's clear that policy reforms are needed to ensure these institutions fulfill their societal obligations.To address these issues, I propose enhanced financial transparency and real-time reporting. Nonprofit hospitals should be mandated to provide detailed financial data, including compensation for top executives and a breakdown of expenditures on administrative costs, marketing, and consulting fees. This level of transparency will help the public understand where tax expenditures are being allocated and whether they align with the hospitals' charitable mission.I argue that financial transparency should extend to capital projects, property investments, and outsourced service costs. Large-scale transparency is essential to reassess the relationship between tax expenditures and societal returns, especially considering the potential misallocation of funds.To aid in this endeavor, I suggest utilizing AI and other high-tech solutions. These technologies can manage large datasets and help in developing equitable benchmarks for charitable care. They can also assist in continuous financial monitoring, flagging anomalies in spending patterns.Regarding the tax status of nonprofit hospitals, they must meet specific requirements under Section 501(r) of the tax code. This includes conducting a community health needs assessment every three years and adopting financial assistance policies for patients in need. However, the standards governing expenditures on charity care are less stringent compared to those for patient financial assistance.Balancing accountability is crucial. Public awareness and demand are necessary to recalibrate the priorities of the nonprofit hospital sector. Funds allocated to public health should be viewed as investments, with misallocated resources representing both a loss of investment and an opportunity cost.In summary, my column emphasizes the need for policy reforms to ensure nonprofit hospitals align their tax benefits with societal expectations. Enhanced transparency, supported by technology, and stricter regulation are key to achieving this balance.Nonprofit Hospitals Need Novel Policy Solutions for Tax Reform Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

A drone attack on an American military base in Jordan leaves three U.S. service members dead and dozens injured. Ed O'Keefe reports from the White House.E. Jean Carroll, who has twice sued former President Donald Trump and won, joins "CBS Mornings" with her attorney Roberta Kaplan to talk about last week's historic ruling.Investigative journalists Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman join "CBS Mornings" to talk about their new book about the investigation into Donald Trump's conduct after the 2020 election, "Find Me the Votes: A Hard-Charging Georgia Prosecutor, a Rogue President, and the Plot to Steal an American Election."After eight months of rigorous testing in labs and real-world trials by expert travelers, the Good Housekeeping Institute unveils its 2024 Best Family Travel Awards. The list features travel gear, including suitcases, bags, and essential accessories for family trips. Executive director Lexie Sachs joins "CBS Mornings" to discuss.Noah Kahan, one of this year's most successful breakout artists, talks to Anthony Mason about his first-ever Grammy nomination for Best New Artist and reflects on his meteoric rise since the release of his 2022 double platinum album, "Stick Season."In a story of resilience and connection, two strangers find solace and purpose following the death of a Louisiana police officer. "CBS Mornings" lead national correspondent David Begnaud goes to Baton Rouge, where he meets a mother whose darkest hour led to a life-changing bond with a child.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Former President Donald Trump must pay $83.3 million in damages for defamatory statements he made denying he sexually assaulted the writer E. Jean Carroll, a federal jury ruled Friday, handing down a stunning verdict after less than three hours of deliberation. The jury awarded Carroll $18.3 million in compensatory damages and $65 million in punitive damages. The compensatory amount included $11 million for repairing her reputation and $7.3 million for emotional harm. Carroll's attorneys asked the jury to award $24 million in compensatory damages. The punitive amount, lawyer Roberta Kaplan said, should be enough to "make him stop" defaming her client. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/hugo-alvarez/message

A jury said former President Trump should pay $83.3 million in damages to E. Jean Carroll, who said the decision is a "huge defeat for every bully who has tried to keep a woman down." The trial centered around Trump's 2019 comments about Carroll, who last year won a civil verdict over her claim Trump sexually assaulted her in the mid-1990s and then said he defamed her when he denied the accusation. Roberta Kaplan is Carroll's attorney. She tells Anderson Cooper how her client is feeling after the jury's decision. Plus, Jessica Leeds swore under oath at the first E. Jean Carroll trial that the former president sexually assaulted her in the 1970s. He denies the claim. She joins AC360 to react to the outcome of this trial. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

After winning the Iowa caucuses by a historic margin, Donald Trump made his way to a courtroom in New York, where a jury was selected in a second defamation trial involving E. Jean Carroll. In May, 2023, after a jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse, David Remnick spoke with Carroll and her attorney Roberta Kaplan. Trump continues to attack Carroll on social media, even during the ongoing court proceedings to determine damages. “I don't think he can help himself, honestly,” Kaplan tells Remick. “I don't think he has enough development in the frontal lobe of his brain to do that.” Plus, to mark the copyright expiration on the classic Mickey Mouse, we've resurrected a 1931 Profile of Walt Disney from The New Yorker archives, which has some prescient things to say about the iconic character and its creator.The interview with E. Jean Carroll and Roberta Kaplan first aired in May, 2023.

On the version of Hot off the Wire posted Jan. 15 at 7:15 a.m. CT: A dangerous Arctic blast will continue sweeping across the U.S. and prolong a bitter cold that has set record-low temperatures in parts of the country and threatens to further disrupt daily life, including an NFL playoff game and the first-in-the-nation presidential nominating contest in Iowa. JERUSALEM (AP) — Yemen's Houthi rebels have fired an anti-ship cruise missile toward an American destroyer in the Red Sea. The American military says a U.S. fighter jet shot the missile down in the latest attack roiling global shipping amid Israel's war with Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The attack on Sunday marks the first U.S.-acknowledged fire by the Houthis since America and allied nations began strikes Friday on the rebels following weeks of assaults on shipping in the Red Sea. TOKYO (AP) — Some schools have reopened and limited garbage collection has resumed in Japan's northcentral region of Noto that was hit by the deadly New Year's Day earthquake. Monday's developments were signs of slight improvement in the devastation that thousands of people still face in the area. The magnitude 7.6 earthquake on Jan. 1 left 222 people dead and more than 20 are still missing. ISLAMABAD (AP) — UNICEF says almost 100,000 children in Afghanistan direly need support, three months after earthquakes devastated the west of the country. A 6.3-magnitude earthquake shook Herat province on Oct. 7 and a second strong quake struck the same province days later, leaving more than 1,000 dead.  The Wild Card games in the NFL continue to live up their name with two more games Sunday, players and coaches are coming and going on the collegiate level and a wild finish in the NBA. Also, J.J. McCarthy is entering NFL draft, skipping his senior season after leading Michigan to a national title. WASHINGTON (AP) — The IRS says it has collected an additional $360 million in overdue taxes from delinquent millionaires. The collection happens as IRS leadership tries to promote the latest work it has done to modernize the agency with Democrats' Inflation Reduction Act funding. WASHINGTON (AP) — In a new twist in the abortion access fight, congressional Republicans are trying to block a Biden administration spending rule that they say will cut off millions of dollars to anti-abortion counseling centers. The rule would prohibit states from sending federal funds earmarked for needy Americans to so-called “crisis pregnancy centers,” which counsel against abortions. BROWNSVILLE, Texas (AP) — The U.S. Homeland Security Department says Texas denied federal agents access to a stretch of border when they were trying to rescue three migrants who drowned. The federal government's account came hours after U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar said the Texas Military Department and Texas National Guard “did not grant access to Border Patrol agents to save the migrants” Friday night. NEW YORK (AP) — A lawyer for a columnist who last year won a $5 million jury award against Donald Trump for sex abuse and defamation says the former president's recent behavior shows he'll try to “sow chaos” when a new jury considers if he owes even more in damages. The attorney, Roberta Kaplan, asked a judge Friday to take strong measures to ensure Trump can't taint a jury that will consider whether columnist E. Jean Carroll should get more money. MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — Fox News has stopped running MyPillow commercials in a payment dispute with chief executive and election denier Mike Lindell. Fox says it would be happy to accept MyPillow ads again once their account is paid. Losing Fox was just the latest in a series of financial and legal setbacks for Minnesota-based MyPillow and Lindell, who continues to propagate former President Donald Trump's lies that the 2020 election was stolen. Winter storms and cinema closures in North America didn't dampen the opening weekend for “Mean Girls.” The Paramount release was adapted from the Broadway musical and the 2004 Tina Fey movie. Fey returned to write and co-star in the new film. According to studio estimates Sunday, it earned $28 million in its first three days in theaters. LOS ANGELES (AP) — They're four months late, but the Emmys have finally arrived. The 75th Primetime Emmy Awards will be held in Los Angeles on Monday night, hosted by Anthony Anderson and airing on Fox. The Television Academy has ranked the 75 Most Impactful Television Moments. At the top of the list released Friday is the 1969 Apollo moon landing. It also includes Martin Luther King Jr's “I Have a Dream” speech from 1963 and the Beatles' first appearance on American TV in 1964.  NEW YORK (AP) — Someday soon, someone will be walking down the street proudly carrying a ludicrously capacious bag, bought for a ludicrously capacious price. The voluminous Burberry tote is one of the most famous props used on “Succession,” the famed HBO saga of the Roy family dynasty, and it sold at auction Saturday for $18,750. But the priciest item was a set of pink index cards containing Roman Roy's eulogy notes for his father's funeral that went for $25,000. NEW YORK (AP) — “The Honeymooners” star Joyce Randolph, who played Ed Norton's sarcastic wife Trixie, has died. She was 99. Randolph died of natural causes Saturday night at her home on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, her son Randolph Charles told The Associated Press Sunday. She was the last surviving main character of the beloved comedy from television's golden age of the 1950s. Quaker Oats has expanded a December recall of more than 40 products that may be contaminated with salmonella. Two dozen additional types of granola bars, cereals and snack foods are now being recalled. The foods could be tainted with the bacteria that can cause fever, diarrhea, nausea and stomach pain. In rare cases, salmonella infections can lead to hospitalization and death. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not confirmed any illnesses related to the products. BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (AP) — A federal lawsuit alleges that the bodies of two men who died while incarcerated in Alabama prisons were missing organs when returned to their families. Brandon Clay Dotson died in a state prison in November. His family filed a federal lawsuit last month against the Alabama Department of Corrections.  JERUSALEM (AP) — The White House says “it's the right time” for Israel to scale back its military offensive in the Gaza Strip, even as Israeli leaders vow to intensify their operation against the territory's ruling Hamas militant group. The U.S. comments on Sunday exposed the growing differences between the close allies on the 100th day of the war.  In this week's religion roundup, a secret tunnel under a synagogue sparks a brawl with police, and the "Book of Clarence" offers a creative take on the time of Christ. —The Associated Press About this program Host Terry Lipshetz is managing editor of the national newsroom for Lee Enterprises. Besides producing the daily Hot off the Wire news podcast, Terry conducts periodic interviews for this Behind the Headlines program, co-hosts the Streamed & Screened movies and television program and is the former producer of Across the Sky, a podcast dedicated to weather and climate. Lee Enterprises produces many national, regional and sports podcasts. Learn more here.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today, we have an exciting new episode of the Passing Judgment podcast where we're joined by Dahlia Lithwick, senior legal correspondent at Slate and author of the book "Lady Justice". In this episode, we explore a range of intriguing topics, from the court's centrist decisions and its challenges to regulatory agencies, to the crucial cases that will shape the future of the First Amendment and technology. And don't miss out on our exploration of Georgia legends Sally Yates and Stacey Abrams, their divergent paths in the legal system, and the disparities in access that still persist today.Here are three key takeaways from the episode:1️⃣ The episode highlights the impactful work of Stacey Abrams, who fought against voter suppression and created a successful model for other states. This is a reminder that grassroots efforts are integral in shaping our democracy.2️⃣ We explore the incredible legacy of Pauli Murray, a constitutional hero who played a pivotal role in shaping the thinking about the 14th Amendment. Murray's contribution often goes unrecognized, underscoring the importance of acknowledging the work of unrecognized individuals who fight tirelessly for equality and justice. It's a reminder that progress is driven by nameless heroes.3️⃣ We discussed the impact of prominent lawyers like Roberta Kaplan, whose high-profile lawsuits have brought about significant legal victories.Follow Our Guest:On X formerly known as Twitter: @DahliaLithwick.Follow Our Host:On X formerly known as Twitter: @LevinsonJessica

Stanford's Evelyn Douek and Alex Stamos weigh in on the latest online trust and safety news and developments. They're joined this week by NYU's Joshua Tucker and Stanford's Jennifer Pan to discuss new studies released from an academic research partnership with Meta on the 2020 U.S. election.The X FilesElon Musk reinstated an account that posted child sexual abuse material just a few days earlier. The account, known for spreading conspiracy theories, then criticized Musk for spreading false information and censoring the Obama birther conspiracy. - Joseph Menn, Drew Harwell/ The Washington Post Musk then reinstated Ye on X, but don't worry, the platform formerly known as Twitter received reassurance that the artist formerly known as Kanye West won't share any more antisemitic or harmful content. - Rebecca Elliott/ The Wall Street JournalWe're sure Twitter CEO Linda Yaccarino will have no problem hiring an exceptional head of Brand Safety with this kind of model trust and safety best practices on display. - @katecongerIn his latest move in a campaign for free speech absolutism, Elon Musk's lawyer is threatening to sue the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a nonprofit advocacy group, for saying mean things about Twitter in research reports. - Sheera Frenkel, Ryan Mac/ The New York Times, ​​Center for Countering Digital HateCCDH lawyer Roberta Kaplan must have had a great time writing back to Musk lawyer Alex Spiro: “We write in response to the ridiculous letter you sent our clients on behalf of X… CCDH will not be bullied by your clients.” - Center for Countering Digital Hate, @jsrailtonNo LabelsMeta is not labeling state media propaganda accounts on Threads, unlike Facebook and Instagram, but says it will do so “soon.” - Newley Purnell/ The Wall Street Journal Shutting This DownDozens of digital and human rights advocacy groups, led by Access Now, called on European Commissioner Thierry Breton to clarify his comments that the Digital Services Act could be used to shut down social media companies during protests. - Clothilde Goujard/ Politico, Access NowA Commission official responded to the letter within 24 hours, writing that “Europe stands by the freedom of expression and a neutral and open internet.” - @Mr_ZakkaGetting Meta on MetaNYU's Joshua Tucker and Stanford's Jennifer Pan discuss four studies released in Nature and Science from a research partnership with Meta on the 2020 U.S. election. Tucker is a lead investigator on the project and Pan is lead author on two of the articles published in Science.A group of leading academics were granted access to work with Meta researchers to study data from consenting Facebook and Instagram users during the 2020 presidential election. Their findings are complicated and disputed, but indicate that changes to limit algorithmic recommendations did not make a significant difference in partisanship or political knowledge. A key finding shows that conservatives were more likely to engage with election misinformation, and Tucker points out that it is impossible to understand the overall effect social media has on election information and political beliefs.The ResearchNature: Like-minded sources on Facebook are prevalent but not polarizingScience: Asymmetric ideological segregation in exposure to political news on FacebookScience: Reshares on social media amplify political news but do not detectably affect beliefs or opinionsScience: How do social media feed algorithms affect attitudes and behavior in an election campaign?Select HeadlinesBloomberg: Facebook False News in US Election Reached More Conservatives, Study SaysMeta: Groundbreaking Studies Could Help Answer the Thorniest Questions About Social Media and DemocracyNature: Tweaking Facebook feeds is no easy fix for polarization, studies findNBC News: Facebook opened its doors to researchers. What they found paints a complicated picture of social media and echo chambers.Platformer: How Facebook does (and doesn't) shape our political viewsThe Atlantic: So Maybe Facebook Didn't Ruin PoliticsThe New York Times: Facebook's Algorithm Is ‘Influential' but Doesn't Necessarily Change Beliefs, Researchers SayThe Wall Street Journal: Does Facebook Polarize Users? Meta Disagrees With Partners Over Research ConclusionsThe Washington Post: Changing Facebook's algorithm won't fix polarization, new study finds(Evelyn's) Sports CornerAussie Aussie Aussie! Oi Oi Oi! The Matildas are through to the round of 16 with a drubbing of Canada this morning. The Calf that Holds the Hopes of the Nation appears to be recovering. - Dan Colasimone/ ABC News (Australia)Join the conversation and connect with Evelyn and Alex on Twitter at @evelyndouek and @alexstamos.Moderated Content is produced in partnership by Stanford Law School and the Cyber Policy Center. Special thanks to John Perrino for research and editorial assistance.Like what you heard? Don't forget to subscribe and share the podcast with friends!

Holyoke Media, en asociación con WHMP radio, emiten diariamente la Síntesis informativa en español a través del 101.5 FM y en el 1240 / 1400 AM. Esta es la síntesis informativa del miércoles 12 de julio de 2023: Donald Trump sufrió una derrota legal el martes cuando el gobierno de Estados Unidos revirtió su posición anterior de que el expresidente podría ser inmune a la demanda por difamación de $ 10 millones de la escritora Elizabeth Jean Carroll en su contra. En una carta a los abogados de Trump y Carroll, el Departamento de Justicia de EE. UU. dijo que ya no creía que Trump actuara dentro del alcance de su cargo y empleo como presidente en junio de 2019, cuando negó haber violado a Carroll en el vestidor de una tienda por departamentos de Manhattan en el mediados de la década de 1990. El departamento al final de la presidencia de Trump había llegado a una conclusión opuesta, que la administración de Biden adoptó para sorpresa de algunos observadores. Su cambio de opinión significa que no tratará de sustituirse a sí mismo como el acusado, poniendo fin efectivamente al caso de Carroll porque el gobierno no puede ser demandado por difamación. Los abogados y representantes de Trump no respondieron de inmediato a las solicitudes de comentarios. La abogada de Carroll, Roberta Kaplan, dijo que el cambio elimina un posible impedimento para el juicio programado para el 15 de enero de 2024 en la corte federal de Manhattan. “Siempre hemos creído que Donald Trump hizo sus declaraciones difamatorias sobre nuestro cliente en junio de 2019 por animosidad personal, mala voluntad y despecho, y no como presidente”, dijo Kaplan. Carroll, de 79 años, demandó a Trump, de 77, después de que él respondiera a su denuncia de violación diciendo que no conocía a la excolumnista de la revista Elle, que ella no era su "tipo" y que mintió para impulsar las ventas de sus memorias. Ella demandó por segunda vez después de una negación similar en octubre de 2022, lo que llevó el 9 de mayo a un veredicto del jurado de $ 5 millones contra Trump por difamar y abusar sexualmente, pero no violar, de Carroll. Trump está apelando ese veredicto. FUENTE: REUTERS En una investigación que incluyó la revisión de decenas de miles de páginas de documentos de registros públicos, la Prensa Asociada examinó lo que sucede detrás de escena cuando los jueces de la Corte Suprema viajan a colegios y universidades para conferencias y otros eventos. La agencia informativa conoció las identidades de los donantes y políticos invitados a eventos con jueces, detalles sobre los beneficios que han acompañado las visitas escolares e información sobre cómo los viajes escolares han ayudado a impulsar las ventas de libros. Los documentos revelan cómo las visitas a universidades son una forma conveniente para que los jueces vendan sus propios libros. Eso es especialmente cierto en el caso de la jueza Sonia Sotomayor, una autora prolífica que ha mantenido la agenda de viajes más activa de la corte durante la última década, según los registros revisados. Los jueces de la Corte Suprema insisten en que no pueden y no participan en eventos de recaudación de fondos. Pero los correos electrónicos obtenidos muestran que la definición de recaudación de fondos de la corte, un evento que recauda más de lo que cuesta o donde se piden contribuciones a los invitados, excluye gran parte del trabajo que generalmente implica persuadir a un donante adinerado para que emita un cheque. Eso le ha dado a las escuelas una amplia libertad para cortejar a los patrocinadores ricos. Las visitas a universidades se promueven como de carácter académico, pero también han facilitado encuentros entre jueces y funcionarios electos. Parte de la conducta revelada probablemente entraría en conflicto con las reglas de ética que cubren a los funcionarios de otras ramas del gobierno, así como a los jueces de los tribunales federales inferiores. FUENTE: AP

E Jean Carrol and her lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, discuss their victory against Donald Trump and what it means to finally hold him accountable. NBC's Jon Allen breaks down the partisan maneuvering surrounding the debt ceiling showdown. Jeff Stein from The Washington Post provides insights into the content of the debt ceiling deal.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Earlier this month, E. Jean Carroll won an unprecedented legal victory: in a civil suit, Donald Trump was found liable for sexual abuse against her in the mid-nineteen-nineties, and for defamation in later accusing her of a hoax. But no sooner was that decision announced than Trump reiterated his defamatory insults against her in a controversial CNN interview. Carroll has now filed an amended complaint, in a separate suit, based on Trump's continued barrage. But can anything make him stop? “The one thing he understands is money,” Carroll's lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, tells David Remnick. “At some point he'll understand that every time he does it, it's going to cost him a few million dollars. And that may make a difference.” Carroll acknowledges that Trump will keep attacking her to get a laugh—“a lot of people don't like women,” she says simply—but she is undaunted, telling Remnick, “I hate to be all positive about this, but I think we've made a difference.” “This is his moment of comeuppance?” Remnick asks her; “I think it just may be.”

Earlier this month, E Jean Carroll won an unprecedented legal victory: in a civil suit, Donald Trump was found liable for sexual abuse against her in the mid-nineteen-nineties, and for defamation in later accusing her of a hoax. But no sooner was that decision announced than Trump reiterated his defamatory insults against her in a controversial CNN interview. Carroll has now filed an amended complaint, in a separate suit, based on Trump's continued barrage. But can anything make him stop? “The one thing he understands is money,” Carroll's lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, tells David Remnick. “At some point he'll understand that every time he does it, it's going to cost him  a few million dollars. And that may make a difference.” Carroll acknowledges that Trump will keep attacking her to get a laugh—“a lot of people don't like women,” she says simply—but she is undaunted, telling Remnick, “I hate to be all positive about this, but I think we've made a difference, I really do.”  Plus, the staff writer Dexter Filkins on Ron DeSantis, who finally announced his Presidential candidacy this week. In 2022, Filkins profiled the Florida governor as his national ambitions were becoming clear. “He's very good at staking out a position and pounding the table,” Filkins notes, “saying, ‘I'm not giving in to the liberals in the Northeast.' ”

Get your tickets for Amicus Live in Washington DC on May 24th here: https://slate.com/live/amicus-live-may-24-in-washington-d-c-full-court-press.html Dahlia Lithwick is joined by a pair of legal history-makers, E Jean Carroll and Roberta Kaplan. They discuss the landmark defamation and sexual abuse case they won against former President Donald J Trump; how the case came together, what tipped the balance in court, if vindication lasts, and what happens when the defendant won't stop doing the same defamation over and over again. In this week's Amicus Plus segment, Dahlia is joined by Slate's Mark Joseph Stern to talk about the Mifepristone arguments at the 5th Circuit, North Carolina's abortion ban, and why Justice Kagan and Sotomayor are duking it out in the footnotes over Andy Warhol.  Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show.  Dahlia's book Lady Justice: Women, the Law and the Battle to Save America, is also available as an audiobook, and Amicus listeners can get a 25 percent discount by entering the code “AMICUS” at checkout. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Get your tickets for Amicus Live in Washington DC on May 24th here: https://slate.com/live/amicus-live-may-24-in-washington-d-c-full-court-press.html Dahlia Lithwick is joined by a pair of legal history-makers, E Jean Carroll and Roberta Kaplan. They discuss the landmark defamation and sexual abuse case they won against former President Donald J Trump; how the case came together, what tipped the balance in court, if vindication lasts, and what happens when the defendant won't stop doing the same defamation over and over again. In this week's Amicus Plus segment, Dahlia is joined by Slate's Mark Joseph Stern to talk about the Mifepristone arguments at the 5th Circuit, North Carolina's abortion ban, and why Justice Kagan and Sotomayor are duking it out in the footnotes over Andy Warhol.  Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show.  Dahlia's book Lady Justice: Women, the Law and the Battle to Save America, is also available as an audiobook, and Amicus listeners can get a 25 percent discount by entering the code “AMICUS” at checkout. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Get your tickets for Amicus Live in Washington DC on May 24th here: https://slate.com/live/amicus-live-may-24-in-washington-d-c-full-court-press.html Dahlia Lithwick is joined by a pair of legal history-makers, E Jean Carroll and Roberta Kaplan. They discuss the landmark defamation and sexual abuse case they won against former President Donald J Trump; how the case came together, what tipped the balance in court, if vindication lasts, and what happens when the defendant won't stop doing the same defamation over and over again. In this week's Amicus Plus segment, Dahlia is joined by Slate's Mark Joseph Stern to talk about the Mifepristone arguments at the 5th Circuit, North Carolina's abortion ban, and why Justice Kagan and Sotomayor are duking it out in the footnotes over Andy Warhol.  Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show.  Dahlia's book Lady Justice: Women, the Law and the Battle to Save America, is also available as an audiobook, and Amicus listeners can get a 25 percent discount by entering the code “AMICUS” at checkout. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Get your tickets for Amicus Live in Washington DC on May 24th here: https://slate.com/live/amicus-live-may-24-in-washington-d-c-full-court-press.html Dahlia Lithwick is joined by a pair of legal history-makers, E Jean Carroll and Roberta Kaplan. They discuss the landmark defamation and sexual abuse case they won against former President Donald J Trump; how the case came together, what tipped the balance in court, if vindication lasts, and what happens when the defendant won't stop doing the same defamation over and over again. In this week's Amicus Plus segment, Dahlia is joined by Slate's Mark Joseph Stern to talk about the Mifepristone arguments at the 5th Circuit, North Carolina's abortion ban, and why Justice Kagan and Sotomayor are duking it out in the footnotes over Andy Warhol.  Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show.  Dahlia's book Lady Justice: Women, the Law and the Battle to Save America, is also available as an audiobook, and Amicus listeners can get a 25 percent discount by entering the code “AMICUS” at checkout. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

JUST TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT: the weaponization of the justice department actually occurred under, & was the MO of the Trump regime, NOT

2 years after the January 6th INSURRECTION and our justice department has made zero charges of all these m*** insurrectionists in Congress! Absolutely outrageous and unacceptable everybody call 202-514-2000 demand indictments now!!! You know that expression about there's no such thing as a free meal? Well they're wrong because fortunately pantries offer just that! There's something really wonderful about free foods and also the whole process of people volunteering and to give out free food and being resourceful is what it's all about! Not wasting anything. And sharing resources with the community. It's the least the church could do after being behind the genocide of millions of indigenous peoples around the world for example; or the most extreme of them banding together to deprive women of rights to bodily autonomy ! Roberta Kaplan lawyer for E Jean Carroll will be filing suit against old diaperDon again! Hahaha

I bet nobody is surprised actually ! You know that expression about there's no such thing as a free meal? Well they're wrong because fortunately pantries offer just that! There's something really wonderful about free foods and also the whole process of people volunteering and to give out free food and being resourceful is what it's all about! Not wasting anything. And sharing resources with the community. It's the least the church could do after being behind the genocide of millions of indigenous peoples around the world for example; or the most extreme of them banding together to deprive women of rights to bodily autonomy ! Roberta Kaplan lawyer for E Jean Carroll will be filing suit against old diaperDon again! Hahaha

You know that expression about there's no such thing as a free meal? Well they're wrong because fortunately pantries offer just that! There's something really wonderful about free foods and also the whole process of people volunteering and to give out free food and being resourceful is what it's all about! Not wasting anything. And sharing resources with the community. It's the least the church could do after being behind the genocide of millions of indigenous peoples around the world for example; or the most extreme of them banding together to deprive women of rights to bodily autonomy ! Roberta Kaplan lawyer for E Jean Carroll will be filing suit against old diaperDon again! Hahaha

I'm asking Michael Cohen to run for president and so I can be his vp! Roberta Kaplan lawyer for E Jean Carroll will be filing suit against old diaperDon again! Hahaha

Roberta Kaplan lawyer for E Jean Carroll will be filing suit against old diaperDon again! Hahaha

Before I came back to the United States 6 years ago I was on my way to becoming an underwater archaeologist Rhonda Santos authorized torture at Guantanamo!!!! If This were a sane society, that would definitely be a disqualifying Factor! But we're not- we're dealing with a dumbed down, traumatized and morally bankrupt society. GUANTANAMO TORTURE AUTHORIZER RHONDA DESANTIS MUST HAVE SIGNED SOME MORE LEGISLATION IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT!!! IN FLORIDA GOVERNORS CAN'T RUN FOR PRESIDENT!!! You know that expression about there's no such thing as a free meal? Well they're wrong because fortunately pantries offer just that! There's something really wonderful about free foods and also the whole process of people volunteering and to give out free food and being resourceful is what it's all about! Not wasting anything. And sharing resources with the community. It's the least the church could do after being behind the genocide of millions of indigenous peoples around the world for example; or the most extreme of them banding together to deprive women of rights to bodily autonomy ! Roberta Kaplan lawyer for E Jean Carroll will be filing suit against old diaperDon again! Hahaha

The trial in the case of E. Jean Carroll vs. Donald Trump continues!Roberta Kaplan tattles on Trump's truth social posts. Trump's deposition is released to the public. Closing arguments presented in Day 8.

Former President Donald Trump likely sexually abused author E. Jean Carroll in the dressing room of a Bergdorf Goodman in the mid-1990s, then defamed her by denying it, a federal jury found in an historic civil ruling. The panel, composed of six men and three women, reached their verdict in less than three hours and awarded $5 million.On this week's episode, "Objections" revisits the only testimony at trial that has an audio record: Trump's deposition, annotating key passages with excerpts from Carroll's closing arguments.During summations, Carroll's lead attorney Roberta Kaplan told jurors: "In a very real sense, Donald Trump here is a witness against himself."By splicing portions of Trump's deposition next to recitations of her arguments, listeners can hear those passages as they apparently were understood by the jury.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

A Manhattan federal jury has found that Donald Trump sexually abused E. Jean Carroll in a luxury department store dressing room in the spring of 1996. The jury found him liable for battery in Carroll's civil trial against him, based on that sexual assault claim. The jury found that Donald Trump should pay about $2 million in damages. US District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan read instructions on the law to the nine-person jury before the panel began discussing Carroll's allegations of battery and defamation shortly before noon, New York time. If they believe Carroll, jurors can award compensatory and punitive damages. Trump, who did not attend the trial, has insisted he never sexually assaulted Carroll or even knew her. Jean Carroll arrives at Manhattan federal court. Photo / John Minchillo, AP Kaplan told jurors that the first question on the verdict form will be to decide whether they think there is more than a 50 per cent chance that Trump raped Carroll inside a store dressing room. If they answer yes, they will then decide whether compensatory and punitive damages should be awarded. If they answer no to the rape question, they can then decide if Trump subjected her to lesser forms of assault involving sexual contact without her consent or forcible touching to degrade her or gratify his sexual desire. If they answer yes to either of those questions, they will decide if damages are appropriate. On defamation claims stemming from a statement Trump made on social media last October, Kaplan said jurors must be guided by a higher legal standard — clear and convincing evidence. He said they would have to agree it was “highly probable” that Trump's statement was false and was made maliciously with deliberate intent to injure or out of hatred or ill will with reckless disregard for Carroll's rights. Meanwhile, Trump posted a new message on social media, complaining that he is now awaiting the jury's decision “on a False Accusation.” He said he is “not allowed to speak or defend myself, even as hard-nosed reporters scream questions about this case at me”. Trump said he will not speak until after the trial, “but will appeal the Unconstitutional silencing of me ... no matter the outcome!” Trump never attended the trial, which is in its third week, and rejected an invitation to testify, which the judge extended through the weekend even after Trump's attorney, Joe Tacopina, said Thursday that his client would not testify. Joe Tacopina, Donald Trump's lawyer, arrives in Manhattan federal court in New York. Photo / Seth Wenig, AP Tacopina told the jury in closing arguments Monday that Carroll's account is too far-fetched to be believed. He said she made it up to fuel sales of a 2019 memoir in which she first publicly revealed her claims and to disparage Trump for political reasons. Carroll's attorney, Roberta Kaplan, cited excerpts from Trump's October deposition and his notorious comments on a 2005 “Access Hollywood” video in which he said celebrities can grab women between the legs without asking. She urged jurors to believe her client. “He didn't even bother to show up here in person,” Kaplan said. She said much of what he said in his deposition and in public statements “actually supports our side of the case.” “In a very real sense, Donald Trump is a witness against himself,” she said. “He knows what he did. He knows that he sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll.” Carroll, 79, testified that she had a chance encounter with Trump at the Bergdorf Goodman store across the street from Trump Tower. She said it was a lighthearted interaction in which they teased each other about trying on a piece of lingerie before Trump became violent inside a dressing room. Supporters cheer E. Jean Carroll, second from right, as she arrives at Manhattan federal court. Photo / John Minchillo, AP Tacopina told jurors there was no reason to call Trump as a witness when Carroll can't even recall when her encounter with Trump happened. He told the jury Carroll made up her claims after hearing about a 2012 “Law and Order” episode in which a woman is raped in the dressing room of the lingerie section of a Bergdorf Goodman store.  “They modeled their secret scheme on an episode of one of the most popular shows on television,” he said of Carroll. Two of Carroll's friends testified that she told them about the encounter with Trump shortly after it happened, many years before the “Law and Order” episode aired. - Larry Neumeister, APSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Check us out at BigTentUSA and sign upEpisodes Notes Here and below:Dahlia Lithwick, senior legal correspondent at Slate, host of 'Amicus', Slate's award-winning biweekly podcast about the law, and author of the new book, Lady Justice: Women, the Law, and the Battle to Save America, joined us. Lithwick discussed her new book and how women lawyers, independently of each other, sprang into action in 2016, holding our legal system accountable under the devastating policies being executed by Donald Trump and his administration. Sally Yates, Stacey Abrams, Becca Heller, and Roberta Kaplan are a few of those women lawyers that she profiles. LISTEN: 'AMICUS' PODCAST WITH DAHLIA LITHWICKWAPO BOOK REVIEW: AFTER ROE, WHAT WE CAN LEARN FROM THE FEMALE LAWYERS WHO TOOK ON TRUMP This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit bigtentnews.substack.com

Depositions are a crucial part of discovery—and they can also be, in the hands of a talented litigator, torture for the witness. So I suspect that many lawyers on the left—and beyond—might be jealous right now of Roberta “Robbie” Kaplan, the iconic lawyer and founding partner of Kaplan Hecker & Fink (“KHF”). Last month, Robbie had the pleasure of deposing former president Donald Trump—not once, but twice.I'm guessing it wasn't a fun experience for the Donald. His niece Mary Trump, who hired Kaplan Hecker to sue her uncle for fraud, described Robbie to Bloomberg as follows: “She's brilliant, she's unrelenting, she can't be intimidated, and she's not going to back down. She eats bullies… for lunch.”Deposing the president twice in the same month is only the latest distinction for Robbie, known for handling some of the most high-profile and high-stakes cases in the country. She's most well-known for representing the late Edie Windsor in United States v. Windsor, the landmark gay-rights case in which the Supreme Court held unconstitutional section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act. But Robbie is also the lawyer of choice for major corporations like Goldman Sachs and Uber, who hire her and KHF to handle their most complex legal problems.On Monday, I was delighted to speak with Robbie for the fourth episode of the Original Jurisdiction podcast. She wasn't able to say much about the Trump depositions, but she did talk about her multiple cases against Trump in broader terms. We also spoke about what makes her unique as a litigator; her epic victory last year in Sines v. Kessler, in which she won damages of more than $25 million from the white supremacists behind the violent “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville in August 2017; her vision for Kaplan Hecker & Fink, the thriving litigation boutique she founded after more than two decades at Paul, Weiss; free-speech and cancel-culture controversies in the legal world; and whether she's a tough boss.Please check it out by clicking on the embed at the top of this post. Thanks!Show Notes:* Roberta A. Kaplan bio, Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP* Then Comes Marriage: How Two Women Fought for and Won Equal Dignity for All, Amazon* A History-Making Litigator Leaves Biglaw To Launch A Boutique, by David Lat for Above the Law* Roberta Kaplan Builds Progressive Firm Suing Trump, Defending Wall Street, by Erik Larson for Bloomberg* 2020 Attorney of the Year: Roberta Kaplan, by Jane Wester for the New York Law Journal* Lady Justice and Charlottesville Nazis, by Dahlia Lithwick for Amicus/SlatePrefer reading to listening? A transcript of the entire episode appears below.Two quick notes:* This transcript has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter meaning—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning.* 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: Hello, and 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 by going to davidlat.substack.com.You're listening to the fourth episode of this podcast, which airs every other Wednesday. Today I'm honored to be joined by one of the nation's most celebrated, successful, and significant litigators: Roberta “Robbie” Kaplan, founding partner of Kaplan Hecker & Fink. She is most famous for winning United States v. Windsor, the landmark case in which the Supreme Court held unconstitutional a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, paving the way for nationwide marriage equality a few years later. But she has worked on many other fascinating cases over the course of her career, including two pending cases against Donald Trump in which she deposed the former president—twice in the past month.Robbie was born in Cleveland and grew up in Ohio. After graduating from Harvard College, magna cum laude, and Columbia Law School, Robbie clerked for Judge Mark Wolf of the District of Massachusetts and the late Chief Judge Judith Kaye of the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court. Robbie then practiced for more than two decades at the major law firm of Paul, Weiss, where she built a thriving commercial and pro bono practice, including her big win in Windsor.In 2017, Robbie left Paul Weiss to launch Kaplan Hecker & Fink (“KHF”), one of the nation's top trial boutiques, known for handling both complex commercial and white-collar cases and landmark public-interest matters. One of the first such cases filed by KHF was Sines v. Kessler, a high-profile lawsuit under the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 against twenty-four neo-Nazi and white supremacist leaders responsible for organizing the racial- and religious-based violence in Charlottesville in August 2017. That case went to trial, and a year ago this month, the jury awarded a total of more than $25 million to Robbie's clients.In our conversation, Robbie and I talked about her various Trump cases, how she knew she was destined for a legal career from a very young age, two qualities that have made her so successful as a lawyer, how KHF has managed to be so financially successful while also doing so much public-interest work, and her vision for the firm's future. Without further ado, here's my interview of Roberta “Robbie” Kaplan.DL: Thanks so much for joining me, Robbie—it's an honor to have you!Roberta Kaplan: It's a pleasure to be here.DL: To start with what's in the news—and I feel like you're always in the news—what can you tell us about your latest high-profile case, namely, E. Jean Carroll's lawsuit against former president Donald Trump? I know that you recently deposed him. Is there anything you can say either about the deposition specifically or about the litigation more generally?RK: Sure. We actually have two litigations that are very active against Donald Trump, and I actually deposed him in both, on two successive weeks. So it was a relatively exhausting period for me. I literally went to Mar-a-Lago two weeks in a row to depose him. That's about all I can say about it, in terms of the depositions themselves.But in terms of the cases, it's very interesting. The E. Jean case, which you asked about, is on the fastest track. Right now, trial is scheduled to happen on February 6th. Right now we have one case against Donald Trump for the defamatory statements he made in June 2019. That case is currently certified to the D.C. Court of Appeals as to the question of whether when he made those statements, he was acting within the scope of his employment as president—sounds like kind of a crazy question, but that's the question. And the D.C. Court of Appeals, I believe, recognizing the need for speed here, has scheduled that case on a very, very expedited schedule, with oral arguments to be on January 10. So I think it's entirely possible that we have a ruling from the D.C. Court of Appeals before the trial before Judge [Lewis] Kaplan starts.Even if that's not true, however, we have a second case that we've told everyone in the world, including Judge Kaplan and Trump's lawyers, that we intend to file on November 24, which is the first day we can file it. That is a case directly for battery, the common-law cause of action by E. Jean against Donald Trump, based on a new law that was passed in New York called the Adult Survivors Act. It's patterned on the Child Victims Act, and it gives people who were survivors of rape that happened a long time ago basically a free one-year period to bring claims, notwithstanding statutes of limitations. That case we're definitely bringing out November 24th, and I don't think anyone will be surprised to learn that we probably will add to that case some new defamatory statements that Donald Trump made on Truth Social against our client—again, none of which are subject to any Westfall Act issue at all, because he wasn't president when he made them.So big picture, it's highly likely, particularly given the judge we have—Judge Kaplan, no relation—that we will go to trial on all or at least some of those claims in February.DL: Wow.RK: And the new case shouldn't really delay anything because it's basically the exact same facts. As we told the court, the only thing that's different about the new case is the damages theory, so we will have different experts. You obviously have different damages for being raped than you do for defamation. But that's really it. Everything else has already been done in discovery. Fact discovery is closed, and I see very little reason for any additional fact discovery, again, because the facts are totally overlapping.DL: So what are the two depositions? What was the difference between the two depos?RK: The first deposition, which happened the week before, was in our fraud case. Before Judge [Lorna] Schofield in the S.D.N.Y., we have a nationwide class action, on behalf of people who invested—I'm using the word “invested” in quotes—in a business opportunity—I'm using “business opportunity” in quotes too—that Donald Trump endorsed and heavily promoted before he was president, known as “ACN” or “American Communications Network.”It's a multilevel marketing scheme—I don't think even they deny that—in which people pay $500 or $1,000 to become part of this opportunity. Then the goal is to sell video phones. The idea of selling video phones when Skype and other software was already heavily in use—not really the smartest idea in the world—and when I say video phones, I mean big, standard-looking video phones, like I haven't seen since I was a young associate, probably.The only way to make money as part of this multilevel marketing scheme is to recruit other people in it. You don't make money from selling the phones, you make money from bringing other people in, which is the classic hallmark of a multilevel marketing scheme. Trump was paid a lot of money, at least $11 million or so, from this entity over a period of years. He went to conventions where these people were recruited, and he had huge crowds going nuts for him that kind of looked like his conventions now, honestly. And he said it was the greatest investment he's ever heard of, he did tons of due diligence, he knew it was a great company, a great business opportunity, “people think I do this for the money, but I just like being here.”I gave you a sense of the kind of the statements he made, and we allege those were all fraudulent, in that they were untrue and he knew them to be untrue. In that case too, fact discovery is closed—there are a couple of exceptions that the magistrate judge ordered, but it's essentially closed. But in that case, given how much bigger the scope is, we are about to go into expert discovery and then class certification. So that case is behind the E. Jean Carroll case for those reasons, although we're very eager to try it before the next presidential campaign for sure.DL: Oh, interesting.RK: Because we don't want to lose our defendant.DL: Indeed. Totally, totally.So to rewind a little bit… as I know from having read your wonderful memoir, Then Comes Marriage, you knew from an early age that you wanted to be a lawyer. What can you tell us about your childhood or your upbringing that might have shed light on your future career or that shaped your career choice as a lawyer?RK: When I was a kid, I liked to talk a lot. I still do. I spent a lot of time with my maternal grandmother, who was a very wise, very smart person. And there's a famous story in my family that when my uncle was in the Peace Corps in India at the time, and there is a series of letters between my mom, my grandmother, and my uncle from India, and in those letters—we still have copies—my grandmother is talking about how I just keep talking all time, and how at one point she said to me, ‘Robbie, you know I love you, but can you just be quiet for like three minutes? Can you stop for three minutes?' And I said something like, ‘No grandma, I can't. I just can't help myself. I love to talk.'DL: Ha!RK: And at a certain point, at a pretty young age, because I liked to read, I realized that if you're a lawyer, you got paid to talk. And I was like, “Okay, that's the job for me!”Then Sandra Day O'Connor—this is going to show my age, but she was made a Supreme Court justice, I believe when I was in high school. And that had a big impact on me at the time, because prior to that I don't think a lot of women thought they really had—not that I wanted to be a Supreme Court justice, but after that [women] thought they really had a future in the law. I remember that to this day, when that happened, what a big thing that was.And I just told everyone that I'm 85 years old….DL: Did judicial office ever cross your mind? Was that something you might have been interested in, in the past?RK: I certainly have a lot of friends who are judges and I admire what they do, and I think it's a great job. But I like to be a fighter. I like to be an advocate, and obviously I can't do that as judge. I think I would find it too quiet probably for my taste, even at the district-court or trial-court level. But there's no question that more and more we need great judges, and it's probably the single—at least in my job, in my world—the single most important job anyone can have. The only legal philosophy that ultimately works for me is legal realism, which means that often how a case goes—the pace of the case, how it flows, and ultimately what the result will be—is going to be based not only the philosophy but also the life experiences and understanding of the judge. That's just crucial. So the more people who are people of high character and great experience become judges, all the better.DL: I totally agree with you, totally agree. Looking at your remarkable career as a lawyer, what would you say is your superpower that is unique to Robbie Kaplan? Obviously, we know about how hard you work and how much you prepare, and of course your tactical brilliance, but is there something you would regard as a little different [about yourself]?RK: So I have a son who's now 16, but when he was little, one of his favorite books that I used to read, hundreds if not thousands of times, was called Dog with a Bone. And I think the reason I liked that book so much probably said something about me, which is that, as a lawyer, I really am like a dog with a bone. I do not give up as a lawyer. Our firm doesn't give up. And if I don't succeed on something the first time for a client, I succeed the second or third time, and it's that stubbornness maybe—stubbornness isn't usually considered a good quality, but it's that ability to keep on fighting, our resilience, that is our number-one quality.Then I'd say, second, creativity. I'm the least creative human being on the planet. I can't draw. My son goes crazy if I try to sing in the car because I'm so off key. I could never do creative writing. My pottery teacher basically kicked me out of class in high school because he asked me why every single pot I made look like a bong. And I wasn't even trying to make a bong! I was like, “I don't know what you mean!” So I have no artistic talent. But to the extent I have any creativity at all, I apply it to cases and the law, and how to achieve what we want to achieve for our clients in a creative and often unusual way.DL: That makes me think of the Charlottesville case, and your case against the individuals who caused such violence there and how you used a very old statute that was designed to be deployed against the Klan to go after these white supremacists, which was quite brilliant and creative. How did that theory come to you?RK: We saw what happened in Charlottesville, and we knew something had to be done about it. We were very concerned—and my firm had four people at the time, four lawyers—we were very concerned that the Department of Justice, then headed by Jeff Sessions, was not going do anything. Which we turned out to be right about.Pretty quickly after Charlottesville happened, someone got into the Discord servers that the organizers used and leaked a whole bunch of messages. This made it very clear that this was a conspiracy. So okay, great, we have the facts, we have clients, we went down there—but what law do we use? And there's not a lot, frankly, of current law to deal with this, in part because no one—I hope we're not going back to those times—but at least in my lifetime up to now, no one ever thought this was a huge problem. No one ever thought that we would have private conspiracies that were racially motivated, that planned, promoted, and engaged in violence. That may be changing, and that's one of the most disturbing things about our country right now, but that's generally been true for decades and decades.We had to go back and look for a statute called the KKK Act of 1871, which was passed to do exactly what it says it was passed to do, which was to try to curb the growth of the then-new Ku Klux Klan in the Deep South. Arguably it didn't have great success in that regard, but there were cases in the 1870s when it was passed trying to curtail or slow or stop the growth of the Klan.When you think about what happened in Charlottesville, though, it really is the modern-day version of what that Reconstruction Congress was trying to deal with. Back in the 1870s in Alabama, mostly men would don white robes and white hoods, and they would meet in the forest, and they would plan, tragically and horribly, a lynching or whatever they were going do.Today it's much easier. All you need is a hashtag on Parler or Discord or one of these dark websites, and it's like whack-a-mole—the minute one of the sites stops hosting these people, another one will take over. So all you need is a hashtag—that keeps your anonymity for the most part, unless you self-identify in your hashtag—and you don't have to go into the woods. Literally the guys who organized Charlottesville are from all over the country, and they all were able to plan nationwide and even internationally.When we filed the Charlottesville case—this is going to show how naive I was—I thought it was a terrible one-off, but it was a one-off, and we needed to bring the case so that it would never happen again. How wrong, in humility, I have to say I was, because not only was it not a one-off, it was really a harbinger, a kind of a road map to a lot of what has happened since then. Even this guy who attacked Nancy Pelosi's husband, while there weren't 20 guys who went to the house, everything that he believed and everything that he was motivated to do was based on these same kind of dark-web, white-supremacist, violent channels, which again, if you're interested or if you're a lonely guy who's looking for a community, it's pretty easy for you to get online and get indoctrinated in their thinking.DL: Absolutely. And I know this is perhaps a little far afield from your work as a lawyer, but maybe just even as a concerned citizen, how do we deal with this problem? How do we get ourselves out of this? It seems that it's just getting worse and worse.RK: I wish I knew. It's something I think and worry about all the time. We obviously—and I'm as committed as anyone to the First Amendment—we obviously have a right to free speech in our country, and we should have a right. But it may be both with the [Communications] Decency Act and with the case law, the developed case law in the First Amendment context, maybe [it] does not make sense in the modern day. For example, under Brandenburg, when you're doing something that wreaks havoc in a crowded theater, that may be translatable to things that people do online today in the dark web almost every single day. And whether our standards need to change to deal with that is a very, very serious question. Of course, whether or not this Supreme Court as currently constituted is open to hearing any of those arguments, I don't know.DL: That's very interesting. I wonder—because there are definitely some conservatives out there who want to revisit First Amendment doctrine as well—I wonder if this might be some weird area where maybe you agree with some of them?RK: We obviously have separation of church and state, though I'm a religious Jew, and Judaism going all the way back to the destruction of the Second Temple, in 62 AD or 66 AD, has been obsessed with speech. It's obsessed with speech because it understands that a lot of the damage that people can do to other people is through speaking. If you look at history, there's no question. Now, I'm not saying that we give up our right to free speech. It's embedded in our Constitution for good reason, and it came out of a world where people were severely restricted in what they could think and what they could say. But the link between certain kinds of speech and violence at this point is uncontroversial, and how we deal with speech that may not be committing violence, but is no question prompting and encouraging and invoking other people to commit violence, is a very serious issue.DL: Let me ask you this then, and again, perhaps I'm going a little bit out of what you usually focus on as a civil-rights, public-interest, and commercial litigator, but what is your take on what's happening to free speech in U.S. law schools right now? Because there have been speakers who have been shouted down, conservative speakers mainly, but of course, obviously conservatives have no problem going after free speech in other areas.What are your thoughts on that? Do you share the concern that certain speakers might come to law schools and inflict what activists call “harm” on students?RK: What I know about this, David, I mostly know from following your column, so that's basically the limit of my knowledge because I've been super-busy lately, but I have the general gist because you're a good journalist and I follow what you write. People have a right to protest. They should. But they don't have a right to protest in a way that stops other people from speaking.And there's no question that on both sides in our country right now—in fact, both the radical left and the radical right are looking more and more similar every day, which is petrifying because that's what it looked like in Germany in the thirties. So it's petrifying, but people both on the radical right and in the radical left who want to deprive other people of the ability to speak is not acceptable. It's not what the Founders meant. Speech and debate and discourse—even going back to Jewish law—is something to be highly encouraged. And we all make the situation worse, honestly, when we—I hate to use this expression, but when we cancel other people from expressing their views.Just because you don't agree with someone—I'm sure you and I don't agree on everything—doesn't mean that we shouldn't discuss and debate and argue with each other, and it's terribly distressing because it leads to the kind of breakdown in civil society I think that we're seeing today. And that's also incredibly scary.DL: Related to these cancel-culture controversies, what are your thoughts on the extent to which advocates can or should be held accountable for their clients? Even though you are most known or most famous for your civil-rights work, your public-interest work, you also represent Goldman Sachs, Airbnb, large companies, and there have been some on the left who have taken this sort of purist approach: “Oh, well, you represent all these progressive causes, but then you represent all these evil companies and defendants and what have you. “ So what are your thoughts on that, the extent to which lawyers should be held accountable for the sins of their clients?RK: I don't think lawyers should ever be held accountable for the sins of their clients. That's what lawyers do, and if lawyers were in any way held accountable for the sins of their clients, then we wouldn't really have a legal profession. The only exceptions to that would be when lawyers commit the sins of their clients as part of their representation, and that's where, for me, you can't cross the line. I think every lawyer I know weighs these things differently.Let me begin to say, I don't acknowledge for a second that Goldman Sachs or Airbnb or any of our other clients…DL: I'm playing devil's advocate—I have nothing against them personally….RK: … are evil or do anything evil or anything like that.You have to look at it differently in the criminal context than in the civil context. Criminally, I think my colleagues at Kaplan Hecker would say that everyone is entitled to a defense, and while there may be some criminal defendants that we wouldn't or that they wouldn't want to represent, the breadth of whom you represent criminally when someone's facing imprisonment is different than civil.Civilly, personally, it's a choice—and we, at Kaplan Hecker, think very seriously about these issues. We talk about them among the partners, and we won't take on a client who we feel somehow contravenes our values in some fundamental way. But that's a choice. I wouldn't judge another lawyer who did that because that's what lawyers do, if that makes sense.DL: That makes perfect sense, especially as you were saying in the civil context as well, because look, [clients] have a wide variety of lawyers they can choose from, and you have clients that you can choose from, you're very busy, and not everyone is entitled to Roberta Kaplan. I totally get that.RK: Other than E. Jean Carroll, who's entitled to me.DL: Indeed, indeed—and Edie Windsor, who was amazing, of course. This might be a dumb question, but is [Windsor] the win that you are most proud of in your long career? And if that is, then do you have a number two?RK: Charlottesville. Edie would be first, Charlottesville number two. Charlottesville, unfortunately—or fortunately, depending on how you look at it—was not covered that much. And the reason why is there were two highly racially motivated criminal trials going on at the same time. They were both in state court, so they were televised. So for the press, it was very easy to cover both those cases rather than cover Charlottesville, which had no cameras in the courtroom because we were in federal court, with very severe restrictions for Covid, and other things about access to the courtroom too. And I guess sadly in certain ways, the record we made wasn't really the focus of people's attention the way it should have been.But because of that, I don't think people realize how incredibly difficult it was. We were on trial for about four weeks. We had about a week of jury selection, so about five weeks total. Two of the defendants were pro se, Richard Spencer and Chris Cantwell. Chris Cantwell was then serving a sentence in federal prison for making violent threats against another white supremacist—I think he threatened to rape and kill his wife—but a week either before or after that, he made similar violent threats against me, saying something like, “When this case is over, we're gonna….”Can I swear on this?DL: Yeah, go for it.RK: “When this case is over, we're gonna have a lot of f**king fun with Robbie Kaplan.” And so we were in trial in this closed courtroom—the whole courthouse was closed, there was no other case going on for four weeks—with these two, with a bunch of defendants, but two of them who were pro se. I think Judge Moon rightly probably let them get away with almost anything they wanted to do because he was very concerned about an appellate record. And in retrospect, he was probably right.But living through it every day was extremely hard. They would just make incredibly outrageous arguments. Chris Cantwell in his closing started screaming, and I thought threatening the jury. The marshals would say to me, “Okay, you know, if Cantwell gets closer to you, we're gonna stay closer by you in case he tries anything.” It was crazy. And so just as a sheer endurance contest, and for being able to keep our dignity in the face of a trial where literally every day these guys were talking about how much they loved Mein Kampf—the rhetoric was unbelievable—is something I'm very proud of. And it's not just me, it's our entire team. I don't know how we did it so long, but we somehow managed to do it, and getting the verdict we did was incredible.DL: Absolutely. Congratulations. And Karen Dunn [of Paul, Weiss], Alan Levine [of Cooley]—you had a lot of other amazing lawyers involved as well, and other law firms. Did you have personal security at some point in addition to the marshals?RK: Yeah, I can't get into it, but yeah, so that made it hard too. We were really kind of trapped in the hotel in a lot of ways for security reasons. So imagine going from this closed-in courtroom to being trapped within the hotel for four weeks and thinking about how you're going to cross-examine someone about Mein Kampf or put on Deborah Lipstadt to talk about why these guys are obsessed with the Holocaust. It was something, for sure.DL: Yeah. But a great victory, a huge verdict, and a real blow against white supremacists and others who would harm the country.On a happier note, Kaplan Hecker & Fink celebrated its fifth anniversary, I guess this was over the summer?RK: Yeah, July 1.DL: Congratulations. What are you most proud of about the firm so far?RK: When we set out to create this firm, we had certain specific core values. One, doing work in the public interest together with commercial work and white-collar work. Two, having a paramount respect for maintaining our culture and making sure that we all liked each other and were friends and had the same values. And three, being as non-hierarchical as you can possibly be, in the sense that we hire, I think we now have 10 percent of our lawyers are Supreme Court clerks. That's kind of insane—like, I couldn't get a job with me anymore. But because we bring in such brilliant people, we make sure that we listen to their ideas, from day one.What I'm most proud of is that we kept to that. We really have to this day kept to that. Our greatest challenge, frankly, is not getting so large that we lose it. That's frankly the thing that we worry about the most right now. There are a number of partnerships where the partners don't know each other well enough to keep that sense of camaraderie and culture, and that's what we face every day. We're not there yet for sure, but that's what we think about a lot.DL: Right now the firm I think has around 60 lawyers, maybe 10 partners or so?RK: I think we're about—well, maybe about 13 or 14 partners.DL: Oh, okay.RK: And I think the limit for me, based on my experience, is about 25. Once you get to more than 25, it's hard for everyone to be friends the same way we are now. So we have some room to grow.DL: And what about total lawyers? Right now you're around 60-ish?RK: Yeah. Again, we don't know, but I think everyone agrees that at 125 we'd pretty much be at our limits. Again, we're nowhere near that now, but that's kind of what people have in mind, and I'm not sure all of us want to get even that big. We also, I think speaking unanimously for the partners, are not into this idea of having a lot of satellite offices.DL: That was my next question.RK: We have New York, which is kind of the main office, and then we have D.C., and I don't anticipate us expanding anywhere else. Before Covid, we might have thought about an office in California. One of the few good things about Covid, of very few good things, is that you see that you can practice across state lines in a much easier way than I ever anticipated. So I can't imagine [opening more offices] anytime in the near future.DL: Yeah, I totally agree with you. I don't think it's quite as imperative, and in this day and age of remote work, it is much easier.Let me ask you this question because people have asked me about it, and I'm genuinely curious for the answer. At Kaplan Hecker & Fink, you do tons of public interest work, you do tons of pro bono work, and then, on the other hand, you still pay above the Biglaw salary scale for associates.Something here is not computing. How do you do it? Maybe I'm being too nosy, but… are you content to just make, you know, a couple million rather than many millions, like you did at Paul, Weiss? What's the secret here?RK: I'm not going to get into any numbers—obviously, my partners would kill me—but let me put it this way: other than in our first year probably, I have not had to sacrifice anything financially at Kaplan Hecker & Fink.DL: Wow.RK: And I think for me and almost all the partners, we are doing appreciably better than we would have at big firms.What's our secret sauce? For one thing, we are very, very efficient. Even though our fees aren't significantly lower than big firms, our bills tend to be, because we don't have to have four levels of people working on something. The work product that we get from our associates is usually excellent and doesn't take as much work than it might at a big firm.Two, we're very creative about fee arrangements, which is also not a big-firm thing, at least in the past—it may be more so now. My managing partner, Julie Fink, was a client at Pfizer for years before she came here, and so she really understood this. We're very creative about success fees or contingency fees or flat fees in a way that I think is hard at big firms.DL: Hmm-mmm.RK: But suffice it to say that we're doing—knock wood, I'm knocking wood right now—we're doing okay, and we're pleased to be able to pay our associates and our staff the way we do. And money is not the paramount thing. No one comes to Kaplan Hecker thinking, “I want to earn as much as a hedge-fund person or an investment banker or a tech guy.” We do very well, and no one is in any financial distress. But maximizing dollar amounts per share, per partner, is not our number-one goal.DL: That makes perfect sense. I'm curious, since you mentioned contingency-fee arrangements—do you do a significant amount of plaintiff-side that work that helps generate unusually high revenue per lawyer, perhaps?RK: We've done some, we're certainly interested in doing more. We probably get, I don't know, I'd have to look at the numbers,.we get between six and a dozen people calling a week [with such cases]. We've probably turned down, I think the numbers have got to be 90, upwards of 95 percent of those. But the ones we take on tend to be profitable, so yes, that certainly helps the bottom line.DL: And then another thing I've heard about the firm is some of your public-interest work is also paid work, right? That it's not just entirely pro bono?RK: Yeah, some of it is funded. It's funded at a lower rate, so we have a public-interest rate we use that's about half our regular rate. We do a number of cases like that—a lot of the election work, cases that Joshua Matz does, are funded in that way.DL: Okay. So one last question before we go to my little lightning round of final questions. And again, maybe this is a delicate subject, but some people in the law firm world say you're a tough boss. Do you consider yourself a tough boss?RK: So let me tell you a story. Paul, Weiss had upward reviews. I don't remember when they started, but at some point when I was a partner, they started upward reviews. And my upward reviews—I'm not proud of this—but I would always have maybe one or two associates at a time that I didn't work so well with, and it always turned out that of the people who did the reviews, those would be the people who would turn in reviews. And so my upward reviews were not great. Then I did the Windsor case, and all of a sudden my upward reviews were stellar! I remember my wife saying to me, “Well, look, I don't understand.” Because I don't think I changed as a boss. I think what changed is the way people perceived me as a boss.DL: Hmm-mmm.RK: So, I don't know. Those were a long time ago, and I know I was under a lot of stress as a young partner at Paul, Weiss. But I don't think anyone today—you can ask them yourselves—has a problem with me as a boss. I certainly, and we all do, have high standards. We operate in very demanding situations, and our clients justifiably expect a lot from us. But I don't think anyone in the Charlottesville case or in E. Jean or in any of the paying matters for Airbnb or Uber would say I'm tough. If by tough you mean I have high standards, yes. But I'm also mentoring people and giving people opportunities to take depositions and to examine people at trial. We were the only firm in Charlottesville that had associates examining witnesses.DL: Wow. That's remarkable.RK: And that speaks for itself.DL: Totally, totally.So here are my standard final questions, which are standard for all my lawyer guests.My first is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as that abstract system that rules over us all.RK: I think what I like the least is the tendency of lawyers and judges at times to fail to see that behind all this case law and precedent and statutory language are real people, and that each case affects a real live person. And it's hard to keep those things balanced in your head, but good lawyers and good judges need to. And I sometimes find it very frustrating when people take things to such a level of abstraction that they fail to see the common humanity in what we do.DL: And I think that is one of your talents as a lawyer, just bringing out the humanity of your clients, whether it's Edie Windsor or Heather Heyer or E. Jean Carroll. I think your storytelling about these very real, flesh-and-blood people is something that just stands out about your practice,RK: Thank you, because I would like someone to say that about me, so I'm very pleased that you have. That's something we really care about a lot at Kaplan Hecker.DL: My second question is—and this'll be interesting because I know that from a young age, I think you have a line in your book about how at age 10 or 12, you were plotting out your legal career—what would you be if you were not a lawyer?RK: Believe it or not, because it's pretty timely, I thought seriously about becoming a Russian historian.DL: That was your undergrad major.RK: Yeah, I was a Russian history and lit major, and I spent—I think it was probably the single biggest influence on who I became—I spent the spring semester of my junior year in Moscow, in what was then the Soviet Union, but glasnost had been announced. So it was kind of the beginning of change, although change that didn't last very long. And I think that semester, I was fluent in Russian then, watching and living in what was then a totalitarian regime in, in a lot of ways—we were bugged and all kinds of things—just had a huge impact on the way I see the world. And maybe that made me a good lawyer, because I always expect the worst—which is a good thing as a lawyer in a lot of ways, because you want to be planning for and anticipating all contingencies.I ultimately realized that there are not a lot of happy years in Russian history, sadly continuing to today, and that if I became a Russian historian, it was going to be pretty depressing. But I originally went to law school just thinking, “Okay, this will be a way to figure out what else I want to do in my life.” And then I fell in love with it. I'd kind of forgotten about what I was thinking as a 10-year-old about getting paid to talk.Oh, and I flirted with the idea of going to the CIA.DL: Oh?RK: I started taking Russian because that was a big period of global crisis between the Soviet Union and the United States. My professor at Harvard was Richard Pipes, who came up with the phrase “the evil empire.” And I thought about it, but at that time, I don't think it would've been very easy for someone who was—I wasn't out as gay, but I certainly had concerns that I was gay and or lesbian, and I was smart enough to know that that probably wouldn't mix too well with going into either the NSA or CIA. So I didn't do it.DL: Mmm-hmm.RK: Probably the best for me in a whole lot of ways.DL: And certainly history has benefited from your choice to become a lawyer. So my third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?RK: Believe it or not, I'm probably at the high end of the people you've talked to, seven to eight hours a night. I've never been someone who's functioned well with very little sleep. I remember my freshman year in college, some of my friends and I decided as an experiment that we were going to stay up all night and then write some essay that was required for some writing class we had to take, taking a lot of NoDoz, like only freshmen in college would be stupid enough to do something like that. But suffice it to say, I had to ask for an extension of the due date for the essay.When I'm on trial, I sleep obviously a lot less, but even then I'll go to bed at midnight and wake up at four or five in the morning. I still need to sleep every night.DL: I'm glad to hear that. I always love talking to successful people who [get decent sleep]. And who are also working parents—you have a son. I think it's great when people can… Look, I know work-life balance may be sort of an illusion or maybe a little much to ask, but I'm glad to hear that you can get a decent amount of sleep.RK: I've had migraines ever since I was 12. I suffer from migraines, and if you sleep too little, it will bring on migraines. I remember once, when I was working for Chief Judge Kaye, I hadn't slept enough or I don't know what had happened, but she came into my office and I was curled up under my desk in the fetal position because I had a migraine. And I'll never forget, she thought I would die. She's like, “What is going on?” So since I suffer from something like that, I'm very careful about doing things that won't bring on a migraine, and lack of sleep—or even too much sleep, both sides—can cause migraines.DL: My final question: any words of wisdom for listeners who look at your life and career and say, I want to be Robbie Kaplan?RK: I'm not sure anyone should say that because we all have our own lives, and you shouldn't want my life any more than anyone should want anyone else's.But I would say one, stick to your guts. The single greatest lesson I've learned as a lawyer is to trust your own guts because they often tell you the right thing. There's a lot of distractions that you may listen to or follow instead of following your own inner voice, and that's really important, to hear your own inner voice.And two, and I alluded to this earlier, your ability to function as a lawyer is based on your integrity, and you should never, ever, no matter what the fee, what the pressure, what the circumstance—and again, we're seeing this today, unfortunately—never do anything for a client that in any way compromises your integrity. I learned that at Paul, Weiss. I learned it from my mentor at Paul, Weiss, Marty London, and a bunch of others. And it's the single most important thing you need to know as a lawyer.DL: Well said. Thank you so much, Robbie, for joining me. I am so grateful for your time and your insight, and I know my listeners will appreciate it as well.RK: It's a pleasure.DL: Thanks again to Robbie for joining me. She's had such a remarkable life and legal career, and it was wonderful to hear about her landmark wins and what she's working on today. If you haven't already read it, I highly recommend her memoir, Then Comes Marriage.As always, thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers, for tuning in. If you'd like to connect with me, you can email me at davidlat@substack.com, and you can find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe to Original Jurisdiction. Since this podcast is new, please help spread the word by telling your friends. And if you don't already, please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, as is most of the newsletter content, but it is made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode of the Original Jurisdiction podcast will appear two weeks from now, on Wednesday, November 16. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects.Thanks for reading Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to my paid subscribers for making this publication possible. Subscribers get (1) access to Judicial Notice, my time-saving weekly roundup of the most notable news in the legal world; (2) additional stories reserved for paid subscribers; and (3) the ability to comment on posts. You can email me at davidlat@substack.com with questions or comments, and you can share this post or subscribe using the buttons below. 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

Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Roberta Kaplan, who along with co-counsel Karen Dunn brought a successful civil suit against twenty-four neo-Nazi and white supremacist leaders responsible for organizing the racial- and religious-based violence in Charlottesville in August 2017. They discuss how the KKK Act of 1871 applied to discord channels and now January 6th defendants. And they explore the complicated relationship women find themselves in with the law in this moment, as defenders of rights but also as constitutional afterthoughts. Dahlia Lithwick's new book is Lady Justice: Women, the Law and the Battle to Save America. If you enjoy this show, please consider signing up for Slate Plus. Slate Plus members get an ad-free experience across the network and exclusive content on many shows—you'll also be supporting the work we do here on Amicus. Sign up now at slate.com/amicusplus to help support our work. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Roberta Kaplan, who along with co-counsel Karen Dunn brought a successful civil suit against twenty-four neo-Nazi and white supremacist leaders responsible for organizing the racial- and religious-based violence in Charlottesville in August 2017. They discuss how the KKK Act of 1871 applied to discord channels and now January 6th defendants. And they explore the complicated relationship women find themselves in with the law in this moment, as defenders of rights but also as constitutional afterthoughts. Dahlia Lithwick's new book is Lady Justice: Women, the Law and the Battle to Save America. If you enjoy this show, please consider signing up for Slate Plus. Slate Plus members get an ad-free experience across the network and exclusive content on many shows—you'll also be supporting the work we do here on Amicus. Sign up now at slate.com/amicusplus to help support our work. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Roberta Kaplan, who along with co-counsel Karen Dunn brought a successful civil suit against twenty-four neo-Nazi and white supremacist leaders responsible for organizing the racial- and religious-based violence in Charlottesville in August 2017. They discuss how the KKK Act of 1871 applied to discord channels and now January 6th defendants. And they explore the complicated relationship women find themselves in with the law in this moment, as defenders of rights but also as constitutional afterthoughts. Dahlia Lithwick's new book is Lady Justice: Women, the Law and the Battle to Save America. If you enjoy this show, please consider signing up for Slate Plus. Slate Plus members get an ad-free experience across the network and exclusive content on many shows—you'll also be supporting the work we do here on Amicus. Sign up now at slate.com/amicusplus to help support our work. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Roberta Kaplan, who along with co-counsel Karen Dunn brought a successful civil suit against twenty-four neo-Nazi and white supremacist leaders responsible for organizing the racial- and religious-based violence in Charlottesville in August 2017. They discuss how the KKK Act of 1871 applied to discord channels and now January 6th defendants. And they explore the complicated relationship women find themselves in with the law in this moment, as defenders of rights but also as constitutional afterthoughts. Dahlia Lithwick's new book is Lady Justice: Women, the Law and the Battle to Save America. If you enjoy this show, please consider signing up for Slate Plus. Slate Plus members get an ad-free experience across the network and exclusive content on many shows—you'll also be supporting the work we do here on Amicus. Sign up now at slate.com/amicusplus to help support our work. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In a Special Edition of LegalAF x MeidasTouch, the top-rated law and politics podcast, anchors Michael Popok and Karen Friedman Agnifilo are joined by special guest, Constitutional and Civil Rights Litigator, Roberta Kaplan, Esq., to analyze the disclosure this week that the Supreme Court voted in February to end a woman's constitutional Right to Choose and overturn Roe v. Wade along with 50 years of legal precedent. We cover: 1. The leaked draft majority opinion draft by Justice Alito, and how it came to be. 2. Whether there is a chance that the draft opinion and individual Justice voting will change before the final decision is rendered. 3. If Alito's draft is close to final, what happens next in State Houses and in Congress 4. Whether right-wing States can make criminals out of its residents who travel to Pro-Choice States for abortions. 5. Whether the Supreme Court has abdicated its duty to protect individual liberty and constitutional rights. (that's rhetorical) Join the Legal AF Twitter Community: https://twitter.com/i/communities/151... Remember to subscribe to ALL the Meidas Media Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://pod.link/1510240831 Legal AF: https://pod.link/1580828595 The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://pod.link/1595408601 The Influence Continuum: https://pod.link/1603773245 Kremlin File: https://pod.link/1575837599 Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://pod.link/1530639447 Zoomed In: https://pod.link/1580828633 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Defeating Nazis in Court: Inside the Charlottesville TrialRoberta Kaplan and Karen Dunn, Attornies, Integrity First for AmericaAmy Spitalnick, Executive Director of Integrity First for AmericaModerator: Henry Weinstein, Professor, UC Irvine School of Law

As part of the University's 2022 Community MLK Commemoration, a panel explores the successful civil lawsuit against organizers, promoters and participants in the 2017 Unite the Right rally. The panelists are plaintiffs Marissa K. Blair, Elizabeth Sines '19 and Devin Willis; co-lead plaintiffs' attorneys Roberta Kaplan and Karen L. Dunn; and Deborah Lipstadt, an Emory University history professor who gave expert testimony on antisemitism at the trial. Professor Kim Forde-Mazrui, director of the Center for the Study of Race and Law, moderated the panel. This event also included the presentation of the Gregory H. Swanson Award, named in honor of UVA and the Law School's first Black student, by Dean Risa Goluboff. (University of Virginia School of Law, Jan. 25, 2022)

Tonight's guests are Roberta Kaplan and Karen Dunn, co-lead counsels for plaintiffs in the Charlottesville trial; and Hillary Clinton, former senator, former secretary of state, and now novelist.

Corporate Quiz. How well do you know the corporations that own your world? David administers a shockingly difficult quiz. Let us know how many answers you got right! Other Topics Include: Emily Von Edmondson vies for the title as our #1 Fan!, Rolling Stone Interviews, De La Soul, Minnie Riperton, #TimesUp, Joe Biden, Cuomo, Roberta Kaplan, Children of the Corn, Twitter, Walmart, Larry The Bird, Ikea, Coke, Taco Bell, Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, Cars and Cereal, Amazon, IMDB, Audible, Candy Crush, Bill Gates, Marlboro Man, iPhone, Rubik's Cube, Lung Cancer, Coca-Cola, Disney World, Mickey Mouse, Vaseline, U.S. currency, gambling, and Lesbians, but nothing about how Republicans & Democrats are ruining our country, just the corporations. So sit back, relax, and enjoy the most downloaded podcast in the world! The Unimaginary Friendcast! The Unimaginary Friendcast is hosted by David Monster, Erin Marie Bette Davis Jr. and Nathan Von Edmondson. https://unimaginaryfriend.com/podcast/ And find us on Facebook!

California Governor Gavin Newsom is facing a recall election, which could result in getting replaced by a right-wing candidate even if he defeats them by a landslide in vote totals. We spoke with Dan Pfeiffer, a co-host of Pod Save America, about the state of the election, and what voters in California need to know.  The fallout from the shameful last act of former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has extended to Time's Up, the organization founded by some of Hollywood's most powerful women with the aim of supporting victims of sexual harassment and assault. Now, former members of Time's Up and some sexual abuse victims are criticizing the org, saying that it has strayed away from its mission and failed the women they were supposed to help. And in headlines: two House members take a secret trip to Kabul, OnlyFans reverses its stance on sexually explicit content, and Tony Hawk wants us to buy his blood. Show Notes: Since our recording Wednesday night, The Washington Post reports that Time's Up's Tina Tchen and Roberta Kaplan had an even greater role in coordinating with Cuomo's team as far back as December – https://wapo.st/3zou4uI Dan Pfeiffer's The Message Box: “Why Dems Have to Win the CA Recall” – https://bit.ly/3ygF780 U.S. Department of Treasury: “Emergency Rental Assistance Program” – https://bit.ly/3zn8Ddt For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Jess, Teen, and Chris discuss the aftermath of Roberta Kaplan's resignation from Time's Up (for her pro-Cuomo work) and how the whole #MeToo/#TimesUp movement has come to resemble some twisted melding of a religion and a mafia-like protection racket. TWITTER: Jess (@cogitatotomato) Chris (@JesuInToast) Teen (@mont_jiang) REFERENCED RESOURCES: Who Actually Gets To Create Black Pop Culture? by Bertrand Cooper | Current Affairs: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2021/07/who-actually-gets-to-create-black-pop-culture The Women's Movement by Joan Didion | NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/1972/07/30/archives/the-womens-movement-women.html The 9.9% Is The New Aristocracy by Matthew Stewart | The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/ SUBMISSIONS & COMMENTS: editor.planamag@gmail.com EFPA Opening Theme: "Fuck Out My Face" by Ayekay (open.spotify.com/artist/16zQKaDN5XgHAhfOJHTigJ)

Governor Andrew Cuomo resigns. Roberta Kaplan, who aided Cuomo, resigns from the Time's Up organization. After months of negotiation, the Senate voted 69-30 to pass the $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure plan. Florida's governor says school leaders' salary may be withheld if they require masks. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Topics: America's number one cop killer is now Covid; Governor Cuomo clings to power and then sexually assaults it; Time's Up for Roberta Kaplan who runs Time's Up; Obama's 60th was a giant FU to the people who voted for him; Florida's Gov. DeSantis polls very well among Covid variants ; Hungary's Victor Orbán and Tucker Carlson Guests With Time Stamps: (6:09) David does The News (10:15) Compassion for the unvaccinated: Dr. Harriet Fraad, "Capitalism Hits Home" (38:38) Andrew Cuomo frightened little man? Or just a supreme a-hole. Dave Sirus, who just got an Emmy nod for his work on SNL (1:04:16) The FBI dropped the ball with Kavanaugh. Peter B. Collins (1:33:43) What was Tucker Carlson doing in Hungary? Professor Adnan Husain (2:02:23) UN Climate Panel concludes the next 30 years will get a lot worse. Professor Mary Anne Cummings (2:20:10) Professor Ann Li and Professor Jonathan Bick (2:48:12) Professor Mike Steinel (3:14:49) Texas Thom Webber (3:39:40) Henry Hakamaki and Professor Adnan Husain talk with Dr. Adam D. K. King, Post-Doctoral Visitor in the Department of Politics at York University in Toronto, Canada. on Right-wing populism, organized labor, and white workers.

Nick Reed talks about a variety of topics in the news, including:  The Republic School District announced that masks will be required during the upcoming school year. Parents will be meeting at the next school board meeting to discuss this issue. The meeting will be held Thursday, August 19th, at 7 p.m. The meeting will take place in the Board Training Room - 518 N. Hampton. Meanwhile, Nixa also announced their back to school plan. The Nixa School Board is saying no to a mask mandate for the school district. Owners of Subway franchises are asking the company's bosses to pull adverts featuring soccer star Megan Rapinoe, because customers are complaining about her political activism. TIME'S UP co-founder Roberta Kaplan has resigned after an investigation into Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo found her implicated in helping discredit Cuomo's accusers.

Four years after the deadly attack on the Charlottesville community, a federal lawsuit led by Integrity First for America is proceeding against the white supremacists in court. IFA Executive Director Amy Spitalnick, lead attorneys Karen Dunn and Roberta Kaplan, and Dean Risa Goluboff discuss the suit, Sines v. Kessler, and the process of holding extremists accountable. UVA Batten School Dean Ian Solomon and UVA Law professor Micah Schwartzman '05 also offer remarks. This event was sponsored by UVA Law's Karsh Center for Law and Democracy, The Miller Center, and the Jewish Studies Program in the College of Arts and Sciences at UVA. (University of Virginia School of Law, July 22, 2021)

In August of 2017 in Charlottesville, Virginia, the “Unite the Right” rally took place, bringing together large groups of white supremacists – from neo-nazis to Klansman. A group called Integrity First for America was born to make justice and fight white supremacy at court.Amy Spitalnick, Executive Director of Integrity First, and famed attorney Roberta Kaplan are here to tell us how they are financially crippling the racist movements in court.

In August of 2017 in Charlottesville, Virginia, the “Unite the Right” rally took place, bringing together large groups of white supremacists - from neo-nazis to Klansman. A group called Integrity First for America was born to make justice and fight white supremacy at court. Amy Spitalnick, Executive Director of Integrity First, and famed attorney Roberta Kaplan are here to tell us how they are financialy crippling the racist movements in court. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A month following the January 6 insurrection we reflect on the sadly inevitable events and how we got here. On this episode of extremely, Oren Segal spoke to Amy Spitalnick, Executive Director of Integrity First for America, about the importance of holding extremists accountable for their actions.Oren and Amy explore: How do extremist groups use try to avoid liability? How did Amy learn how to sue Nazis from Roberta Kaplan? This and more on episode 10 of extremely.More on Amy's work here: https://www.integrityfirstforamerica.org/about-usStay engaged and follow along for more on Twitter at @OrenSegal @ADL and @PERIL_AU

00:00 Scott Adams on NPD, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wxfgru6D3UE 07:00 The map is not the territory 50:00 The Wasteland, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoEHySQ9Gmo 1:05:00 Colin Liddell joins to discuss Scott Adams, https://affirmativeright.blogspot.com/ 1:08:00 Bloggers/Vloggers chasing applause, https://trad-news.blogspot.com/ 1:10:00 Luke batters his audience 1:18:00 Greg Johnson of Counter Currents 1:26:00 Richard Spencer 1:28:30 Matt Heimbach, Matt Parrott 1:35:00 The slow-motion car crash of the Alt Right 1:43:00 What happened to the laughs on the AR? 1:44:30 The National Justice Party 1:45:20 Patriotic Alternative 2:04:00 We Had the Vaccine from the Start—You Just Weren't Allowed to Take It, https://fee.org/articles/we-had-the-vaccine-from-the-start-you-just-werent-allowed-to-take-it/ 2:35:00 Luke's journey to the psychiatrist, https://www.lukeford.net/luke_ford/bio/l17.htm 2:50:00 From Heavenly Sanctuary To Earthly Synagogue, https://www.andrews.edu/library/car/cardigital/Periodicals/Spectrum/1992-1993_Vol_22/5_January_1993.pdf#page=61 3:03:30 The Frum Reporter 3:04:30 Eric Striker on based Hispanics, https://www.bitchute.com/video/PRyxvB8mhwbA/ (1:44:00) 3:14:00 EMJ on confederate statutes coming down, Roberta Kaplan, lesbian lefty lawyer, https://www.bitchute.com/video/PvATmbCpga09/ (20:00) 3:20:40 NICK FUENTES ATTACKS STIMULUS PACKAGE AND RINO TRAITORS, https://www.bitchute.com/video/07RLQ0hxon4q/ 3:24:00 The Simplest Way To Spot Narcissistic Personality Disorder, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqV_QIvDeqA 3:27:10 The Truth About Technocrats, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ktvcz2Mq84A 3:32:00 Real Narcissists - Dangerous Narcissism, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FA14x5_7Ec 3:39:00 Dr. Fauci's Admission is SCANDALOUS - Lawyer Explains, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbfiqxDgOZ0 https://dlive.tv/lukefordlivestreams Listener Call In #: 1-310-997-4596 Superchat: https://entropystream.live/app/lukefordlive Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/lukeford/ Soundcloud MP3s: https://soundcloud.com/luke-ford-666431593 Code of Conduct: https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=125692 https://www.patreon.com/lukeford http://lukeford.net Email me: lukeisback@gmail.com or DM me on Twitter.com/lukeford Support the show | https://www.streamlabs.com/lukeford, https://patreon.com/lukeford, https://PayPal.Me/lukeisback Facebook: http://facebook.com/lukecford Feel free to clip my videos. It's nice when you link back to the original.

IMRU SHOW 200706: PRIDE OUT LOUD - Episode 4 What Comes Next = Prop 8 Repeal Rally + Roberta Kaplan (Edie Winsor's attorney) + SCOTUS News + Barney Frank (former Congressman) + Michelangelo Signorile (ACT-UP) + Cleeve Jones. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/imruradio/message

It was wise of Chris not to get his hopes up. As expected, the magistrate in his case has opted not to grant bail, citing Chris's knowledge of encryption technology and use of crypto-currency as reasons to detain him -- even after his defense proposed a supervised release with little or no internet access. It's interesting that Chris would never have had to depend on crypto-currency or encrypted communication apps to begin with if not for having been deplatformed from both the banking system and social media, but I suppose that's not relevant to the calculus in this case. I'm starting to get the feeling things are at least as politicized here as they were in the prosecution of Roger Stone. Speaking of politicizing the criminal justice system, Roberta Kaplan has volunteered a pretty stunning confession: it's apparently her objective to create lone wolf mass shooters through lawfare. She even goes as far as to take responsibility for the increased number of such shooters. Her words; not mine. To kick things off, we're going to be discussing the FBI's recent arrest of five Atomwaffen members who allegedly pasted fliers containing death threats on the homes of journalists. Though it isn't reported in the media, at least one of these men has ties to Bowl Patrol and Heel Turn. I've got the latest! This is EPISODE 378 of So to Speak w/ Jared Howe!  

This month, we talk to famed attorney Roberta Kaplan and Integrity First for America executive director Amy Spitalnick about arguing in front of the Supreme Court and fighting white supremacy movements in the wake of Charlottesville. Plus, a recap of our recent Civil Rights mission to the American South and doing Jewish journalism as a non-Jew.Learn more about Integrity First For America here: integrityfirstforamerica.org

This month, we talk to famed attorney Roberta Kaplan and Integrity First for America executive director Amy Spitalnick about arguing in front of the Supreme Court and fighting white supremacy movements in the wake of Charlottesville. Plus, a recap of our recent Civil Rights mission to the American South and doing Jewish journalism as a non-Jew.Learn more about Integrity First For America here: integrityfirstforamerica.org

Led by Columbia Professor and founding partner of Kaplan, Hecker & Fink, Roberta Kaplan, and Eric Ward, Executive Director of the Western States Center.Roberta Kaplan is leading the legal fight against the hate groups behind the violent alt-right confrontations in Charlottesville, partnering with nonprofit Integrity First for America on its landmark suit; Eric Ward is a national expert in the relationship between anti-Semitism and white supremacy. Together they joined in conversation about their work and the challenges they face in their fight against bigotry at Central Synagogue on December 3, 2019

Amy Spitalnick is the Executive Director of Integrity First for America. Along with her colleagues, the noted lawyers Roberta Kaplan and Karen Dunn, she has been spearheading another lawsuit against some of the same militia groups who invaded Charlottesville, but this time it’s for monetary damages on behalf of plaintiffs who were badly injured and it's based on a set of laws that were passed to deal with the KU Klux Klan’s reign of terror. The interview explores a groundbreaking attempt to use the rule of law to stop extremism in its tracks and to force these violent forces to be held to account for their acts in a public court of law.

This episode, Daniel tells Jack about Andrew Anglin and The Daily Stormer.  Big content warnings for this one. Cantwell News: "As co-defendants fight discovery, Cantwell threatens lawyer," The Daily Progress. https://www.dailyprogress.com/news/local/as-co-defendants-fight-discovery-cantwell-threatens-lawyer/article_619851ce-8ad9-599b-88fa-6f289e90d400.html "On June 18 Cantwell posted an article about Roberta Kaplan, the lead lawyer on the case, to the messaging site Telegram, which is frequented by extremists. “After this stupid kike whore loses this fraudulent lawsuit, we’re going to have a lot of fucking fun with her,” Cantwell wrote. The threat was mentioned during a telephonic hearing Tuesday in federal court in Charlottesville, where lawyers discussed the snail’s pace of the discovery process in the lawsuit that alleges organizers and key participants in the Aug. 12, 2017, white supremacist rally planned and promoted violence against protected groups. Cantwell has posted derogatory statements about Kaplan before, the plaintiffs’ lawyers wrote in a motion filed Tuesday, but his recent statement is a “thinly-veiled threat” that impairs the lawyers’ ability to carry out their work. The lawyers asked the court to enjoin Cantwell to refrain from any future threats. Cantwell already has been found guilty of assaulting and pepper-spraying activists on Aug. 11, 2017, and of violating conditions of his bond. He remains a defendant in another civil suit filed by people injured during the Unite the Right rally. On Tuesday afternoon, shortly after news stories about the motion were published, Cantwell posted about Kaplan again on Telegram, calling Kaplan a “lying piece of Jewish filth."   Show Notes: The Daily Stormer: https://dailystormer.name The Daily Stormer Style Guide: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/daily-stormer-nazi-style-guide_n_5a2ece19e4b0ce3b344492f2 "We are writing for the common man, so the language should be very simple, using a standard 8th grade vocabulary. The use of "college words" is extremely discouraged. The only situation in which an uncommon word should be used in when it is unavoidable, such as when it is needed to describe something technical, or a situation or phenomenon that is so specific that it requires a unique description." [...] "As a rule, every post should be filled with as much visual stimulation as possible. Pages should look exciting and appeal to the ADHD culture. This can't really be overdone. These include: •Straight images (pictures of persons, places, events) •Meme images (that you make yourself or find on other sites - fresh memes are best but old memes are good too) •Funny gifs •Twitter embeds •YouTube videos (or other video from other sites if necessary, following the above mentioned embed protocol)." [...] "Profanity should be used sparingly. An overuse of profanity can come across as goofy. "Nigger" is okay to use sometimes, but shouldn't be used constantly. The following racial slurs are allowed and advisable: •Negro/Negroid •Monkey •Ape •Spic •Wetback •Beaner •Beanperson •Kike •Yid •Sheeny •Christ-killer •Haji •Sandperson •Paki (can be used for non-Pakistani Moslems, especially Arabs, because that's funny) •Muzzie •Chink •Gook •Zipperhead And others The following are not allowed: •Shitskin •Latrino •(Any others relating to poop) •Mud (I just don't really like this term, it seems too much like SF boomer talk) While racial slurs are allowed/recommended, not every reference to non-white should not be a slur and their use should be based on the tone of the article. Generally, when using racial slurs, it should come across as half-joking - like a racist joke that everyone laughs at because it's true. This follows the generally light tone of the site." [...] "Prime Directive: Always Blame the Jews for Everything As Hitler says, people will become confused and disheartened if they feel there are multiple enemies. As such, all enemies should be combined into one enemy, which is the Jews. This is pretty much objectively true anyway, but we want to leave out any and all nuance. So no blaming Enlightenment thought, pathological altruism, technology/urbanization, etc. - just blame Jews for everything. This basically includes blaming Jews for the behavior of other nonwhites. Of course it should not be that they are innocent, but the message should always be that if we didn't have the Jews, we could figure out how to deal with nonwhites very easily. The same deal with women. Women should be attacked, but there should always be mention that if it wasn't for the Jews, they would be acting normally. What should be completely avoided is the sometimes mentioned idea that "even if we got rid of the Jews we would still have all these other problems." The Jews should always be the beginning and the end of every problem, from poverty to poor family dynamics to war to the destruction of the rainforest." [...] "Violence It's illegal to promote violence on the Internet. At the same time, it's totally important to normalize the acceptance of violence as an eventuality/inevitability. I'm extremely careful about never suggesting violence. I go beyond legal requirements in America. However, whenever someone does something violent, it should be made light of, laughed at. For example, Anders Breivik should be forever referred to as a heroic freedom fighter. This is great because people think you must be joking. But there is a part of their brain that doesn't think that. When it comes to more immediate violent trends, I'm slightly more careful. The burnings of migrant centers is one of these things. I'm slightly hesitant to say "patriotic heroes burn another might center," given that this could be construed as calling for more arson (whereas it can't be construed that I'm calling for Breivik to kill more brats). Dylann Roof I have labeled "DyRo," and though I offer explanations for what he did, I never condemn him. I also think it is very funny to say that he was simply defending himself when he was attacked in a church by black mamies trying to steal his iPhone. That sort of silly humor really bites at the Jew "pure evil" narrative." "Meet The Stormer: Here Are The People Who Keep The World’s Most Popular White Power Website Afloat" https://angrywhitemen.org/2018/08/15/meet-the-stormer-here-are-the-people-who-keep-the-worlds-most-popular-white-power-website-afloat/ Anglin at the SPLC: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/andrew-anglin Classic Anglin: "War Machine Did Nothing Wrong." https://dailystormer.name/war-machine-did-nothing-wrong/ "I don’t usually defend deranged brown savages. But I’m going to right now. UFC fighter War Machine has been sentenced to life in prison for assault and battery, which is insane in itself. This is a situation where one person beat another person’s ass. Pretty badly, okay. But that was all it was – an ass beating. There was no attempted murder. Somehow there are 29 felony convictions, and I don’t even understand what that means – this was a single incident of someone getting their ass kicked. But on top of the nuttiness of “giving someone an ass beating” resulting in life imprisonment – the bitch deserved it, and no one anywhere can make an argument that she didn’t.... "Like, he had this meme about how anyone should be able to murder anyone at any time if they were capable of it. It was his main point. He talked about “in this day and age there is laws protecting the weak” – that is a quote. That he said a lot. Like he wanted literal Conanism. He took the philosophical position that anyone should be able to murder anyone at any time. He also did things like call for the assassination of Barack Obama and said that men in modern feminist societies are treated worse than Jews during the Holocaust. He has also said many other things that some people might consider to be awesome." "Corrective Rape Will Save Us." https://dailystormer.name/corrective-rape-will-save-us/ "There was a time where good, average men had access to women and created their own families without having to play these games. Giving women agency as if they were something other than property was a grave mistake that needs correcting. They don’t know what’s best for them and they’re incapable of appreciating the sacrifice men make for them to be safe and comfortable. Rape is the solution. Think about it. This slut was surrounded by like 30 men that wanted to have sex with her. Those men were subjected to stupid hoops and games and ended up gaining nothing and wasting a lot of time. It would have been easier for them to rape her, be done with it and move on towards productive stuff." "ISIS Claims Responsibility for Arianapocalypse As Police Searches Continue Across UK." https://dailystormer.name/isis-claims-responsibility-for-arianapocalypse-as-police-searches-continue-across-uk/ "I know it is the culture, and people just go along with the culture, but if you’re sending your 8-year-old daughter to see this: Then you do, by divine natural law, deserve to suffer for it in the most horrible imaginable way. I hope her parents didn’t die with her. And I hope they are someday able to understand why they deserved this. There are laws in the universe. And when they are transgressed, these transgressions have consequences. Sadly – and I mean that genuinely, it is sad – it doesn’t matter if you know you are breaking these laws or not. Rules still apply." "Andrew Anglin Exposed!" "I started out with normal Alex Jones type conspiracy material, and then moved on to weirder conspiracy material, and then eventually decided Ted Kaczinski was right with regards to a coming apocalypse due to the rapidity of technological development, read a bunch of stuff from Jaques Ellul and Jean Baudrillard, and went to live in a jungle in Asia for a while. To be clear, I was actually already living and working in Asia at the time, because it was just so much more sensible economically. Also, it is a lot of fun in Southeast Asia (China isn’t), and all the White people you meet are outcast sorts who you can usually connect with easily (you aren’t really spending much time with Asians). As the reader is aware, to this day I have little negative to say about Asians, save that I don’t think they should be immigrating into Western countries (in any kind of numbers) and I don’t think White people should be producing children with them. I will also say that Chinese people don’t have souls. Having been raised mostly without exposure to non-Whites, this was when I first started thinking seriously about race as a biological concept. Eventually, I got fed up and realized that I couldn’t live in a jungle with a bunch of 80 IQ jungle people. I had always been into 4chan, as I am at heart a troll. This is about the time /new/ was going full-Nazi, and so I got into Hitler, and realized that through this type of nationalist system, alienation could be replaced with community in a real sense, while the authoritarianism would allow for technology to develop in a direction that was beneficial rather than destructive to the people. Then, without really any knowledge at all of the contemporary White Nationalist scene, I started Total Fascism, a blog promoting total fascism." "The Alt-Right's Asian Fetish, Audrea Lim, The New York Times." https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/06/opinion/sunday/alt-right-asian-fetish.html "Andrew Anglin Does the Philippines -- Jailbait Style." https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=53b_1426403408 Columbus Alive, "White Nationalist From Worthington." https://www.columbusalive.com/entertainment/20170208/white-nationalist-from-worthington "In 2007, two freshman-year friends had strikingly similar run-ins with Anglin. On both occasions, Anglin expressed a deep interest in conspiracy theory and, in particular, reptilian humanoids, a concept that posits global leaders either are, or are controlled by, lizard-like beings. These theories would form the backbone of Anglin’s first forays into blogging on his site Adventure Quest 2012, which launched with a post laying forth the site’s mission to mend “the wounds produced by modern society ... and [help] the reader transcend these physical bonds and reach total ascendancy.” “To mend these wounds,” Anglin wrote, “the world must learn to embrace diversity and color.” Later posts would delve into the lives of reptilians and humanoid sharks. [...] "Writing on his blog True Fascism, a precursor to the Daily Stormer first launched in 2012, Anglin described an affinity for Filipinos, referring to them as “a civilized, non-aggressive and industrious people.” Over time, however, he started to believe it impossible to develop deeper, more meaningful relationships with the island dwellers, owing to what he described as “minds ... as primitive as their living.” “While living in the jungle, I began drinking too much of a strong coconut wine brewed by the locals, began to feel deeply depressed and alone, and eventually left that life behind, forever,” he wrote. “It was only among my own kind — those of the European race — that I would ever be able to share true kinship, as it is only they who share my blood, and can understand my soul. ... By the Grace of God, I found Adolf Hitler.” After delving deeper into the writings of Hitler and former Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, Anglin launched the short-lived Total Fascism, which included long-form posts about everything from Hitler’s artwork to a written desire to round up non-white immigrants and place them in concentration camps “until they can be shipped back to wherever they are from.” " The Atlantic, Luke O'Brien, "The Making of an American Nazi." https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/12/the-making-of-an-american-nazi/544119/ "Former friends recall that Anglin’s parents seemed blind to their son’s alarming behavior. And while he could be tender toward his younger siblings, Chelsey and Mitch, and loyal to his friends, he also had a sadistic side. Alison (who asked that her last name be withheld from this article) told me that during Anglin’s sophomore year, she called him, distraught: She said she’d passed out at a party and been raped by a friend’s older brother. She needed compassion and support, but Anglin just laughed and broke up with her. “You’re a slut,” she remembers him saying. Several girls Anglin had gotten to know at another high school began calling her house at all hours of the night, according to Alison and other sources. “You deserved it,” they’d say. “You slut.” Alison says the abuse went on for weeks, as Anglin showed friends a video he’d made of them having sex. After the breakup, Dan Newman, another friend at the time, remembers Anglin once bashing his head into the walls of his bedroom in such a frenzy that his mother had to call the police. Several classmates told me that Anglin didn’t date again in high school and sometimes tried to kiss other boys, including one black student he especially liked. Whether this behavior was authentic experimentation or just for shock value, it’s notable in light of the extreme homophobia Anglin has since expressed on The Daily Stormer and elsewhere. He has advocated, for instance, throwing gays off buildings, isis-style." Lawsuits From the Atlantic piece: "At the time, Richard Spencer and Andrew Anglin barely knew each other. Spencer, who fancies himself white nationalism’s leading intellectual, cloaks his racism in highbrow arguments. Anglin prefers the gutter, reveling in the vile language common on the worst internet message boards. But Spencer and Anglin had appeared together on a podcast the day before Sherry’s Medium post was published and expressed their mutual admiration. Anglin declared it a “historic” occasion, a step toward greater unity on the extreme right. It was in this spirit that Anglin “doxed” Gersh and her husband, Judah, as well as other Jews in Whitefish, by publishing their contact information and other personal details on his website. He plastered their photographs with yellow stars emblazoned with jude and posted a picture of the Gershes’ 12-year-old son superimposed on the gates at Auschwitz. He commanded his readers—his “Stormer Troll Army”—to “hit ’em up.” “All of you deserve a bullet through your skull,” one Stormer said in an email. “Put your uppity slut wife Tanya back in her cage, you rat-faced kike,” another wrote to Judah. “You fucking wicked kike whore,” Andrew Auernheimer, The Daily Stormer’s webmaster, said in a voicemail for Gersh. “This is Trump’s America now.” Over the next week, the Stormers besieged Whitefish businesses, human-rights groups, city-council members—anyone potentially connected to the targets. A single harasser called Judah’s office more than 500 times in three days, according to the Whitefish police. Gersh came home one night to find her husband sitting at home in the dark, suitcases on the floor, wondering whether they should flee. “I have never been so scared in my entire life,” she later told me." Between Two Lampshades: "Enoch, Spencer, and Anglin." https://therightstuff.biz/2016/12/14/between-two-lampshades-enoch-spencer-and-anglin/ Luke O'Brien, Huffpost, "Andrew Anglin’s Lawyer Visited The Elusive Nazi’s Hometown And Madness Ensued" https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nazi-andrew-anglin-lawyer-mark-randazza_n_5a6a3622e4b0ddb658c4a36b Missoulian, "Anglin forfeits defense in MT neo-Nazi 'troll storm' case; his attorneys withdraw" https://missoulian.com/news/local/anglin-forfeits-defense-in-mt-neo-nazi-troll-storm-case/article_ea7bc4d3-3ae9-5866-b6ce-4ef6fba9a7ce.html "Anglin attorneys Marc Randazza and Mathew Stevenson filed a motion Tuesday to withdraw from the case. In their motion, Randazza said the attorney-client relationship "has broken down" and created an "irreconcilable conflict" for the defense. In a phone interview with the Missoulian, Randazza said he had little interest in continuing his representation of someone unwilling to follow a federal judge's order. "My client made the decision years ago he was going to expatriate himself and never return," Randazza said. "When a federal judge tells you to do something and you refuse, you put your lawyer in a difficult position." Randazza's filing to withdraw as counsel indicates the motion was sent to his client at an email address as well as four different physical addresses in Ohio." "Heather Heyer: Woman Killed in Road Rage Incident was a Fat, Childless 32-Year-Old Slut" https://dailystormer.name/heather-heyer-woman-killed-in-road-rage-incident-was-a-fat-childless-32-year-old-slut/ "Why We Terminated Daily Stormer," The Cloudflare Blog. https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/ "Our terms of service reserve the right for us to terminate users of our network at our sole discretion. The tipping point for us making this decision was that the team behind Daily Stormer made the claim that we were secretly supporters of their ideology. Our team has been thorough and have had thoughtful discussions for years about what the right policy was on censoring. Like a lot of people, we’ve felt angry at these hateful people for a long time but we have followed the law and remained content neutral as a network. We could not remain neutral after these claims of secret support by Cloudflare." Wired, "Why Cloudflare Let and Extremist Stronghold Burn." https://www.wired.com/story/free-speech-issue-cloudflare/ From the Atlantic piece, the results of The Optics Debate: "His panic was almost palpable as he tried to walk back the fearsome reputation he’d cultivated. “I am not actually a ‘Neo‑Nazi White Supremacist,’ nor do I know what that is,” he wrote in mid-September. He claimed that his violent rhetoric was never sincere but simply a way to mock those who slap a Nazi label on anyone who “stands up for white people’s rights” or “refuses to believe the stupid lies about Hitler” or rejects the “alleged Holocaust” narrative. Anglin now shared what he said had been his true editorial approach all along: “Ironic Nazism disguised as real Nazism disguised as ironic Nazism.” Five days later, he posted about “the world being ruled either by reptiles from another dimension or some other type of reptilian or insectoid race of aliens.” Where the irony started and stopped was hard to know. I emailed Anglin one more time asking for an interview. He didn’t answer. The next day, he wrote a post calling for the mass execution of journalists. “I want to see pieces of journalist brains splattered across walls,” he wrote."

This week, Kim and Alice dive into some new books and backlist reads to read during Pride Month (although, of course, they’re also great any time!). This week’s episode is sponsored by Book Riot’s Annotated, an audio documentary podcast series about books, language, and reading. Give it a listen! NEW BOOKS Alone Time by Stephanie Rosenbloom Troublesome Science by Rob DeSalle and Ian Tattersall The Ambition Decisions by Hana Schank and Elizabeth Wallace 90s Bitch by Allison Yarrow Squeezed by Alissa Quart PRIDE MONTH! Dear John, I Love Jane by Candace Walsh Does Jesus Really Love Me? by Jeff Chu Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality by Jack Rogers Surpassing the Love of Men by Lillian Faderman Tomorrow Will be Different by Sarah McBride Then Comes Marriage by Roberta Kaplan with Lisa Dickey The Fact of a Body by Alexandria Marzano-Lesnevich READING NOW Black Dahlia, Red Rose by Piu Eatwell Text Me When You Get Home by Kayleen Schaefer OTHER TITLES Momo by Michael Ende

“To A More Perfect Union: U.S. V. Windsor” shares a rich tapestry of love, marriage, and a fight for equality. The film chronicles unlikely heroes — octogenarian Edie Windsor and her attorney, Roberta Kaplan, on their quest for justice. Upon the death of her spouse Thea Spyer, Windsor was forced to pay a huge estate tax bill because the government denied federal benefits to same-sex couples. Windsor became a renowned LGBTQ civil rights advocate when she chose to sue the United States government to recognize her more than 40 year union– and won Windsor and Kaplan’s legal and personal journeys go beyond the story of this pivotal case in the marriage equality movement as Zaccaro tells the story of our journey as a culture, and as a country that promises its citizens equal rights for all. The film features interviews with notable voices in this civil rights battle, including: Roberta Kaplan (Windsor Attorney), Pam Karlan (Windsor Legal Team & Co-Director, Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic), Rosie O’Donnell (Comedian, Actor & Activist), Frank Rich (Writer-At-Large, NY Magazine), Hilary Rosen (Communications Advisor & LGBT Activist), Richard Socarides (White House Special Assistant & Advisor to President Clinton), Matt Staver (Founder & Chairman of Liberty Counsel), Jeff Toobin (CNN Legal Analyst & New Yorker Staff Writer), Nina Totenberg (Legal Affairs Correspondent for National Public Radio), Tony West (Former Associate U.S. Attorney General), Edie Windsor (Plaintiff), Evan Wolfson (Founder & President of Freedom to Marry), among others. Donna Zaccaro (“Geraldine Ferraro: Paving the Way”) joins us to talk about her intimate tale of the struggle for universal equal rights and the on-going attempts to undermine them. Director Donna Zaccaro talks about the heroic struggle by Edie Windsor and the scarring legal battles that it took to achieve this historic victory for human rights. For news and updates go to: perfectunionfilm.com Social Media: Facebook: facebook.com/ToAMorePerfectUnionFilm Instagram: @perfectunionfilm

The Mueller investigation keeps keeping on as subtweets, speculation, and objections mount. Dahlia Lithwick speaks with Andrew Wright, a former associate counsel to President Barack Obama about the latest developments. Plus a deep dive into the oral arguments in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case with Roberta Kaplan, who successfully argued Edie Windsor’s case against the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013. Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members several days after each episode posts. To learn more about Slate Plus, go to slate.com/amicusplus. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Podcast production by Sara Burningham. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Mueller investigation keeps keeping on as subtweets, speculation, and objections mount. Dahlia Lithwick speaks with Andrew Wright, a former associate counsel to President Barack Obama about the latest developments. Plus a deep dive into the oral arguments in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case with Roberta Kaplan, who successfully argued Edie Windsor’s case against the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013. Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members several days after each episode posts. To learn more about Slate Plus, go to slate.com/amicusplus. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Podcast production by Sara Burningham. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In August, white supremacists and Neo-Nazis released terror on the people of Charlottesville, VA. The people are fighting back with a lawsuit helmed by Roberta Kaplan, the woman who successfully argued the case that hastened marriage equality in the U.S.

The women behind “Sí se puede” and the case that changed LGBTQ+ history.

Marriage equality trailblazers Edie Windsor and Roberta Kaplan were the plaintiff-attorney pair in the Supreme Court case that struck down the federal ban on same-sex couple's marriages. In this episode, they play Never Have I Ever with Summer and Isaac and tell the story of the first time their paths crossed, over 20 years before the United States v. Windsor ruling.Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Roberta Kaplan successfully argued against the Defense of Marriage Act in front of the Supreme Court. She joined The Steve Fast Show to talk about her clients and the history making case that cleared way in Federal law for same sex marriage. #marriage

A woman's husband makes unpleasant sexual innuendos and gropes her right in front of the kids. How can she get him to stop? Are you into puke porn? OMG so am I!  Anyway, a very kind hearted, GGG woman wants to help her husband to realize his fantasy of having her throw up on him. But that might not be a healthy kink in the end, right? Dan chats with Cass King of the Wetspots (creators of our fabulous “What You Got?” stinger) about their upcoming burlesque musical. Also, are men becoming more modest in the locker room? Mark Stern from Slate weighs in. On the Magnum, all hail Roberta Kaplan! She is the attorney who brought a welcome end to the despicable Defense of Marriage Act. She comes on the show to help answer a question from a lesbian who is applying for a job which only provides benefits to spouses of the “opposite gender.” Wha? Oh no you din't. 206-302-2064 This episode of the Savage Lovecast is brought to you by BollandBranch.com: luxury, affordable fair trade certified sheets. Get $50 off a set of sheets plus free shipping by going to Boll and Branch.com end enter Savage. Todays Lovecast is also brought to you by MeUndies.com: High quality, super-comfortable, good looking undies. Get 20% off your first order when you go to MeUndies.com/Savage. This episode is also brought to you by Squarespace.com. They make it easy to build a website or blog. Give it a whirl, and if you want to buy it, use the code Savage for a 10% discount and free web domain registration.

A woman's husband makes unpleasant sexual innuendos and gropes her right in front of the kids. How can she get him to stop? Are you into puke porn? OMG so am I!  Anyway, a very kind hearted, GGG woman wants to help her husband to realize his fantasy of having her throw up on him. But that might not be a healthy kink in the end, right? Dan chats with Cass King of the Wetspots (creators of our fabulous “What You Got?” stinger) about their upcoming burlesque musical. Also, are men becoming more modest in the locker room? Mark Stern from Slate weighs in. On the Magnum, all hail Roberta Kaplan! She is the attorney who brought a welcome end to the despicable Defense of Marriage Act. She comes on the show to help answer a question from a lesbian who is applying for a job which only provides benefits to spouses of the “opposite gender.” Wha? Oh no you din't. 206-302-2064 This episode of the Savage Lovecast is brought to you by BollandBranch.com: luxury, affordable fair trade certified sheets. Get $50 off a set of sheets plus free shipping by going to Boll and Branch.com end enter Savage. Todays Lovecast is also brought to you by MeUndies.com: High quality, super-comfortable, good looking undies. Get 20% off your first order when you go to MeUndies.com/Savage. This episode is also brought to you by Squarespace.com. They make it easy to build a website or blog. Give it a whirl, and if you want to buy it, use the code Savage for a 10% discount and free web domain registration.

World-renowned activist and writer Gloria Steinem's new book “My Life on the Road” was released in October to critical acclaim. She came to the Library this fall to talk with attorney Roberta Kaplan, who landed a major victory for the LGBTQ movement by successfully arguing for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act before the Supreme Court. In this enthralling conversation, Steinem and Kaplan discuss marriage, social justice, and the power of stories to shape our world.

With Roberta Kaplan Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

 Roberta Kaplan, the renowned litigator who recently won the defining United States v. Windsor case to defeat the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), takes us behind the scenes of this gripping legal journey in her new book, Then Comes Marriage. Award-winning activist and scholar Lillian Faderman’s latest book, The Gay Revolution, begins in the 1950s, when the law classified gays and lesbians as criminals, then moves to the present to offer a sweeping account of the modern struggle for gay, lesbian, and trans rights. Following this summer’s landmark Supreme Court decision supporting gay marriage, hear from two of today’s most influential champions for equality.**Click here for photos of the event. 

For Beyond 50's "Legal" talks, listen to an interview with Roberta Kaplan. She is renowned litigator Robbie Kaplan. She'll talk about her story of working on a case that ultimately brought down DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) before the United States Supreme Court in one of this country's most significant civil rights victories. Together with her legal team and client, Kaplan formulated a strategy to bring down the law. Having lost the case for marriage equality before New York State's highest court in 2006, Kaplan was determined not to lose again. She coined the maxim "It's all about Edie, stupid" to constantly remind herself and her team what the case was really about, and that refrain aptly describes the book itself. In 1996, when DOMA was passed, more than 68 percent of Americans opposed the idea of gay people marrying. In 2010, when Windsor's case was filed, only four states (not including Kaplan and Windsor�¢??s home state of New York) recognized marriages between gay couples. This year's ruling by the Supreme Court that gay marriage is legal in all 50 states firmly places the ruling with other landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education or Loving v. Virginia. Tune in to Beyond 50: America's Variety Talk Radio Show on the natural, holistic, green and sustainable lifestyle. Visit www.Beyond50Radio.com and sign up for our Exclusive Updates.

On Ep. 3 of Amicus, Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick talks with the New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin about his recent interview with President Obama on Obama’s judicial legacy. Then Dahlia welcomes Roberta Kaplan, the lawyer who won last year’s DOMA case U.S. vs. Windsor, and who’s now fighting for same-sex marriage in the South. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices