Podcast appearances and mentions of roman martinez

The Supreme Court’s most recent term was one of significance with respect to the separation of powers. The Court held that the President is immune from criminal prosecution for most official acts. The Court also overturned the Chevron doctrine in Loper Bright v. Raimondo and determined that administrative agencies typically cannot impose civil penalties against individuals without a jury trial in SEC v. Jarkesy. These cases followed not long after the Supreme Court’s express recognition of the major-questions doctrine in West Virginia v. EPA. Yet the Supreme Court also upheld the CFPB’s novel funding method in the face of an Appropriation Clause challenge, issued an important opinion bearing on facial challenges in Moody v. NetChoice, and rejected a petition asking that it reconsider the nondelegation doctrine. What is driving these decisions—originalism, history, or pragmatic concerns? What issues might be ripe for further development or reexamination—nondelegation, removal restrictions on officers, the major questions doctrine, or something else? And how should advocates think about separation of powers challenges moving forward, in the context of both strategic and corporate litigation?FeaturingMr. Russell Balikian, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLPMs. Zhonette Brown, General Counsel and Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties AllianceMr. Roman Martinez, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLPMr. Luke McCloud, Partner, Williams & ConnollyModerator: Hon. Daniel Bress, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

In this third episode of The Other Side of Midnight, host Jon F. Merz discusses the murder of Enrique Roman-Martinez & a story about a Massachusetts Bigfoot. The Other Side of Midnight is where true crime meets the paranormal and the unexplained. More information: https://www.cid.army.mil/Media/Press-Center/Article-Display/Article/3775387/. https://listverse.com/2018/08/12/10-disturbing-facts-of-the-atlas-vampire/. Check out Jon's work: https://www.amazon.com/stores/Jon-F.-Merz/author/B001JP43NU. https://t.co/nL8CCgPQn0. https://jonfmerz.net/all-on-one/. Follow Jon: https://www.instagram.com/jonfmerzofficial/. https://x.com/jonfmerz. Follow us: IG: https://www.instagram.com/crawlspacepodcast/. TT: https://www.tiktok.com/@crawlspacepodcast. YT: https://www.youtube.com/crawlspace. Twitter: https://twitter.com/CrawlspacePod. FB: https://www.facebook.com/Crawlspacepodcast/. Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/crawlspace-true-crime-mysteries/id1187326340. Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/58cll3enTW2SNmbJUuLsrt. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Roman Martinez, Lexi & Stephan discuss the evolving real estate landscape in El Salvador, particularly in the context of Bitcoin adoption. They explore the motivations of various buyers, the impact of recent changes in infrastructure and regulations, and the unique challenges and opportunities present in the market. The conversation also touches on the importance of trust in real estate transactions and the varying expectations of foreign buyers regarding property quality and development. Lexi and Roman also discuss the experience of moving to El Salvador, highlighting cultural adjustments, healthcare quality, language integration, and the real estate market. They emphasize the importance of understanding local customs, the benefits of private healthcare, and the growing expat community.  The podcast also covers the real estate landscape, including prices, investment opportunities, and the significance of discovery trips for potential expats. They conclude by addressing the risks associated with real estate investments and the importance of due diligence. Takeaways El Salvador's real estate market is evolving rapidly. Many buyers are looking for a 'plan B' due to safety concerns. Bitcoin adoption is influencing real estate investments. There are no property taxes in El Salvador, attracting investors. Bitcoin Beach is a key area for Bitcoin enthusiasts. Real estate transactions require trust and local knowledge. Expectations of property quality vary among foreign buyers. Pre-construction projects are gaining popularity. Education on Bitcoin is crucial for local adoption. Location is a critical factor in real estate investment decisions. Cultural understanding is crucial for expats in El Salvador. Healthcare in El Salvador can be better than in the US. Learning Spanish enhances the experience of living in El Salvador. Real estate prices have increased significantly in recent years. El Salvador offers a unique lifestyle that differs from Western norms. Discovery trips provide valuable insights for potential expats. The private healthcare system in El Salvador is highly accessible. Real estate investment requires careful consideration and due diligence. The expat community in El Salvador is growing and vibrant. El Salvador is seen as a country with potential for growth and opportunity. Timestamps: (00:00) - Intro (00:54) - What is Goodlife El Salvador?; El Salvador's Real Estate landscape (04:05) - What is the Real Estate buyer persona in El Salvador? (05:52) - What motivates people to move to El Salvador? (10:35) - Bitcoin education, adoption and spending in El Salvador (15:30) - Living in Bitcoin Hubs & adjacent localities  (20:18) - What are the Real Estate investment trends?  (22:11) - Common pitfalls for new buyers (27:41) - Sponsors (29:55) - Quality of development & matching the expectations of expats  (31:49) - Cultural norms & Healthcare in El Salvador (38:32) - Overcoming language barriers  (41:17) - Real Estate prices & trends in El Salvador (43:33) - Sponsors (50:47) - What to expect in El Salvador?; Discovery trips for expats (57:42) - Navigating Real Estate risks Links:  https://x.com/goodlife_sv  https://x.com/romanmartinezc  Sponsors: Bold Bitcoin CoinKite.com (code LIVERA) mempool.space/accelerator  Stephan Livera links: Follow me on X: @stephanlivera Subscribe to the podcast Subscribe to Substack

Live from Bitcoin Beach in El Zonte, El Salvador, I finally got the hardest guests to get on the show – Lexi Cross and Roman Martinez! In this episode, we dive into the exciting world of real estate in El Salvador, especially buying property with Bitcoin. We talk about the challenges and quirks of the local market, like how listings can have multiple prices and how anyone can call themselves a real estate agent.Lexi and Roman share how Bitcoin is simplifying real estate transactions for buyers worldwide, making it easier and faster than traditional bank transfers. We also cover what you can expect to pay for a property in El Zonte, and how opportunities exist beyond the beachfront, including great deals in pre-construction projects and renovation-ready homes.If you're curious about buying property in El Salvador, especially using Bitcoin, this episode is packed with tips and insights. Whether you're looking for an investment, a vacation home, or a plan B, this is a must-listen for anyone thinking about making El Salvador their next move!Don't miss this inspiring episode!- MikeSupport and follow Bitcoin Beach:https://twitter.com/Bitcoinbeachhttps://www.instagram.com/bitcoinbeach_sv/https://www.tiktok.com/@livefrombitcoinbeachWeb: https://www.bitcoinbeach.com/Get in touch with Good Life El Salvador for all your real estate needs:Website: https://goodlifeelsalvador.com/X: https://x.com/goodlife_svIG: https://www.instagram.com/goodlifeelsalvadorBrowse through this quick guide to learn more about the episode:00:00 - Introduction01:14 - How Are Real Estate and Bitcoin Connected?02:10 - What Is Lexi Cross's Background and Experience in El Salvador?05:23 - Exploring the Challenges of the Real Estate Market in El Salvador06:36 - How Is Real Estate Practice Evolving in El Salvador?10:06 - What Does an Informally Regulated Real Estate Market Look Like?11:23 - How Can Bitcoin Simplify Real Estate Transactions?13:34 - Why Is Choosing the Right Location Crucial for Real Estate Investment?17:05 - Why Use Bitcoin for Real Estate Transactions?24:51 - What Are the Current Property Prices in El Salvador's Hotspots?27:27 - Why Invest in El Salvador's Real Estate Market Now?31:32 - How Does Bitcoin Impact Real Estate Prices?36:01 - How to Find Investment Opportunities Outside Major Hotspots in El Salvador?45:44 - How Do Bitcoin Transactions Simplify Buying Property?48:11 - Overcoming the Challenges of International Banking in Real Estate50:30 - What Are the Benefits of Bitcoin in Real Estate Transactions?52:17 - Why Is El Salvador a Significant Place for Bitcoin and Real Estate?1:09:37 - Details and Costs of Upcoming Group Discovery Trip in El SalvadorLive From Bitcoin Beach

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comOne of the most consequential developments of the last Supreme Court Term was the overruling of Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., the 40-year-old precedent directing courts to defer to agencies' reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes. It came about through two cases: Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, argued by Roman Martinez, and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, argued by former U.S. solicitor general Paul Clement (a past podcast guest).Today I'm pleased to be joined by Roman Martinez. One of the leading Supreme Court advocates of his generation, Martinez, 45, has argued 14 cases before the Court. But none has been as consequential—or controversial—as the aptly named Relentless.How does Martinez respond to claims that Relentless will have relentlessly negative consequences for American society? We explore the implications of the overturning of Chevron—along with Martinez's clerkships for then-Judge Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts, his thoughts on the old versus new SCOTUS argument formats, his style as a Supreme Court advocate, and his “secret weapon” in preparing for high-court appearances—in the latest Original Jurisdiction podcast.Show Notes:* Roman Martinez bio, Latham & Watkins* Roman Martinez profile, Chambers and Partners* 40 Under 40: Roman Martinez, Washington Business JournalPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.

This episode provides case updates on Blake and London Deven from Fayetteville, Madalina Cojocari from Cornelius, and the official cause of death from a child at Trails Carolina this past spring. We also share the story of Enrique Roman-Martinez from Fort Bragg, who went missing during a camping trip with fellow soldiers from the Army in May 2020. Show Sponsors: Renee's Digital Course on Podcasting: https://www.wow-womenonwriting.com/classroom/ReneeRoberson_Podcasting.php Skincare by SkinxErin: https://shopxerin.com/collections/fit-rocker-chick-skin Use code MISSINGCAROLINAS10 for 10 percent off your order.

We awarded Drs. Azadeh Khatibi, Tracy Høeg, Ram Duriseti, Aaron Kheriaty, and Pete Mazolewski NCLA's Award for Client Bravery. NCLA represented these courageous doctors in the successful Høeg v. Newsom suit challenging a California state law that would have subjected them to discipline for sharing information with patients that departed from the “contemporary scientific consensus” on Covid-19. Gov. Newsom signed a bill to repeal the law, marking a major victory for our clients, free speech, and medical liberty. NCLA also presented a “Georgie” award (a bust of George Washington) to Latham & Watkins partner Roman Martinez for outstanding service to NCLA and our clients. He delivered oral argument to the Supreme Court in January in our Relentless Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce case against the unconstitutional Chevron doctrine. The Buckeye Institute Director of Litigation David Tryon and Legal Fellow Alex Certo took home the Georgie for Best Amicus Brief, while A. Gregory Grimsal received the Best Local Counsel Award. NCLA recognized the winner of its Student Note Competition, Matthew Lambertson of the University of Florida's Levin Law School, who earned a $10,000 prize to be split with the Florida Law Review for his illuminating publication entitled: “The Common Law and SEC Rule 10b-5(b): Narrowing the Securities ‘Fraud' Exception to the First Amendment.” Finally, NCLA honored newly retired former Senior Litigation Counsel Richard Samp with the Cincinnatus Award, celebrating his illustrious 30-plus-year career defending justice in our Republic.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Te invitamos a sintonizar "Confidente en la Oscuridad", el programa de terror que te mantendrá al filo de tu asiento. Conducido por Ruben Canela y Roman Martinez, exploraremos el aterrador misterio de "La dama de blanco". ¿Quién es ella? ¿Qué oscuros secretos guarda? Únete a nosotros en una experiencia única de terror en vivo a través de nuestra página de Facebook, el canal de YouTube, la cuenta de TikTok y el podcast de Radio Anime Teziutlán. Prepárate para una noche llena de escalofriantes revelaciones y susurros desde el más allá. No te pierdas esta oportunidad de adentrarte en lo desconocido. Marca tu calendario, activa tus notificaciones y acompáñanos en esta travesía hacia lo paranormal. ¡La oscuridad está esperando! #ConfidenteEnLaOscuridad #LaDamaDeBlanco #Terror #RadioAnimeTeziutlán #Misterio #Sintoniza #TransmisiónEnVivo --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/radio-anime-teziutlu00e1n/message

¡Prepárate para adentrarte en el mundo de lo paranormal con el programa "Confidente en la Oscuridad" y el escalofriante tema: "La Ouija"!

¡Prepárate para adentrarte en el mundo de lo paranormal con el programa "Confidente en la Oscuridad" y el escalofriante tema: "La Ouija"!

Latham & Watkins partner Roman Martinez presented oral argument to the Supreme Court in NCLA's Relentless Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce lawsuit challenging the Chevron precedent and an unconstitutional federal rule requiring fishing companies to pay for at-sea government monitoring of their herring catch. The case was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in tandem with the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Gina Raimondo, which challenges the same at-sea monitor rule. Seafreeze Fisheries Liaison and General Manager Meghan Lapp joined Mark and Vec to discuss the oral argument.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

¡Prepárate para un viaje intergaláctico lleno de misterio con el programa "Confidente en la Oscuridad" y su escalofriante tema: "ALIENÍGENAS MAYAS".

¡Prepárate para sumergirte en el intrigante mundo de las "Conspiraciones de Elite" con el programa "Confidente en la Oscuridad"

¡Prepárate para sumergirte en el intrigante mundo de las "Conspiraciones de Elite" con el programa "Confidente en la Oscuridad"

¡Prepárate para un viaje intergaláctico lleno de misterio con el programa Confidente en la oscuridad y su escalofriante tema: "ALIENÍGENAS MAYAS".

¡Sumérgete en el escalofriante mundo de los archivos de terror con el programa "Confidente en la Oscuridad"!

On March 21, 2023, the US Supreme Court ruled for Miguel Luna Perez, a Latham pro bono client, in Perez v. Sturgis. Perez, who is deaf, was repeatedly denied reasonable accommodations, including a qualified sign-language interpreter, by Sturgis Public Schools and the Sturgis Public Schools Board of Education. Lower courts had held that Perez could not proceed with an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim seeking monetary damages because he had not exhausted his Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) remedies. A unanimous US Supreme Court held that a plaintiff need not exhaust the IDEA's administrative processes when seeking remedies under other statutes that the IDEA does not authorize — in this case, monetary damages under the ADA. In this episode of Connected With Latham, Roman Martinez, a partner in the firm's Supreme Court & Appellate Practice, sits down with associate Nick Rosellini and Disability Rights Michigan's Mitch Sickon to discuss Perez's journey to the US Supreme Court, the strategies that shaped Latham's brief, and the experience of arguing before the highest court in the land.   This podcast is provided as a service of Latham & Watkins LLP. Listening to this podcast does not create an attorney client relationship between you and Latham & Watkins LLP, and you should not send confidential information to Latham & Watkins LLP. While we make every effort to assure that the content of this podcast is accurate, comprehensive, and current, we do not warrant or guarantee any of those things and you may not rely on this podcast as a substitute for legal research and/or consulting a qualified attorney. Listening to this podcast is not a substitute for engaging a lawyer to advise on your individual needs. Should you require legal advice on the issues covered in this podcast, please consult a qualified attorney. Under New York's Code of Professional Responsibility, portions of this communication contain attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each representation. Please direct all inquiries regarding the conduct of Latham and Watkins attorneys under New York's Disciplinary Rules to Latham & Watkins LLP, 1271 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020, Phone: 1.212.906.1200

Former UNM basketball player Roman Martinez joins The Pit Press Podcast to discuss with Ryan Tomari, Ed Nunez, and Erik Moulton his Lobo playing days, what Albuquerque means to him, his relationship with head coach Steve Alford and looking ahead to playing his third-straight TBT.Martinez will join The Enchantment as they take on Austin's Own in the first round of the TBT in Lubbock, Texas, which will be on July 19 at 5 p.m. on the ESPN family of networks.

In today's episode, we'll cover the charges against seven US soldiers for crimes relating to the death of a fellow soldier, the call for answers, and the continued investigation into a case that questions the Army's communication and investigation.Within the ranks of the US Army, camaraderie and trust are paramount. However, the shocking charges against seven soldiers in connection with the death of their fellow soldier, Spc. Enrique Roman-Martinez, shattered that bond and left a family searching for answers. What led to this tragic incident? How did the Army's communication and investigation protocols come into question? And most importantly, will justice be served for Spc. Roman-Martinez and his family?Join me for this mysterious Memorial Day Murder.This is the case of Spc. Enrique Roman-Martinez right now on Love and MurderPetition: https://www.change.org/p/justice-for-enrique-roman-martinez You can also anonymously submit information at cid.army.mil/report-a-crime.htmlIf you have any information, please contact the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division at (910) 396-8777. There is currently a $50,000 reward being offered for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the individual(s) responsible for Enrique's murder.Rate, Share, Subscribe!SOS link: https://www.speakpipe.com/LoveAndMurderPodcastYOUTUBE https://bit.ly/LoveMurderYouTubePATREON BONUS EPISODES: https://bit.ly/LandMBonusINSTAGRAM: instagram.com/loveandmurderpodcastTWITTER: https://twitter.com/noconductradioFACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/relationshipcrimeFACEBOOK GROUP: https://bit.ly/39qUG3tWEBSITE: www.murderandlove.comMERCH: https://bit.ly/LnMShopWant to hear a specific true crime case? Email me at noconductradio@gmail.com

Jackson spoke significantly more than any other justice Was joined by other liberals as most talkative Ketanji Brown Jackson made her mark on US Supreme Court arguments like no other new justice in memory. Her historic confirmation as the first Black woman justice was followed by seven months of oral arguments in which she spoke almost twice as much as any other of her colleagues, according to Empirical SCOTUS' Adam Feldman. Jackson so far has defied the norm of junior justices taking a back seat during their first few terms. Latham & Watkins' Roman Martinez joins the podcast to look at Jackson's first term as well as what the future might hold. Co-hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler also breakdown the court's most recent opinions, including a highly anticipated copyright case and a sigh of relief for social media companies. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler Guest: Roman Martinez, Latham & Watkins Producer: Matthew S. Schwartz

In May 2020, Fort Bragg Paratrooper SPC Enrique Roman-Martinez was reported missing at Cape Lookout on North Carolina's Outer Banks. Days later, his decapitated head washed onto shore. Many questions about the circumstances surrounding Enrique's murder have gone unanswered. Why did it take 19 hours for Enrique's fellow soldiers to make a 911 call? Why was information withheld that could have helped in the investigation? Where was the loyalty that was expected of soldiers when wearing the uniform of the United States Army? Today, Dawn is joined by a very special guest - Enrique's sister, Griselda Martinez. Griselda is a warrior in this fight for justice. ___________________________________ Call to Action: If anyone has any information about the murder of Enrique Roman-Martinez, please contact Army CID special agents: 910-396-8777. Persons who wish to remain anonymous will be honored to the degree allowable under the law, and the information will be held in the strictest confidence allowable. Go Fund Me Change.org For more information on Enrique's case and to view timelines, interactive maps, and more - visit my friends at Uncovered.com. The link to Enrique's case is here ___________________________________ Method & Madness is researched, written, hosted, & produced by Dawn Gandhi Sound Editing by moInspo Music by Tymur Khakimov from Pixabay Additional episode Music by Ashot-Danielyan-Composer from Pixabay ____________________________________ REACH OUT: methodandmadnesspod@gmail.com CONNECT: Instagram Twitter DIVE INTO MORE: MethodandMadnessPodcast.com ____________________________________ Sources: For a list of sources used, visit the podcast website: MethodandMadnessPodcast.com Thank you for listening!

If you enjoyed my very first blog, Underneath Their Robes (2004-2006)—which I wrote under a pseudonym while working as a federal prosecutor, pretending to be a female associate in Biglaw obsessed with federal judges and fashion—then you'll enjoy this latest podcast episode. How many podcasts combine analysis of Supreme Court oral arguments with discussion of pumps versus cowboy boots versus Mary Janes? (For the record, my guest made the first reference to shoes; I didn't go there unprompted.)My latest guest is—of course—the inimitable Lisa Blatt, chair of the Supreme Court and appellate practice at Williams & Connolly, the legendary litigation firm. Lisa needs no introduction to Original Jurisdiction devotees, so I'll mention just two distinctions. First, Lisa has argued 43 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, more than any other woman in history. Second, she has won 37 of those 43 cases (86 percent), which makes her one of the most consistently victorious SCOTUS advocates. (Trivia question: is there a Supreme Court lawyer currently practicing who has argued that many cases before the high court with that high a win percentage?)In our ebullient and enjoyable interview, Lisa and I covered her special relationship with the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for whom she clerked; how she rose to the top of the male-dominated Supreme Court bar, as a woman from Texas who “didn't go to a fancy law school”; how she developed her distinctive, famously unfiltered style of oral argument; and why she prefers cowboy boots over stiletto heels. I hope you have as much fun listening to this episode as Lisa and I had recording it.Show Notes:* Lisa Blatt bio, Williams & Connolly LLP* Reflections of a Lady Lawyer, Texas Law Review* Lisa S. Blatt: Cases argued, OyezPrefer reading to listening? A transcript of the entire episode appears below (although you really should listen to this one, since as is the case with her SCOTUS arguments, a transcript doesn't do Lisa justice).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 (although I've done less clean-up than usual to better preserve the flavor of our fabulous and freewheeling conversation).* 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 visiting davidlat.substack.com.You're listening to the seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Wednesday, November 30. My normal schedule is to post episodes every other Wednesday.I must confess, with all due respect to my past guests, that this episode might be the most fun one yet—and I owe it all to my guest. Lawyers are known for being risk-averse and many carry that over into their interviews, not wanting to say anything that might get them in trouble or rub someone the wrong way. That's definitely not true of my latest guest, who's known for her refreshing candor, whether you're chatting with her at a cocktail party or whether she's arguing before the United States Supreme Court.Lisa Blatt serves as Chair of Williams & Connolly's Supreme Court and appellate practice. She has argued 43 cases before the Supreme Court, more than any other woman in history. And she has prevailed in 37 of those 43 cases, giving her a win percentage of 86 percent—which has to be one of the highest around, at least among advocates who have argued before the Court as often as she has. She has won numerous awards, including Litigator of the Year from the American Lawyer in 2021.Lisa graduated from the University of Texas for both college and law school, summa cum laude both times. She clerked for then-Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the D.C. Circuit and then joined Williams & Connolly as an associate. After government service, at the Department of Energy and then the Office of the Solicitor General, where she worked for 13 years, Lisa returned to private practice, and in 2019, she came full circle by returning to Williams & Connolly.In our lively and wide-ranging conversation, Lisa and I discussed her unique relationship with the late Justice Ginsburg, for whom she clerked; her distinctive approach to Supreme Court oral advocacy, including her thoughts on trying humor with the justices; why she loves coaching debate; and why she thinks lawyers should not be passionate about their work.Without further ado, here's my interview of Lisa Blatt.DL: Lisa, thank you so much for joining me. I'm honored to have you on the podcast.Lisa Blatt: Well, thank you. I am honored to be here.DL: So if I had to guess where you're from based on meeting you at a cocktail party or hearing you argue before the Court, I would've guessed you're one of us, a New Yorker or a Northeasterner. But you're from Texas.LB: That's right. Both of my parents are from New York, and I grew up listening to the word “y'all” with a very thick New York accent, so everyone assumes I'm from New York. But no, I was born and raised in Texas, West Texas. I moved all over Texas, UT for undergrad and law school, and a lot of my personality is because I'm from Texas. And I think I'm on my 12th pair of cowboy boots?DL: Oh wow, okay!LB: I'm definitely a Texan. Part of the way I talk just is because my parents are both from New York.DL: That makes sense. And you have a kind of candor, although I guess Texans are pretty candid too, aren't they?LB: I don't think my candor comes from being from Texas! I don't know where that comes from, actually—no one in my family's like that.DL: Fair enough. So going to your upbringing in Texas, were there any hints that you might become a lawyer? I believe your parents were not lawyers.LB: Right. Dad was a software engineer, Mom a stay-home mom until she became a psychologist. But no, I think it was Thurgood Marshall, something about his story of Brown—I still get sort of teary when I think about it—something about his story of what he did in Brown v. Board of Education, being the lawyer, the advocate, not the justice. I just wanted to be a lawyer and I did debate, speech and debate starting maybe in seventh grade, I was always very into debate and just knew that I wanted to go to law school.DL: What events did you do in speech and debate?LB: Now it's embarrassing, but policy debate, which is all that fast talking, and I had to unlearn that many years later. But yeah, I did policy debate and I spent many years coaching debate, so I do love the art of advocacy and argumentation and trying to persuade someone.DL: I read in one of your profiles or interviews that you do coach or did coach debate. What was that like for you? It seems like you're very competitive about coaching debate?LB: No, actually that's not right. I'm very passionate about coaching debate, and I feel very strongly about coaching; it's what I would definitely do if I wasn't a lawyer, and I feel very passionate about helping children and kids. But I don't think it's about winning—and that's one of the things you have to teach kids, because they just want a trophy. So much in life when it comes to competition and jobs is arbitrary and capricious. One of the things that is so important for us, even adults, to understand is that some stuff is out of our control. If I can just teach one child how to stand up straight and feel good about an argument, then that's a home run. So I love everything about coaching debate.Also, the different perspective was just a huge thing, getting a bunch of kids in a room. I've taught middle-school debate and high-school debate, and I would say my favorite was middle school because they're not yet completely sold on their politics and ideology, and trying to just get them to open up about things like background checks or hate speech or should dodgeball be banned in schools because it's violent. Just anything, any topic—nowadays not all topics are as safe as others, but just lots of fun topics—which tastes better, Coke or Pepsi, anything that you can just form an argument about and how to organize your responses.Look how excited I get! Just the notion of being able to teach this in a way that is helpful, especially for women, and a lot of kids are very insecure at this age, and everything about trying to show them that they can be confident is just the best thing in the whole world.DL: Speech and debate was huge for me in that respect. I was a very nerdy kid, very insecure, but when I found something and I enjoyed it, and I was good at it, it was a big boost for my confidence. So your husband's a lawyer, you're a lawyer, I believe you have two kids—are either of them into speech and debate?LB: One's in law school, they both did debate, and the other one's just applying and now getting into law school. So we're going to be Blatt & Associates, or Blatt Blatt Blatt & Blatt. David, my husband, no debate, he finds it completely foreign, but both Daniel and Rachel did debate.DL: Excellent. So in doing my research, I did come across your wedding announcement when you and David got married. I'm curious: did you give much thought to the whole “take his name or not take his name” thing?LB: My maiden name is Schiavo, so I was so eager, I would've married anybody with any last name—as soon as somebody gave me a proposal, the answer was yes. So yes, I gave a lot of thought to taking his last name. Everyone mispronounced Schiavo. Actually its direct translation is “slave” in Italian. So I was happy to [take his name], I happen to love Blatt, which rhymes with your last name. It's so great.DL: It's very easy to spell. The only issue is one or two t's, but absolutely.LB: I'm actually fine with people—a lot of people still know me as Lisa Schiavo, and that's fine too—but I like being Lisa Blatt.DL: So as we talked about, you went to UT for college and law school, summa cum laude, did super well. And in some ways your first big break, I would say, was clerking for then-Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the D.C. Circuit. She was a great advocate and a great justice, but some say she wasn't warm and fuzzy with her clerks. But based on your great piece for the Texas Law Review—Reflections of a Lady Lawyer, which I'm going to put in the show notes—it sounds like you had a fairly close relationship with her?LB: Extremely, because I couldn't talk about the law with her! I'm being completely serious. Both my co-clerks were absolutely brilliant people from Harvard, on the Harvard Law Review, but that was just never going to go anywhere with me, to talk with her about the law. And so I'm probably one of her few clerks where it was shoes, jewelry, or clothes. I could not keep up with her, and we talked about fashion.When it was one of her huge anniversaries, it may have been her tenth year on the Court, twenty years on the bench, there were only two people, maybe three people who gave a toast, and I was one of them. And everyone talked about all her this, that, and the other thing, legal giant—and I spent the whole time roasting her about how skinny she was and all her jewelry and how she was an airhead, and she was cracking up. But she liked people who made her laugh, and I think I made her laugh.DL: That makes perfect sense. Look at [her late husband] Marty, look at [her good friend] Justice Scalia, and you. She was somewhat reserved or introverted, but she was drawn to people who could bring her out.LB: She's so hard to talk to about… I just couldn't talk to her about the law, and I was probably her least productive and least intelligent clerk. I remembered at this toast I did for her, I showed everyone the bench memo I did for her, it was a made-up thing, but she took only the caption—a draft opinion, I drafted the opinion, and she cut out the caption and used that for the opinion. It's true, it was a true story, but I did it on a big blowup poster and it was very funny. And I was also her first and last clerk from University of Texas, because she's such a snob, a super school snob….DL: That is true. Yeah….LB: Some of them are very, very specific about their Ivy League schools. But I loved her, and I do think it was a different relationship than she had with other clerks. Very different.DL: That makes perfect sense. You mentioned you both were into or bonded over fashion. Did you have similar or different styles?LB: No, she was so weird! She would just—come on, she wore all those caftans, at least back in when she was on the D.C. Circuit. Actually, now I think I dress like her because I love bright colors, and she definitely is where I got my “you know what, just wear it, own it.” Because she would show up in the strangest outfits and she just like looked very happy and I thought, “Wow, I wanna be her, she's beautiful.” She just loved life and travel and clothes. She definitely had a unique clothing style. I have a bunch of Mary Jane shoes that I have now after she passed away that I call my “RBG shoes.”DL: Oh, interesting…. Mary Janes, and cowboy boots. I would've thought you would go for some pumps, with three- or four-inch heels or something?LB: I'm so tall, I can't do it. No, I can't do heels, really. Cowboy boots are my thing.DL: Okay, fair enough. So turning to what you're most well-known for, arguing before the Supreme Court, I believe you have argued more Supreme Court cases than any woman in history. You noted that in your Texas Law Review piece, but I noticed that on your Williams and Connolly bio, it doesn't say that. Was that intentional? Do you want to be known as a Supreme Court advocate and not a female Supreme Court advocate?LB: Uh, no. How about a “female Jewish funny old-lady Supreme Court advocate”? No, I didn't even know that, David. I guess I could put [it] on my website. I don't know if anyone cares, so, no intentionality, no, no intentionality at all. I am very proud of the fact that I have more arguments than any woman in history, but I expect and hope to see other women pass me up very shortly, and I assume they will.DL: Do you happen to know who would be number two?LB: Well, I'm hoping it'll be Elizabeth Prelogar when she gets out of the SG's office.DL: That's right, that's right. She is racking up a lot of arguments.LB: And she's gloriously fantastic.DL: She's amazing.LB: She's amazing. But there are plenty of women out there. Well, [my partner] Sarah Harris, my right-hand person, she's far more talented than I am. Because I'm a little bit different than other people, I hope that my style doesn't necessarily rub off, but I hope that what rubs off on people is that somebody who didn't go to Yale or Harvard and who lacked a lot of self-confidence and wasn't really groomed for anything can just do well. I was incredibly insecure for so much of my professional life. And so I very much want to be a model for people.DL: And you write about that very eloquently in your Texas Law Review essay, which again, I really commend to people.I'm curious, your Williams & Connolly bio does note that you've argued 43 cases before the Court, and you've won 37. And as I recall, didn't you have a very long win streak before you notched that first loss?LB: Yeah, I was in the twenties, and Ted Olson gave me a case to lose. Yeah!DL: And let me ask—are you the “winningest” Supreme Court advocate with a certain number of arguments below your belt, like 25 or 30 or 40? Your win percentage is something like 90 percent, 88 percent, something like that.LB: I don't know….DL: One thing that's interesting about the Supreme Court, and I think you alluded to this earlier—you said so much of life is arbitrary and capricious and luck, and I would argue that despite your amazing talents as a Supreme Court litigator, so many Supreme Court cases are decided based on political or jurisprudential or other factors independent of the argument style. How important would you say briefing and argument are? I know this is a very vague question….LB: I'll break it down two ways. I disagree on the jurisprudential [point], except for abortion, guns, race, and religion. Everything else, I think, is open to grab, although you could make some points about statutory construction and administrative law—so you're increasingly more correct, but I still think that there are plenty of cases that are completely up for grabs on bankruptcy or even arbitration these days. Just random commercial cases or civil cases, I don't think it's that ideological. I will give you on—I don't think the Court needs to be briefed on how to rule in an abortion case, you're just completely right.Then there's oral argument, and whether that matters, and a lot of us who argue like to say it matters. At a minimum, I would say it matters in that you can lose a case at argument and you can go backwards. It's much harder to win a case at argument, but it's pretty easy to lose a lot of ground and lose a case at argument. And as you can tell now from the current format, the justices are just bursting with stamina in terms of how much they want to argue. It's like the cage has been opened, and I think they're going to go back to all-day argument soon.DL: Do you like the new approach?LB: How can you not?DL: I do, as a listener….LB: Because there's no time limit for them in the lightning round or whatever they call it—round robin, Justice Sotomayor just called it—and you can tell they're all sort of looking at each other like, “How much longer can I get away with?” The worst thing about the old style, where it was rapid fire and Justice Thomas was silent, is you just didn't learn that much about what their concerns were because it was so hard to get your point out, it was so hard to hear what every justice thinks. Now Justice Thomas is free and is so involved in argument, and all of them are, so you're just getting all of them now. The only problem with that is you're having nine conversations, so it's just turning into very long arguments. But the parties, who aren't lawyers, it's helpful for them to see the Court in action, so I like that, and for the public to see how hard they're working through the issues.DL: Absolutely—and I know this is a pending case, so we won't delve into the merits—but I would commend people to the argument in the Warhol case [Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith], which you and Roman Martinez and Yaira Dubin recently argued. It's a great case. It's super-interesting. The argument went on for quite some time, but you really do see the justices grappling with the issues in a very earnest and non-ideological way. It's a great argument.LB: One of the things I don't like talking about in argument is the law, so to me, those cases are the most fun, because you can talk about how the case matters in the real world, what it means to people, the public, the parties, and you're not so much talking about what some word in the U.S. Code means.DL: Exactly. That case covered everything from Darth Vader to Mondrian to The Jeffersons, and so it was a really fun case for folks to listen to.Turning to advocacy and your style of arguing before the Court, which we alluded to, Sarah Isgur of the Advisory Opinions podcast said that nobody should try to imitate Lisa Blatt, even though Sarah thinks you're an amazing advocate, nobody should try to imitate Lisa. And I agree that there's a sort of “don't try this at home, kids” quality to your argument. Would you say you have a distinct style of argument, and if so, how is it?LB: Well, it upsets me that so many people say don't try to emulate her because… it just upsets me to hear that. I'd like….DL: I would be flattered! I'd be like, I'm inimitable, I'm sui generis, you can't imitate me!LB: One of the things that you have to do when you're a Supreme Court advocate or any advocate is make sure everything you say you can back up. If somebody wants to say, “wait a minute, did you just say what you said,” you're going to go, “I absolutely said what I said, and I'll repeat it again,” and that has always been my philosophy.It's true I think some people think I maybe go right up to the edge, but I'm okay with that. Sometimes I say things and I'm like, oh my God, why did I say that? In the Romag case with Neal Katyal, that was definitely one of my more notable ones, where I said, “I think you might have to cut me off.” The Chief just looked at me like, “Are you crazy?”So I say things like that and I'm like, what? Or “I didn't go to a fancy law school,” and I'm like, well, why did I say that? So things like that, I'll regret saying, and you shouldn't say things like “I didn't go to a fancy law school,” so I would never recommend people repeat that. But I would think that lots of people make statements and arguments that they're like, I should have said it differently, so I don't know why I should be any different.What I guess is upsetting to me is my style, if it's unique, it's that I have this very strong view that truth is the best form of advocacy and for someone to have a different view—it's disturbing to me. Why would you not be incredibly honest and direct with the Court? That's all I have to say, and I think everyone would agree. I don't know whether it was Irv Gornstein or Michael Dreeben [who said it], but Paul Clement and I often talk about this, that oral argument is truth serum, so whatever someone tells you to do, what you think is really going to come out. I've tried to change my style, I would like to be different, but it's very hard for me to not be the way I am.DL: Well, let me give you some examples. I totally agree with you on the point about fidelity to the law and the facts, and I think that if someone were to compare you to Paul Clement, your former colleague in the SG's office, who would also be identified as one of the best Supreme Court litigators of all time….LB: Paul is the best. Let's just be clear.DL: Okay, well, fair enough….LB: Paul is magical in a completely different way. His magic is the way he engages with cases and doctrine, and I've never seen anything like itDL: What would you say is your special sauce or superpower?LB: I don't think I have one! I think, I'm not trying to be funny, but I think that they sometimes are laughing, like a fair amount of times are laughing. And so I don't know why that is, that they think it's funny, the things I say.DL: I think this is another aspect of your argument that I think people say don't try to imitate. Usually when people say, well, what are the rules of appellate or Supreme Court advocacy, they say, well, listen to the judges or justices, don't talk over them, really try to be responsive, [and] people also say generally don't try humor. But you do try humor, and it almost always works.LB: No, I don't try it, I don't try it! That's, no, you never should try humor! Absolutely. Never. Try. Humor. It would be a disaster. And can you imagine making a bad joke? That is the worst thing to do. Don't try humor. I think sometimes I say things…. I remember the first time I said something that got a hysterical laugh, it was an argument in the gas tank case [United States v. Flores-Montano], which is mentioned in the Guide for Counsel. Definitely considered, I know at least by Justice Ginsburg, it was one of her favorite arguments, and it was a glorious argument, but in the course of the argument, Justice Scalia said, I said something and he goes, “Is that public?” And I said, “I just made it public.” And they all just broke out laughing. And I'm like, I'm not trying to be funny, but sometimes that bluntness and directness, it's funny, but I'm not trying to be funny. Does that make sense?DL: Well, so when you made the funny quip in the Warhol argument about the airbrushed photos of Lisa Blatt, you were not trying to be funny? Because it was funny.LB: Nor was I trying to be funny when I said the court was “yakking.”DL: Yes. That was also great!LB: The minute that came out, I was like, ah, how do I take that back? And they thought it was hysterical, but I wasn't trying to be funny. Why would anybody say that? Intentionally?DL: Okay, okay, fair enough.LB: But, so, I think it's just quirky. I don't, maybe, I don't know what the word is. I don't know.DL: When people say, don't try to imitate you, I don't think they're saying anything about your fidelity to the facts or the law or the record. I think you and Paul are pretty much toe to toe on that. But you have very different styles. He's conversational and you are conversational, but you're much more… lively, no offense to Paul, you're more sort of… in your face, I guess? I don't know how to put it….LB: Oh, I don't know what I think of that. Paul is definitely just more eloquent and elegant and intellectual, and I'm just more, let's talk, let's roll up our sleeves.DL: And I think that would be your superpower. I think you have a way to just cut to the heart of the case, in a way, and to also play out the consequences. I know that we're deciding cases on the law, precedent, not policy, blah blah blah, but I think you're really great at unfolding [consequences]. I love the line you had in the B.L. v. Mahanoy Area School District case about the cursing cheerleader, where you're saying near the end in your rebuttal, like, “judges, justices, don't do this!” in terms of setting forth a bad rule.LB: I said, “please don't do this to courts,” or “please don't do this to schools.” Yes, I said “please.” Okay. The minute I said “please,” it's like, I would highly recommend never saying, in any oral argument, “please.” But it did come out that way.DL: It was great!LB: Maybe it's just refreshing because nobody says “please.” Or I referred to North Korea and Russia. And so, but trust me, I am not trying to be entertaining because I strongly think that that is a disastrous move. You should never try to be that or try to be—you just can only be yourself.DL: Yes.LB: And so what you see at argument, I think with a lot of people is just someone's true self. And maybe it's because I didn't go to a fancy law school.DL: You mentioned in your Texas Law Review piece that it took you a while to learn to be yourself, that you tried on a couple of styles before settling on your current one?LB: Absolutely. Yes. That's why I feel the modeling and supporting younger people are extremely important. But how are you supposed to know this in your thirties? I didn't have the confidence and I hated everything about myself, so, yeah, I thought I would look at other, I guess, women and men and want to be like them. Maureen Mahoney, one of the best all-time advocates, everything about her is to die for. I couldn't be her if my life depended on it. And it was very hard for me to just accept the fact that I was never going to be that kind of lawyer or just always be a little different and not ever feel comfortable like in a suit, and just really…. I'm sure a lot of people feel this way, where they don't feel like they belong. This is not some great revelation. And so the sooner you can accept your weaknesses and lean into your strengths, the better off you are. So the more I can try to tell people that wherever that leads you, the better. It just took me a while, probably late thirties, early forties.DL: What were some of the styles you tried on before settling into your current one?LB: I grew up in the eighties, seventies and eighties. It was the suits, the, like, really uncomfortable suits, pantyhose, all that stuff, like uncomfortable shoes, not bright colors, or not speaking up, or worrying about how it comes out. I think the biggest thing that a lot of people won't do is admit they don't understand something. And I do that all the time at the meeting, I'm like, I have no idea what you're talking about, I literally have no clue what you just said. And a lot of people would never do that. And I think I sat through so many meetings where I would just go, I have no idea what those people are talking about. And now I'll say it and maybe people think I'm dumb, but I don't care. I'd rather—I'm positive that there's probably someone in the room that didn't follow it either.DL: Yes, exactly. I think that's so true.LB: But you know what? Shame and humiliation drive so many people and the way they conduct themselves, and the sooner you can sort of laugh at yourself, the better off the world would be.DL: That's very true, very true. I'm curious, over your 40-plus arguments, is there a win that you're most proud of? You have won a lot of really interesting cases, but is there one, maybe one that we haven't heard of or have not heard as much about?LB: Yes, and it'll be probably, you know, a lot of people will get mad at this, and please don't hate me on social media, but the [Adoptive Couple v.] Baby Girl case.DL: Ah yes….LB: With the Adoptive Couple [case] that I did with Paul, it just took, you know, like two years into my life and it was just a long, long struggle. And so I am proud that we won that case. It was just involved, a child, a family, and so it was just, to me, a meaningful case. It was also, you know, definitely one of my more memorable oral arguments.DL: I remember that case. I re-listened to that one recently, and this was a case that was interpreting the Indian Child Welfare Act, or ICWA, which is now back before the Court. And you just had a really powerful line in there where you said something like, “Look, we're talking about children, we're not talking about property or something.” You had a really resonant line in that argument.LB: Yeah, so I think in that case, I think it's fair to say that I know this from inside sources that, you know, you could see that case in two ways: it was one about the law and one about the facts. Then you can take it from there, and I chose to argue the case about the facts. I think the ICWA case now before the Court is very much about the law.DL: Interesting.LB: It's just so—some cases are more about the facts than the law.DL: I think you won that case on the facts as well. There were a lot of facts, I think, that were not great for the other side.LB: It was a 5-4 case. It was just tough, and the argument was very tough. It was also just very meaningful for me because I did it with Paul who was, you know, such an inspiration, and I basically give Paul credit for my entire career. So it was just a huge deal to me to have him up there arguing with me.I also blame Paul because I was really restrained in the whole beginning of the argument and it looked like we were losing. And Paul is like, you know, you gotta keep, keep it under control. And right before I went up for rebuttal, I said, “Can I just let loose?” And he said, “Yeah, just do it.” So I don't know if he remembers it that way, but I always say, Paul told me just to let loose, so that's what I did.DL: I would say another one of your superpowers is you really bring it in the rebuttal. Rebuttal is sometimes kind of an afterthought, but your rebuttal in that case, your rebuttal in the BL v. Mahanoy Area School District Case….LB: No, Oklahoma [Carpenter v. Murphy] was the worst.DL: What do you mean by the worst?LB: Well, because I basically said, this will stimulate you, and then repeated about rapists and molesters and murderers. It was, it was epic. And then everybody blamed me for going hysterical, and then everything I predicted happened in Oklahoma [after McGirt v. Oklahoma, which addressed the same issue after the Court deadlocked in Carpenter]. But yeah, no, the Oklahoma rebuttal was definitely one that was probably a little over the top.DL: Well look, sometimes you go a little over the top, but I think you also just bring a—I know you don't like this word as applied to argument—but I do think people would say you're a passionate advocate, or you're….LB: Ugh!!!DL: I know, I know, I've read your pieces saying don't use the P word, save it for your, save it for your hobbies, or…LB: Save it for sex.DL: Ha!LB: I'm not a big fan of “passion.” Do you really want a passionate surgeon? No.DL: Well, I guess maybe….LB: I just want someone who's good. Do you want a passionate architect? No. Do you want a passionate airline pilot? No. Just get me somebody who can get the job done and not mess up my face, or my house, or my plumbing. I mean, just get the job done. I do not want a passionate professional, period.DL: Okay, so well…..LB: I would say I'm extremely high-energy.DL: Yes, yes. And I think you just have a sort of sincerity, I think, [so] that nobody feels they're ever getting a snow job from you. It's like very, very honest, very unfiltered. And I think that that candor, that uber-compliance with the duty of candor to the court, I think is very appreciated by the judges.LB: Again, think of a surgeon. Seriously. When you're out and under their knife, you need them doing a good job with whatever they're repairing. Your life is in their hands and you need to take care of them. And that is in addition to putting myself in the role of a mother, I also think of a surgeon. I mean, you do everything you can for your kids. And if you're a surgeon, you know you got a job to do and you just, you gotta get it done. And so, I don't like that word “passion.” It sounds like it interferes with judgment. That's why I don't like that word. And maybe I am passionate, but I don't like to be called that.DL: So what are you passionate about then? What do you like to do outside of work? I see you, the listeners can't, but we're on Zoom, I see you're wearing a Peloton sweatshirt. Are you passionate about exercise? I know you mentioned you're not passionate about cooking or baking because you tried that on and that didn't work. So what do you like to do when you're not arguing before the Court?LB: I love to play with my dog, I love to exercise, I love music, and I love children.DL: Okay. Those are all worthy interests.So this is the lightning round, [since] I see our time is almost elapsed. Let me ask you my final four questions, which are standardized for all guests.The first is, what do you like the least about the law? And that can either be the practice of law or it can be law as that system that governs all of us.LB: The stereotypical male ego.DL: Fair enough. That is a good point and a very concise one. What would you be if you were not a lawyer?LB: Debate coach.DL: Oh, there are a lot of similarities there.LB: I would coach. I would be involved with children in some way, teacher, coaching, whatever I could do with kids.DL: Wonderful, wonderful.LB: I think everything that you think is different about me as an advocate is why I really come alive with children, because they're so not used to adults that are normal. They're so used to adults kind of doing weird stuff with kids and they're like, they just flip out when an adult is like, just tells it to them straight. They just, there's some way, just so much fun. I love kids.DL: Well, it's funny, I think in your Texas piece you had a line about how, well, the kids know that you're different from the other parents because….LB: I swear with them. I can't tell you how much I love kids. I mean, I love dogs too, but I love children.DL: Oh, that's great. Well, I'm sure that if you ever retire from Supreme Court advocacy, I'm sure a school or debate camp would love to have you.Question number three, how much sleep do you get each night?LB: I sleep all the time, in the middle of the day, in the morning, I just sleep. I love to sleep, so I don't know, seven, eight hours. I would sleep for 12 if I could. I really like to sleep.DL: I am so glad to hear that.LB: Naps are the best.DL: I agree with you on that. I have a great ability to nap. Unfortunately, not everyone does, and some people have trouble sleeping, but it sounds like you're not one of them.LB: I've had trouble since the pandemic. I've had trouble sleeping, but I still, then I'll just sleep in the daytime. But I do like to sleep, so I definitely get enough sleep.DL: Oh, good, good. And I guess my final question: any words of wisdom, especially for listeners who look at your life and career and say, I want to be Lisa Blatt?LB: Maybe it's two things that are similar. The hardest lessons are how to deal with failure, and you just can't let failure define you. It is inevitable. Setbacks are so inevitable, and so is embarrassment, shame, and humiliation. And so the sooner you can adapt to that, the better. Jeff Wall once gave me the best advice of my entire life: with every door that closes, the window opens. And the other thing that Jeff Wall told me that was sort of foundational was when you look back upon your life, will you be thinking about how much money you have or how many arguments you have? And the answer is no. You're not gonna be thinking, if I'd only had one more argument or gotten one more award, you'll be thinking about the relationships you've made along the way, that those are the most important. Now, I remember telling this to Judge [Pamela] Harris, who's an amazing Fourth Circuit judge, and she said, “No, that's not what I'll be thinking about, I'll be thinking about what good I did for the world.” And I was like, “Ah, I can't win for losing!” So if you don't think about your relationships, at least think about what good you did for the world.And then the other piece of advice, which is along [the lines of] don't let failure define you, is just don't let other people's view of you define you just because someone doesn't respect you. Okay. You need to define who you are for yourself, and it is so easy to see yourself through other people's eyes, and it's just something you need to fight if you're insecure, like I was.DL: Again, very, very true, and I think you have managed to succeed and define yourself in a really unique way. And again, I have such admiration for you, Lisa, and I'm so grateful to have you on the show.LB: Yeah. And David, let me just plug you. You're a god and my family loves you. My husband loves you. We always read you. You're just amazing. My husband follows everything you say about Yale.DL: Well, there's a lot to say, and I think I'm gonna be hopping on a train soon to head up there for an event. But, again, thank you so much….LB: We are avid, avid followers of you.DL: Thank you again, Lisa. This was so much fun and best of luck in the arguments you have stacked up for the rest of this Term.LB: Thank you. And thank you for inviting me!DL: Thanks again to Lisa for joining me. I'm always inspired by people like Lisa who can reach the pinnacle of the legal profession while remaining true to themselves. She's a unique advocate and personality, and I mean that in the very best sense.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 relatively new, please help spread the word by telling your friends about it. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, as is most of the newsletter content, but it is made possible by your paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode of the Original Jurisdiction podcast should appear two weeks from now, on or about Wednesday, December 28. 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

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether a work of art is “transformative” when it conveys a different meaning or message from its source material (as the Supreme Court, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, and other courts of appeals have held), or whether a court is forbidden from considering the meaning of the accused work where it “recognizably deriv[es] from” its source material (as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has held).Date                  Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)Dec 09 2021 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 12, 2022)Dec 29 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 12, 2022 to February 11, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.Dec 30 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 11, 2022.Jan 10 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Copyright Law Professors filed.Jan 10 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Barbara Kruger and Robert Storr filed.Jan 12 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Art Law Professors filed.Jan 12 2022 | Brief amici curiae of The Robert Rauschenberg Foundation, Roy Lichtenstein Foundation, and Brooklyn Museum filed.Feb 04 2022 | Brief of respondents Lynn Goldsmith, et al. in opposition filed.Feb 23 2022 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/18/2022.Feb 23 2022 | Reply of petitioner The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. filed. (Distributed)Mar 21 2022 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/25/2022.Mar 28 2022 | Petition GRANTED.Apr 18 2022 | Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.May 02 2022 | Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Lynn Goldsmith, et al.May 02 2022 | Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc.May 04 2022 | Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including June 10, 2022. The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including August 8, 2022.Jun 10 2022 | Brief of petitioner The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. filed.Jun 10 2022 | Joint appendix (Volumes I and II) filed. (Statement of cost filed)Jun 14 2022 | ARGUMENT SET FOR Wednesday, October, 12, 2022.Jun 15 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Royal Manticoran Navy: The Official Honor Harrington Fan Association, Inc. filed.Jun 16 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Art Law Professors filed.Jun 17 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Electronic Frontier Foundation, et al. filed.Jun 17 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Floor64, Inc. d/b/a The Copia Institute filed.Jun 17 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Authors Guild, Inc., et al. in support of neither party filed.Jun 17 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of The Motion Picture Association, Inc. in support of neither party filed.Jun 17 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Art Institute of Chicago, et al. in support of neither party filed.Jun 17 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Authors Alliance filed.Jun 17 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Library Futures Institute, et al. in support of neither party filed.Jun 17 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of New York Intellectual Property Law Association in support of neither party filed.Jun 17 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of American Intellectual Property Law Association in suppoprt of neither party filed.Jun 17 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Art Professor Richard Meyer in support of neither party filed.Jun 17 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Artists, et al. filed.Jun 17 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Copyright Alliance in support of neither party filed.Jun 17 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Copyright Law Professors filed.Jun 17 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Documentary Filmmakers filed.Jun 17 2022 | Brief amici curiae of The Robert Rauschenberg Foundation, et al. filed.Jun 22 2022 | Record requested from the 2nd Circuit.Jun 27 2022 | The record from the U.S.C.A. 2nd Circuit has been electronically filed.Jul 21 2022 | CIRCULATEDAug 08 2022 | Brief of respondents Lynn Goldsmith, et al. filed. (Distributed)Aug 11 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Professors Peter S. Menell, Shyamkrishna Balganesh, and Jane C. Ginsburg as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents filed. (Distributed)Aug 12 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Graphic Artists Guild, Inc. and American Society for Collective Rights Licensing, Inc. filed. (Distributed)Aug 12 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Philippa S. Loengard filed. (Distributed)Aug 15 2022 | Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument filed.Aug 15 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Jeffrey Sedlik, Professional, Photographer and Photography Licensing Expert filed. (Distributed)Aug 15 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Digital Media Licensing Association filed. (Distributed)Aug 15 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Prof. Zvi S. Rosen filed. (Distributed)Aug 15 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Senator Marsha Blackburn filed. (Distributed)Aug 15 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Professor Guy A. Rub filed. (Distributed)Aug 15 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. filed. (Distributed)Aug 15 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice and Intellectual-Property Professors filed. (Distributed)Aug 15 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Photographers Gary Bernstein and Julie Dermansky filed. (Distributed)Aug 15 2022 | Brief amici curiae of American Society of Media Photographers, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)Aug 15 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists filed. (Distributed)Aug 15 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Association of American Publishers filed. (Distributed)Aug 15 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Professor Terry Kogan filed. (Distributed)Aug 15 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Committee for Justice filed. (Distributed)Aug 15 2022 | Brief amici curiae of California Society of Entertainment Lawyers, et al. filed. (Distributed)Aug 15 2022 | Brief amici curiae of The Recording Industry Association of America and The National Music Publishers Association filed. (Distributed)Aug 15 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies filed. (Distributed)Aug 15 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. (Distributed)Sep 07 2022 | Reply of petitioner The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. filed. (Distributed)Sep 28 2022 | Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument GRANTED.Oct 12 2022 | Argued. For petitioner: Roman Martinez, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Lisa S. Blatt, Washington, D. C.; and Yaira Dubin, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)

With the Supreme Court on summer recess, we are bringing back SCOTUS Spotlight, our series of interviews with lawyers who argue regularly before the court. Amy sits down with Roman Martinez, a partner at Latham & Watkins who has argued 11 cases at the court, both on behalf of the government and in private practice.Send us a question about the court at scotustalk@scotusblog.com or leave us a voicemail at (202) 596-2906. Please tell us your first name and where you're calling from.(Music by Keys of Moon Music via Soundcloud) Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.

Roman Martinez and Geoff Grammer talk TBT at The Pit 7/5/22.

Dans cet épisode nous partons à Caen, rue Saint-Laurent pour rencontrer Chloé Prat et Roman Martinez les gérants de deux points de vente qui donnent le ton du centre de cette ville normande. Chloé et Roman créent en 2009 la boutique Roman Prat surfant sur la mode des secondes lignes de créateurs comme Etoile d'Isabel Marant, MCQ, Filippa K, Vanessa Bruno etc... C'est presque 10 ans plus tard, qu'ils lancent Gloriette, à quelques rues de Roman Prat.  Concept inspiré de points de vente comme Colette ou Graan Markt 13 à Anvers, ils réunissent marques de créateurs, restauration et design d'intérieur. Ils définissent leur point de vente comme un espace de vie bien à eux qu'ils partagent avec une clientèle très éclectique.  Chloé et Roman nous partagent leur vision du marché caennais ainsi que leur parcours d'achat qu'ils aiment décrire comme un voyage ponctué de belles rencontres. Les sites internets des deux points de ventes sont liés ce qui permet d'augmenter leur trafic, mais ce troisième point de vente n'est pas encore aboutit et ils s'interrogent beaucoup sur la bonne manière de retranscrire leur ADN  sur le digital. Excellente écoute !   https://www.gloriette-store.com/ https://romanprat.com/ https://www.graanmarkt13.com/ Pour soutenir le podcast: S'abonner à Wholesale Is Not Dead pour ne pas rater la sortie du prochain épisode !Mettre 5 étoiles et laisser un commentaire cool sur Apple Podcast pour aider d 'autres personnes à découvrir le podcast. Pour nous poser des questions c'est par ici  . Sur instagram : @marsbrandingagency      

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a), which permits litigants to invoke the authority of United States courts to render assistance in gathering evidence for use in “a foreign or international tribunal,” encompasses private commercial arbitral tribunals, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 4th and 6th Circuits have held, or excludes such tribunals, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 5th and 7th Circuits have held.Date Proceedings and Orders Sep 10 2021 | Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due October 14, 2021)Oct 14 2021 | Brief of respondent Luxshare, Ltd. in opposition filed.Oct 15 2021 | Application (21A80) for a stay, submitted to Justice Kavanaugh.Oct 15 2021 | Response to application (21A80) requested by Justice Kavanaugh, due Thursday, October 21, by 4 p.m.Oct 21 2021 | Response to application from respondent Luxshare, Ltd. filed.Oct 22 2021 | Reply of applicants ZF Automotive US, Inc., et al. filed.Oct 27 2021 | Application (21A80) referred to the Court.Oct 27 2021 | Application (21A80) granted by the Court. The application for stay presented to Justice Kavanaugh and by him referred to the Court is granted, and it is ordered that the order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, entered August 17, 2021, is stayed pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.Nov 01 2021 | Reply of petitioners ZF Automotive US, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)Nov 02 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/19/2021.Nov 08 2021 | Supplemental brief of petitioners ZF Automotive US, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)Nov 15 2021 | Rescheduled.Nov 16 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/3/2021.Dec 06 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/10/2021.Dec 10 2021 | Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment GRANTED. The motion of International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution, Inc. for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae in No. 21-518 is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 21-518 is granted. The cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. VIDED.Dec 10 2021 | Because the Court has consolidated these cases for briefing and oral argument, future filings and activity in the cases will now be reflected on the docket of No. 21-401. Subsequent filings in these cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in No. 21-401. Each document submitted in connection with one or more of these cases must include on its cover the case number and caption for each case in which the filing is intended to be submitted. Where a filing is submitted in fewer than all of the cases, the docket entry will reflect the case number(s) in which the filing is submitted; a document filed in all of the consolidated cases will be noted as “VIDED.”Jan 13 2022 | Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, ZF Automotive US, Inc., et al.Jan 13 2022 | Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Luxshare, Ltd.Jan 13 2022 | Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, AlixPartners, LLP and Mr. Simon FreakleyJan 24 2022 | Joint appendix filed (in 21-401). (Statement of costs filed)Jan 24 2022 | Brief of petitioners ZF Automotive US, Inc., et al. filed (in 21-401).Jan 24 2022 | Joint appendix filed (in 21-518).Jan 24 2022 | Brief of petitioners AlixPartners, LLP and Mr. Simon Freakley filed (in 21-518).Jan 26 2022 | Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit.Jan 28 2022 | ARGUMENT SET FOR Wednesday, March 23, 2022. VIDED.Jan 28 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Dr. Xu Guojian, Li Hongji, Zhu Yongrui, Tang Qingyang, and Dr. Zhang Guanglei filed (in 21-401).Jan 31 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. VIDED.Jan 31 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of International Arbitration Center in Tokyo in support of neither party filed (in 21-401).Jan 31 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Halliburton Company filed (in 21-401).Jan 31 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States; Business Roundtable filed (in 21-401).Jan 31 2022 | Brief amici curiae of The International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce and the United States Council for International Business supporting neither party filed (in 21-401).Jan 31 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Institute of International Bankers filed. VIDED.Jan 31 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Professor Yanbai Andrea Wang supporting neither party filed. VIDED.Feb 03 2022 | Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, The Fund for Protection of Investors' Rights in Foreign StatesFeb 04 2022 | Joint motion of the parties for divided argument and for enlargement of time for oral argument filed. VIDED.Feb 04 2022 | Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument filed. VIDED.Feb 11 2022 | CIRCIULATEDFeb 23 2022 | Brief of respondent Luxshare, Ltd. filed (in 21-401). (Distributed)Feb 23 2022 | Brief of respondent The Fund for Protection of Investors' Rights in Foreign States filed (in 21-518). (Distributed)Feb 28 2022 | Joint motion for divided argument and for enlargement of time for oral argument filed by the parties GRANTED. VIDED.Feb 28 2022 | Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument GRANTED. VIDED.Mar 01 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Professors Tamar Meshel, Crina Baltag, Fabien Gélinas, and Janet Walker filed (in 21-401). (Distributed)Mar 01 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Ashish Virmani filed (in 21-401). (Distributed)Mar 02 2022 | Brief amici curiae of George A. Bermann, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)Mar 02 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Federal Arbitration, Inc. filed (in 21-401). (Distributed)Mar 11 2022 | Reply of petitioners AlixPartners, LLP and Mr. Simon Freakley filed (in 518). (Distributed)Mar 11 2022 | Reply of petitioners ZF Automotive US, Inc., et al. filed (in 21-401). (Distributed)Mar 23 2022 | Argued. For petitioners in 21-401: Roman Martinez, Washington, D. C. For petitioners in 21-518: Joseph T. Baio, New York, N. Y. For United States, as amicus curiae, supporting petitioners: Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent in 21-401: Andrew R. Davies, New York, N. Y. For respondent in 21-518: Alexander A. Yanos, New York, N. Y. VIDED.★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

SPC Enrique Roman-Martinez had his head removed from his body while camping on an LSD fueled trip with seven fellow Soldiers from Ft Bragg. However, none of them have been arrested for his murder. FT Bragg CID closed the case 18 months later, citing no evidence. Then, three months after these same Soldiers are being prosecuted with a slew of charges NOT related to his murder. What is the holy hell is going on in the 82nd Airborne Division??? Not justice, that's for sure! Join us as we talk to Enrique's baby sister Griselda who stood up to leadership at FT Bragg and demanded they do their job! She truly is a hero.

In this episode of Keiser Report, Max and Stacy look at the IMF trolling El Salvador about Bitcoin as legal tender in the independent nation. In the second half, Max chats to Roman Martinez, one of the original organizers at Bitcoin Beach, about the IMF's concerns and whether or not he feels Bitcoin has offered harm or hope for the community.

This week's episode takes place in North Carolina. Lisa tells us the story of the Taco Bell Strangler and his many victims. Same tells us the unsolved murder of Enrique Roman Martinez. https://murderpedia.org/male.W/w/wallace-henry-louis.htm https://podcasts.apple.com/dk/podcast/c-charlotte-nc-henry-louis-wallace-aka-taco-bell-strangler/id1299543115?i=1000441628800 https://www.bustle.com/p/the-true-crime-doc-bad-henry-explores-a-terrifying-serial-killer-case-targeting-young-black-women-9845925 https://www.crimeonline.com/2020/12/04/young-fort-bragg-paratrooper-murdered-decapitated-with-chop-injuries-and-a-broken-jaw-reports/ https://www.stripes.com/branches/army/2021-05-24/Killing-of-Fort-Bragg-paratrooper-Spc.-Enrique-Roman-Martinez-remains-unsolved-a-year-later-1575670.html https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2022/01/14/3-soldiers-charged-in-fort-bragg-cold-case-death-still-unsolved/ https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/fort-bragg-murders-1153405/ https://crimejunkiepodcast.com/murdered-enrique-roman-martinez/

This episode features Roman Martínez, co-founder and Community Leader at Bitcoin Beach. We discuss the founding of Bitcoin Beach, a sustainable Bitcoin Economic ecosystem on the coast of El Salvador. To view the show transcript, complete guest bios and links mentioned in the episode take a look below or go to advancetechmedia.org and click the episode title.

Esto es TIGRE - Podcast pensado por y para hinchas de TIGRE. Episodio 11: Roman Martinez Conducen: Guille Cardozo, Maxi Williams y Gabi Nunes.

In this episode of Keiser Report from El Salvador, Max and Stacy look at the headlines from the fiat world outside of El Salvador where hyperbitcoinization has started. They find that ‘inflation is good for you' and ‘so is Jamie Dimon'. In the second half, Max interviews Roman Martinez, one of the young bitcoiners from El Zonte's Bitcoin Beach who helped bring hyperbitcoinization to El Salvador.

A young soldier vanishes during a camping trip. His partial remains wash up on the beach 10 days later.   If you have any information on this case, contact Army CID Special Agents at 910-396-8777 or submit a tip anonymously online HERE To sign the petition, visit HERE  To donate to the Martinez family's GoFundMe, please visit HERESource materials for this episode cannot be listed here due to character limitations. For a full list of sources, please visit https://crimejunkiepodcast.com/murdered-enrique-roman-martinez/

A young soldier vanishes during a camping trip. His partial remains wash up on the beach 10 days later.     If you have any information on this case, contact Army CID Special Agents at 910-396-8777 or submit a tip anonymously online HERE   To sign the petition, visit HERE    To donate to the Martinez family's GoFundMe, please visit HERE Source materials for this episode cannot be listed here due to character limitations. For a full list of sources, please visit https://crimejunkiepodcast.com/murdered-enrique-roman-martinez/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Roman "Chimbera" Martinez on Twitter: https://twitter.com/romanmartinezcBitcoin Beach - Twitter @BitcoinBeach - https://www.bitcoinbeach.comHope House - https://hopehouseelsalvador.orgKaty Diaz Surf Foundation - https://www.katydiazsurf.comStrike - https://strike.me - https://global.strike.me (Early Access)Remittances by Country in the Americas - https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/remittances?continent=america

En este episodio hablamos con Roman Martinez, uno de los fundadores de bitcoin beach y líder en la comunidad. Bitcoin Beach es un proyecto social en El Salvador que lleva 10 años operando y que tomo este nombre en 2019 a partir de una donación por una persona anónima. En este episodio platicamos de cómo inició todo, por qué bitcoin es un activo que trae libertad al mundo y cuál es el futuro para El Salvador.

It has been a year since Enrique Roman-Martinez, a Fort-Bragg soldier, went missing. Days later his partial remains were discovered. An autopsy ruled his death a homicide, but for the last year, his family has waited with baited breath to learn if there are any suspects.   During this hour-long episode – Margot chats with Enrique’s older sister, Griselda Martinez and the family attorney, Dustin Collier. Listen in to learn how the family was informed their son was missing, how they were informed their son was murdered, and ultimately how the family has been strung along for a year while the investigation seems to be going nowhere. A task force was formed months after Enrique’s murder. The task force lead is the Army Criminal Investigation division.  Dig in with Margot as she brings you this unfettered conversation. There is a $25k reward for anyone who provides information which leads to an arrest. If you have any information – please contact Army CID at 910-396-8777 or the Army Military Police at 910-396-1179. You can also reach the family attorney, Dustin Collier, at 415-767-0047, ext 1. Email at dcollier@collierlawsf.com.     The family's Go-Fund Me page is located at https://gofund.me/de715834. They are trying to reach $30k to hire a private investigator to help get justice. Any donation amount helps. ---- Thanks to Today’s Sponsors: Canva Pro! Get a 45-day FREE trial of Canva Pro by going to Canva.me/militarymama. Better Help! Get 10% off your first month of counseling by visiting Betterhelp.com/militarymama.  Storyworth! Get $10 OFF & Free Shipping by going to Storyworth.com/militarymama. Heartbeat Hot Sauce! Get 20% OFF your ENTIRE order by going to heartbeathotsauce.com and using code “MILITARYMAMA” at checkout.  ---- Want your episodes ad-free? Want more full-length monthly episodes? Join the Patreon Fan Club today for as little as $1 a month!  https://Patreon.com/militarymurder ----- Military Murder is a military true crime podcast that focuses on murders committed by military members, veterans, and sometimes their family members. ---- Follow on social: Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/militarymurderpodcast Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@militarymurder Facebook: https://facebook.com/militarytruecrime Discussion Group: https://facebook.com/groups/militarytruecrime Email: militarymurderpodcast@gmail.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

BUENAS!!!BUENAS!!!BUENAS!!! El Nino!!! Confused??? Well then you might want to click play on this one! This week we sit down with local artist and Star Wars guru, Roman Martinez, who took his love of Star and combined it with the Loteria, a traditional Mexican family game that tests the true love between family members. We learn what inspired his idea behind the game, as well as get down to the deepest darkest truths of the dark side and wonder, Do You Even Star Wars??? So crack open a cold one, relax and listen to another fun filled episode of the Six Feet Under Studios Podcast! Thank You To Our Sponsors! Old Sheepdog Brewery: 3900 Rosa Ave, El Paso, Texas 79905 Vitola's Cigar & Whiskey: 216 W. Franklin Ave, El Paso, Texas 79901 White Knife Dining: 2626 N. Mesa St, El Paso, Texas 79912

True Crime Update (TCU):New updates on the Enrique Roman Martinez and Andrés Guardado case. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

When a group of paratroopers hits the beach for a laid-back holiday weekend, one of their own goes missing. Tragic evidence washes ashore and ignites one of 2020’s most devastating missing / murdered American soldier investigations in this episode of Last Seen Alive.

During confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominees, the debate is always focused on social questions like abortion, but rarely economic questions—the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett was no exception. But the Supreme Court can have a massive influence on our economy and how we conduct business. On this episode, we're joined by appeals lawyer, Roman Martinez, who has personally argued many cases in front of the Court, to interrogate the relationship between the Supreme Court and the economy, and how the new court may rule on business issues.

CONFIDENTE EN LA OSCURIDAD TEMA EXPEDIENTE WARREN CONDUCIDO POR RUBEN CANELA Y ROMAN MARTINEZ

The FBI is offering a 25K reward for any information linked to the death of Enrique Roman Martinez, age 21, a 82nd Airborne Paratrooper last seen near Cape Lookout National Seashore. Stationed in Fort Bragg and almost finished with his army contract, SPC Martinez had plans to go to college and move in with his sister Griselda this fall. His SIX "friends" reported him missing on May 23rd while on a camping trip he never told his sister he was going on, although they were super close and frequently called each other to talk. SPC Martinez's attitude changed about the military about a year before from positive to negative and looking forward to the end of his contract.  His body was dismembered and his head washed up on a nearby island and found after 6 days. The army is giving his family the runaround like they did to the other 9 service members missing at Fort Hood in KILL-een, TX. 4 months, no arrests, no answers. SPC ENRIQUE ROMAN MARTINEZ DESERVES JUSTICE!  --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Enrique Roman-Martinez disappeared, on May 22, 2020 while on a camping trip with fellow soldiers in North Carolina. Nearly a week later, his body washed up ashore... dismembered. What happened to the Fort Bragg soldier? --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

For this week’s episode I spoke to Griselda Martinez, who is the sister of Army paratrooper Enrique Roman-Martinez, who disappeared on May 22, 2020. He went camping with 7 other Ft. Bragg soldiers on North Carolina’s South Core Banks.On May 23, 2020 A fellow soldier called 911 and claimed that Martinez wandered off the previous evening and never returned. Allegedly, he was only wearing shorts and no shirt. His remains washed up on Shackleford Banks Island on May 29, 2020. Someone had murdered Enrique and then dismembered his body. Do you know who killed this 21-year-old soldier? Enrique had a lot to live for. He will never become a father, grandfather or be able to possibly give away one of his sisters at their future weddings. If you have any information about this case, please leave a tip with the U.S. Army CID at www.p3tips.com or call 254-495-7767 or 910-396-8777. There is a substantial reward for any information leading to catching Enrique’s killer. Please also visit the Justice for SPC. Enrique Roman Martinez FB page for more details about this case.Video clip provided from https://abc7.com/ Please also visit my website for more information about my true crime and paranormal newspaper columns at www.themarcabe.com. You can also help support my podcast by making a Paypal donation to augustlake@fuse.net at https://bit.ly/39iw6iz. If you would like to contact me about this podcast, please email me at catchmykiller@gmail.com.

In this episode we go back to Redding, back to where some people say there is a portal to hell. Athena reminds everyone that Heather Cameron went missing 8 years ago today 8/18/2012 and there is a reward offered for information leading to an arrest or body. I'd also like to update everyone on the $25,000 reward offered for Enrique Roman-Martinez. Guess what guys, I have the very strange 911 call made by the fellow soliders he was camping with the night he was murdered.Come say hi on Instagram and let me know if you have any info on this case or other cover ups. @vanishedinthevalleyI am trying to keep these episodes commercial free but in order to continue to do that I need the support from our listenersVanished in the Valley now has a Patreon account where you can show us love!www.patreon.com/vanishedinthevalley.Make sure to rate, review and subscribe if you like what me and Ken are doing. We just want to keep the vanished people's name out in the public's mind. If we keep it up, maybe it will spur someone that knows something into coming forward and leading us to someone's missing loved one.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/vanished-in-the-valley. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this episode Athena and guest host K, talk about the murder of another active duty solider from Fort Bragg named Enrique Roman Martinez. Enrique went camping on May 22 with seven other soldiers only to vanish for a week and wash up on a beach dismembered. Athena briefly talks about a missing endangered woman from California named Ashley Sprang.Athena got info for this case from Armytimes.com and Carolinacoastline.comI am trying to keep these episodes commercail free but in order to continue to do that I need the support from our listenersVanished in the Valley now has a Patreon account where you can show us love!www.patreon.com/vanishedinthevalleyMake sure to rate, review and subscribe if you like what me and Ken are doing. We just want to keep the vanished people's name out in the public's mind. If we keep it up, maybe it will spur someone that knows something into coming forward and leading us to someone's missing loved one.Vanished in the Valley now has a Patreon account where you can show us love!www.patreon.com/vanishedinthevalleyIf you have any questions, please email us vanishedinthevalley@gmail.comSupport this show http://supporter.acast.com/vanished-in-the-valley. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On Memorial Day Weekend 2020, Specialist Enrique Roman-Martinez and 7 other soldiers from Fort Bragg, North Carolina decided to take a break for the long weekend. They hopped on a ferry and headed towards Cape Lookout National Seashore as a group of 8, but only 7 returned. What happened to Specialist Roman-Martinez who seemingly walked away from the group at midnight, never to return to his tent? The group of soldiers noticed he was missing early on May 23, 2020, and reported him missing 17 hours later. Specialist Roman-Martinez’s remains were found less than a week later, washed ashore. His body only identified with dental records. The autopsy report was still pending when this episode was released, but the Army CID is investigating the case as a homicide. There is a $15k reward for any information that leads to an arrest in the case. You can contact 910-396-8777 with information, or if you would like to remain anonymous, you can submit a tip here. Join Margot as she discusses the limited amount of facts made available to the public and asks for your help in solving this murder. -----All sources for this episode can be found here. PROMO: -90s Crime Time Podcast Military Murder Merch – available here. Access a Free Bonus episode on the Infamous Case of Lorena Bobbitt. -----Read about Military Murder podcast on Task & Purpose. Follow on social:InstagramTwitter FacebookEmail: militarymurderpodcast@gmail.com Support the show (https://www.militarymurderpodcast.com/donate-2)

The Overnight Underground Podcast, now the headlines:  Police using SWAT, pepper spray and knight sticks for social distancing. You won’t social distance, that’s a shooting. A Gun and knife fight battle winner in Florida. The Supreme Court flush and Trump’s butler did it.  These stories & more coming up on today’s Overnight Underground News. I’m John Ford.   Social distancing SWAT In the US, the lockdown is definitely taking a toll and driving people and that includes the police, totally and completely nuts. Case in point: In Odessa, Texas the sheriff sent in a SWAT team to clear a protest outside a bar. The Bar, Big Daddy Zanes, was open despite going against the Governors order for bars, gyms and salons to remain closed. Bar owner Gabrielle Ellison speaking to KLBC TV. You know, you got to be careful or you could get "tooken".  Cops rough up non-social distancers In New Jersey, Jersey City cops are under fire today for allegedly roughing up a group of black men for social distancing violations. Video has surfaced that shows a white cop repeatedly punching an African American man while another cop pins him to the ground. Police report six officers responded to a fight that involved somewhere in the neighborhood of a hundred people. Police used pepper spray and batons to break up the crowd and their heads. Social media finger pointers are saying the cops used excessive force to enforce social distancing and the PoPo is saying the cops used just  the right amount of force for the violent situation. Who you gonna believe?  Social distance? That’s a shooting All right, what’s next? In Oklahoma City on wednesday, two customers shot two McDonald's employees after being told to leave the restaurant due to coronavirus restrictions. CNN reports the perps got angry and started shootin’ when they were asked to leave due to the plague restrictions. Two suspects were apprehended after fleeing the scene. The Hamburgler could not be reached for comment.  Gun and knife fight winners Well, we may finally have the answer to who wins in the knife fight, gun fight challenge. Two Tampa Mensa members may have finally answered the question, unfortunately one of them is dead. It seems two men were role playing the gun vs knife fight scenario when the gun went off, killing the knife wielding man. That’s Tampa prosecutor Anthony Falcone. According to Fox thirteen Tampa Bay, the shooter, twenty four year old Neil Gallagher, is facing manslaughter charges. His defense? He didn’t know the gun was loaded.  Jogging will kill you And of course there’s the case of the unarmed black jogger in Georgia who appears to be being hunted and is then shot and killed back in February. A video is causing outrage online. The two men in the video who allegedly shot and killed the jogger, Ahmaud Arbery, have not been charged.  Supreme court flush OK, enough of all that mayhem, here’s the sound byte of the day. Yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments over teleconference, due to the dangers of coronavirus. Yet it seems that some of the better arguments came out the other end.  While attorney Roman Martinez was passionately arguing in Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, listeners, and that includes everyone with an inclination to bend an ear due to the fact that the proceedings were streamed live on the internet, clearly heard a toilet flush in the background. Although Martinez was speaking at the time of the flush, it’s not clear who pushed the plunger. It could have been the notorious RBG, Aleto, Roberts, you name it. We hear from reliable sources that they are all, literally full of sh*t. In another ironic twist at the court, during arguments about robocalls, Justice Stephen Breyer was cut off when someone tried calling him. The Justice said, Quote: “I don't think it was a robocall." It was probably just Mark from Microsoft calling from Mumbai about all those infections on Breyer’s computer.  Worse than Pearl Harbor We actually have another candidate for sound byte of the day today on the Overnight Underground. President Trump on Wednesday compared the coronavirus pandemic to Pearl Harbor and nine eleven. Needless to say, a lot of Twatters were offended and outraged, because that’s just how they roll. The President also reversed his earlier decision to disband the coronavirus task force. He said he, quote: “had no idea how popular the task force is.” Probably more popular than his current ratings.  The butler did it.  The President’s personal valet has tested positive for Covid-19, but Trump and his docs say he’s A OK. The valets are members of the military and work closely with the President and and the first family. According to The New York Post and other sources, the valet started exhibiting symptoms on Wednesday and later tested positive for coronavirus. The news has reportedly, quote: “hit the fan” in the west wing. Nothing a good dose of bleach won’t fix.  Avoid driving in Georgia Here’s a reason to stay the hell off the roads in Georgia, twenty thousand teens have received their driver licenses without a road test.  It’s all part of Georgia's way of handling the backlog of the thousands of road tests that have been put on hold due to the coronavirus pandemic. And while you’re at it, you might want to avoid driving in Wisconsin as week. The state announced that it will start doing the same for teen drivers, starting Monday. Oh these kids today, try parallel parking a ‘70s Lincoln Town Car as part of your driving test and then get back to me. 

Fight Reviews Friday 19th July from MGM National Harbor, Oxon Hill, Maryland Teofimo Lopez (14-0) UD12 Masayoshi Nakatani (18-1) 118-110 x2 119-109 The first time lopez had gone past seven rounds Teofimo to fight Richard Commey later this yer for the IBF Subriel Matias (14-0) RTD11 Maxim Dadashev (13-1)  trainer buddy mcgirt threw in the towel after round 11 of the IBF Eliminator. Dadashev needed assistance leaving the ring. He left the arena on a stretcher and was taken to UM Prince George Hospital Center. Dadashev had a two hour surgery to relive a subdural hematoma or bleeding on the brain. He is in a medically induced coma.   Saturday 20th July from MGM Grand Garden Arena, Las Vegas on FOX PPV Manny Pacquiao (62-7-2) SD12 Keith Thurman (29-1) WBA Super World Welterweight title 115-112 x2    113-114    Yordenis Ugas (24-4) UD12 Omar Figueroa Jr (28-1-1) 119-107 x3 Luis Nery (30-0) KO9 Juan Carlos Payano (21-3) Nery won 11 straight fights by stoppage Caleb Plant (19-0) TKO3 Mike Lee (21-1) IBF Super Middleweight  Hopefully see Plant face the winner of Anthony Dirrell v David Benavidez Sept 28th Efe Ajagba (11-0) UD10 Ali Eren Demirezen (11-1) Sergey Lipinets (16-1) TKO2 Jayar Inson (18-3)         02 Arena, London, UK on DAZN USA Dillian Whyte (26-1) UD12 Oscar Rivas (26-1) 115-112 x2 116-111-Interim WBC Heavyweight Whyte dropped in round 9 by a right uppercut David Price (25-6) RTD10 David Allen (17-5-2) Vacant WBA Continental Heavyweight  Dereck Chisora (31-9) KO2 Artur Szpilka (22-4)  Chisora and Parker want to fight each other on the undercard Joshua V Ruiz rematch   Fight Previews Saturday 27th July from College Park Center, Arlington, Texas on DAZN USA Jose Carlos Ramirez (24-0) v Maurice Hooker (26-0-3) WBO & WBC Super Lightweight    Hooker (26-0-3, 17 KO) went to the UK last year to beat Terry Flanagan for the then-vacant WBO title, and has since made two successful defenses, stopping Alex Saucedo last November and winning a wide decision over Mikkel LesPierre on March 9.   Ramirez (24-0, 16 KO) is the WBC titleholder, beating Amir Imam for the vacant title in March 2018. He’s also made two success defenses, beating Antonio Orozco last September and edging a majority decision over Jose Zepeda on Feb. 10.   Tevin Farmer (29-4-1) v Guillaume Frenois (46-1-1) IBF Super Featherweight Title IBF super featherweight titleholder Tevin Farmer will have to take care of his mandatory next, as the sanctioning body have officially ordered him to defend against Guillaume Frenois. Farmer (29-4-1, 6 KO) was allowed to make an optional defense on March 15 against Jono Carroll, which resulted in a decision win for Farmer in Tevin’s hometown of Philadelphia, his third successful defense since winning the belt over Billy Dib last August in Australia.   Tramaine Williams (18-0) v Yenifel Vicente (35-3-2) Vacant USBA Super Bantamweight  Murat Gassiev (26-1) v Joey Dawejko (19-7-4) Austin Williams (2-0) v Jabrandon Harris (0-2-0)       Royal Farms Arena, Baltimore, Maryland on Showtime  Gervonta Davis (21-0) v Ricardo Nunez (21-2) WBA Super World Super Featherweight  Yuriorkis Gamboa (29-2) v Roman Martinez (30-3-3)    

The seventh annual Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 8, 2019, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington DC. The luncheon panel was titled "Revisiting Judicial Deference."The Department of Justice position taken in Kisor v. Wilke seems to acknowledge that Auer deference is in jeopardy and is a marked difference in tone from how DOJ has continued to strongly defend executive authority in its arguments and briefing in the lower appellate courts. Historically, two key defenses in this area have been the now-controversial deference doctrines of Chevron (requiring courts to defer to executive agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes they administer) and Auer/Seminole Rock (requiring courts to defer to executive agency interpretations of their own regulations). Is the administration making a strategic retreat in an attempt to protect those doctrines from a Court where a majority of its members have signaled an openness to revisiting them? Or does this reflect a commitment to the judicial use of traditional tools of textual interpretation to overcome ambiguity, reining in agency autonomy, and discouraging congressional delegations of lawmaking authority to agencies? Furthermore, with cert pending in United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Postal Regulatory Commission, thirteen states in amicus arguments see a new opportunity to reconsider Chevron. As Chevron and Auer/ Seminole Rock form significant parts of the superstructure of the modern administrative state, what does this mean for the future of the constitutional balance?* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.Featuring:Dr. John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service and former Dean, Chapman University's Fowler School of Law; Senior Fellow, Claremont InstituteMr. Roman Martinez, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLPProf. David Vladeck, A.B. Chettle Chair in Civil Procedure, Georgetown University Law CenterProf. Adam White, Assistant Professor and Executive Director, The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason UniversityModerator: Ms. Sarah M. Harris, Partner, Williams & ConnollyIntroduction: Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

The seventh annual Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 8, 2019, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington DC. The luncheon panel was titled "Revisiting Judicial Deference."The Department of Justice position taken in Kisor v. Wilke seems to acknowledge that Auer deference is in jeopardy and is a marked difference in tone from how DOJ has continued to strongly defend executive authority in its arguments and briefing in the lower appellate courts. Historically, two key defenses in this area have been the now-controversial deference doctrines of Chevron (requiring courts to defer to executive agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes they administer) and Auer/Seminole Rock (requiring courts to defer to executive agency interpretations of their own regulations). Is the administration making a strategic retreat in an attempt to protect those doctrines from a Court where a majority of its members have signaled an openness to revisiting them? Or does this reflect a commitment to the judicial use of traditional tools of textual interpretation to overcome ambiguity, reining in agency autonomy, and discouraging congressional delegations of lawmaking authority to agencies? Furthermore, with cert pending in United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Postal Regulatory Commission, thirteen states in amicus arguments see a new opportunity to reconsider Chevron. As Chevron and Auer/ Seminole Rock form significant parts of the superstructure of the modern administrative state, what does this mean for the future of the constitutional balance?* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.Featuring:Dr. John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service and former Dean, Chapman University's Fowler School of Law; Senior Fellow, Claremont InstituteMr. Roman Martinez, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLPProf. David Vladeck, A.B. Chettle Chair in Civil Procedure, Georgetown University Law CenterProf. Adam White, Assistant Professor and Executive Director, The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason UniversityModerator: Ms. Sarah M. Harris, Partner, Williams & ConnollyIntroduction: Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

Elizabeth Slattery & John-Michael Seibler discuss how some media outlets and Senate Democrats have reached a new low when it comes to confirmation battles. They also chat with former Kavanaugh clerk Roman Martinez about trips to the dive bar My Brother’s Place and the time the judge caught him playing chess on the job. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This episode begins with Recap from a hectic week in the sport of boxing that saw FOTY performances from Orlando Salido and Francisco Vargas on HBO, along with 2 PBC cards featuring prospect level to championship fights. Plus, Preview, Debate, & Predictions for both HBO and Showtime dualing events: Vasyl Lomachenko vs. Roman Martinez, Ruslan Provodnikov vs. John Molina, Andrade vs. Nelson! Other Topics for Discussion- A special segment morning the loss of a legendary fighter Muhammad Ali. -Golden Boy and Canelo vs. All-Star Boxing Court Case Update and a list of potential Canelo opponents for his next fight. -ESPN and UFC rumors gaining more steam with PBC on ESPN issue lingering? -Plus, More Current Fight News and Rumor Mill Items! Follow on Twitter @RopeADopeRadio Visit The Rope A Dope Repot YouTube Channel! Call 646-381-4990 Listen Live or Join The Roundtable! Your Voice Will Be Heard!    

The Pound4Pound Kings of Boxing Broadcast Journalism. ONTHEGRiND BOXiNG is the world's number 1 boxing podcast, and blogtalkradio's original boxing program. Muhammad Ali passed into eternity this week. ONTHEGRiND BOXiNG Eulogizes the greatest. BOXiNG fans finally have something to talk about again following a battle for the ages between Orlando Salido and Francisco Vargas. The OtG Team will also preview a big boxing weekend featuring; Ruslan Provodnikov, John Molina, Vasyl Lomachenko and Roman Martinez. We welcome back an integral member of the team on today's episode as well. ONTHEGRiND BOXiNG breaks down the latest boxing news, commentary, predictions and analysis from around the boxing world.

The Pound4Pound Kings of Boxing Broadcast Journalism. ONTHEGRiND BOXiNG is the world's number 1 boxing podcast, and blogtalkradio's original boxing program. Gennady Golovkin and Roman Martinez returned to The Forum for respective title defenses. ONTHEGRiND BOXiNG wraps up the action. ONTHEGRiND BOXiNG breaks down the latest boxing news, commentary, predictions and analysis from around the boxing world.

Floyd Mayweather, Jr. defeated Andre Berto in what was billed as the final fight of his career. It was yet another lopsided encounter for the pound-for-pound champion as he said farewell to boxing in a bizarre mismatch.THE UNDERCARDIt became clear once this fight was announced that Mayweather vs. Berto would need a strong undercard to attract fans. In a rematch of their early 2015 classic, Roman Martinez and Orlando Salido met in the ring in hopes of recreating their Fight of the Year candidate which saw the Puerto Rican they call "Rocky" raise the title.In other undercard action, WBC mandatory challenger George Groves squared off against super-middleweight titles Badou Jack in a super-middleweight clash. After a first round knockdown, George Groves recovered to win the first half of this highly skillful contest, but Badou Jack's patience and commitment to the body attack would wear down the talented Englishman. The boisterous Englishman would fall short yet again at an attempt to raise a world title.Premier Boxing Champions sunk to a new low this past weekend as the fledgling upstart featured two dangerous mismatches. The controversial and highly adversarial operation continues to ignore boxing fans and attack the media around every corner, yet the Al Haymon led organization paraded and promoted one of the ugliest mismatches in recent boxing history. Peter Quillin and Adonis Stevenson disgraced the sports of boxing this passed weekend, and the Tale of the Tape calls them out on their ridiculous actions.Oscar Valdez returned to action on TruTV's Friday Night Knockouts in a huge step-up bout for the young, highly touted prospect. The young featherweight showed great improvement with elite hand speed and accuracy against the tough veteran Chris Avalos. FOLLOW US on SOCIAL MEDIATwitter:@TheBoxingRant - www.twitter.com/theboxingrant@KennyKeithJr - www.twitter.com/kennykeithjrFacebook: www.facebook.com/SportsRantRadioInstagram:www.instagram.com/theboxingrantGoogle+:www.google.com/+SportsRantRadio1Email:podcast@theboxingrant.comEpisode 73 of the Tale of the Tape Boxing Podcast is sponsored by BetOnline.ag. Use promo code "BoxingRant" for you 75% sportsbook deposit bonus today, only on BetOnline.ag http://partners.commission.bz/processing/clickthrgh.asp?btag=a_39065b_1596

Floyd Mayweather, Jr. defeated Andre Berto in what was billed as the final fight of his career. It was yet another lopsided encounter for the pound-for-pound champion as he said farewell to boxing in a bizarre mismatch.THE UNDERCARDIt became clear once this fight was announced that Mayweather vs. Berto would need a strong undercard to attract fans. In a rematch of their early 2015 classic, Roman Martinez and Orlando Salido met in the ring in hopes of recreating their Fight of the Year candidate which saw the Puerto Rican they call "Rocky" raise the title.In other undercard action, WBC mandatory challenger George Groves squared off against super-middleweight titles Badou Jack in a super-middleweight clash. After a first round knockdown, George Groves recovered to win the first half of this highly skillful contest, but Badou Jack's patience and commitment to the body attack would wear down the talented Englishman. The boisterous Englishman would fall short yet again at an attempt to raise a world title.Premier Boxing Champions sunk to a new low this past weekend as the fledgling upstart featured two dangerous mismatches. The controversial and highly adversarial operation continues to ignore boxing fans and attack the media around every corner, yet the Al Haymon led organization paraded and promoted one of the ugliest mismatches in recent boxing history. Peter Quillin and Adonis Stevenson disgraced the sports of boxing this passed weekend, and the Tale of the Tape calls them out on their ridiculous actions.Oscar Valdez returned to action on TruTV's Friday Night Knockouts in a huge step-up bout for the young, highly touted prospect. The young featherweight showed great improvement with elite hand speed and accuracy against the tough veteran Chris Avalos. FOLLOW US on SOCIAL MEDIATwitter:@TheBoxingRant - www.twitter.com/theboxingrant@KennyKeithJr - www.twitter.com/kennykeithjrFacebook: www.facebook.com/SportsRantRadioInstagram:www.instagram.com/theboxingrantGoogle+:www.google.com/+SportsRantRadio1Email:podcast@theboxingrant.comEpisode 73 of the Tale of the Tape Boxing Podcast is sponsored by BetOnline.ag. Use promo code "BoxingRant" for you 75% sportsbook deposit bonus today, only on BetOnline.ag http://partners.commission.bz/processing/clickthrgh.asp?btag=a_39065b_1596

The moment almost none of us have been waiting for is here. Floyd Mayweather fights Andre Berto this weekend on Pay-Per-View, for way too much money, under the guise that this will be his final bout. As you can see, we're really excited about the prospect of paying $75 to watch Floyd fight a guy who lost to Jesus Soto Karass and Victor Ortiz. At least the undercard (Badou Jack vs George Groves, Roman Martinez vs Orlando Salido II, Ishe Smith vs Vanes Martirosyan) isn't laughable. Earlier Saturday on NBC, Peter Quillin fights a guy named Michael Zerafa (just go look on the internet yourself, trust us), and Cornelius Bundrage fights for the first time in about a year against Jermall Charlo. Austin Trout fights tonight (Tues) on FoxSports 1, but on Friday light heavyweight champion Adonis Stevenson continues to face sub-par opposition when he defends against Tommy Karpency on Spike, from Premier Boxing Champions. Talented welterweight Errol Spence Jr. fights in the co-feature. On CBS last Sunday from PBC, Anthony Dirrell won a ho hum decision over Marco Antonio Rubio, and in the co-feature Jamie McDonnell again defeated Tomoki Kameda by controversial decision. It's been a mediocre year, as you all know. But there's news about Scott Quigg and Nonito Donaire being nearly finalized, some pointing and laughing to do about upcoming cards... And joining James Foley of Bad Left Hook and The Fight City's Patrick Connor once again this week is Matthew Swain of The Queensberry Rules. Thanks for tuning in! (Photos: Lucas Noonan/PBC)

Hosted by Jeandra LeBeauf and Ryan Bivins, The Ruckus is back this week with guests middleweight contender Tureano Johnson and super lightweight prospect Mike Reed. Not only they are fighters but complete connoseurs of the Sweet Science. Listen in as they catch us up one the latest developments in their respective camps as well as their thoughts and opinons on the current boxing landscape.  Other topics include: PBC - headlined by Danny Garcia and Lamont Peterson. We recap the card and take your calls and comments form twitter.Boricuas stand up. Puerto Rico's Roman Martinez defeats Orlando Salido to become the new WBO super featherweight champion.Miguel Cotto names Daniel Geale as next opponent Today's Mayweather Media workoutThis weekend's fight action (Chavez Jr. vs Fonfara, Matthysee vs Provodnikov)and more! Show goes LIVE at 7PM PT. To talk to the hosts, dial 718.508.9852.

Prospect Tarvis Simms comes thru the show for an In Depth Interview. With only one loss to Former Super Six contender Allan Green,Simms will discuss his past,present, and future outlook.Also Recap of the Ricky Burns vs Roman Martinez and News,Preview,Debate,and Predictions for both the HBO Doubleheader featuring Yuriorkis Gamboa, as well as the Heavyweight Fight Between Wladimir Klitschko and Sam Peter!Call in and Let Your Voice Be Heard!

We will talk the about the variety of fights coming up this weekend.Plus news.Call in and let your voice be heard!