Podcasts about seventh amendment

on todays show Maddie breaks down the legal case of  Corinne Thomas et al. vs. Humboldt County, California, where landowners face harsh penalties for alleged cannabis activities. One petitioner was fined $1.8 million to demolish a garage. The plaintiffs argue the fines violate the Eighth Amendment's excessive fines clause and the Seventh Amendment's right to a jury trial. The case highlights the lack of due process and bias in county hearings. The Supreme Court is considering the appeal, focusing on the Seventh Amendment. Additionally, the conversation touched on the potential impact of Trump's economic policies and the challenges faced by New Orleans' prison system. The discussion centered on the impending departure of Scott Adams, who is known for his common-sense approach and humor in his podcasts. Adams, who has been diagnosed with cancer, plans to continue working until he can no longer do so. The conversation also touched on the difficulty of replacing Rush Limbaugh and the impact of his passing. Additionally, there was a brief mention of Sudanese deportations and a positive review of Dunkin' Donuts' new peach tea Palmer. The segment concluded with a promotion for Second Round Bakery cookies and an invitation for listener feedback. Don't Miss it!

The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in federal civil cases for legal claims, primarily those seeking monetary damages (e.g., torts, contract breaches), as opposed to equitable remedies like injunctions or specific performance.Voir dire is the process of questioning potential jurors to ensure an impartial jury. Challenges for cause allow dismissal for demonstrated bias, while peremptory challenges permit a limited number of removals without stating a reason, though they cannot be discriminatory.A typical civil trial proceeds with opening statements, the plaintiff's case-in-chief (presenting evidence to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard), the defendant's case-in-chief, rebuttal, surrebuttal (if any), closing arguments, and jury instructions before deliberation and verdict.A motion for judgment as a matter of law (Rule 50(a)) argues that the opposing party has not presented sufficient evidence to support a verdict in their favor and can be made after that party has been fully heard. The court considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.A motion for a new trial (Rule 59) seeks to restart the trial due to errors or issues that prejudiced the outcome, such as evidentiary errors, misconduct, a verdict against the weight of the evidence, or newly discovered evidence. It differs from Rule 50 in that it doesn't necessarily argue the existing verdict is legally impossible.The entry of judgment formally concludes the trial court proceedings and triggers deadlines for post-judgment remedies and appeals. One ground for relief from judgment under Rule 60 is excusable neglect, generally with a one-year time limit from the entry of judgment.United States Courts of Appeals have jurisdiction over final decisions of district courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The general deadline for filing a notice of appeal is within 30 days of the entry of the final judgment.The de novo standard of review means the appellate court reviews legal questions anew without deference to the trial court's ruling. The clear error standard applies to factual findings, which the appellate court will only overturn if a definite and firm mistake is found.Claim preclusion (res judicata) prevents relitigating a claim already decided by a final judgment on the merits. The elements are a final judgment on the merits, identity of the parties (or privity), and the same claim or cause of action.Issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) prevents relitigating specific factual or legal issues already decided in a prior case. A key requirement is that the issue must have been actually litigated and determined, and essential to the prior judgment.

The Bill of Rights The Bill of Rights is the first 10 Amendments to theConstitution of The United States, it was ratified on December 15, 1791.The Bill of Rights spells out Americans' rights in relationto their government. It guarantees civil rights and liberties to theindividual—like freedom of speech, press, and religion. It sets rules for dueprocess of law, and reserves all powers not delegated to the Federal Governmentto the people or the States. And it specifies that “the enumeration in theConstitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparageothers retained by the people.” The First Amendment provides several rights protections: toexpress ideas through speech and the press, to assemble or gather with a groupto protest or for other reasons, and to ask the government to fix problems. Italso protects the right to religious beliefs and practices. It prevents thegovernment from creating or favoring a religion. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and beararms. The Third Amendment prevents government from forcinghomeowners to allow soldiers to use their homes. Before the Revolutionary War,laws gave British soldiers the right to take over private homes. The Fourth Amendment bars the government from unreasonablesearch and seizure of an individual or their private property. The Fifth Amendment provides several protections for peopleaccused of crimes. It states that serious criminal charges must be started by agrand jury.  A person cannot be triedtwice for the same offense or have property taken away without justcompensation. People have the right against self-incrimination and cannot beimprisoned without due process of law. The Sixth Amendment provides additional protections topeople accused of crimes, such as, the right to a speedy and public trial, incriminal cases, trial by an impartial jury, and to be informed of criminalcharges. Witnesses must face the accused, and the accused is allowed his or herown witnesses and to be represented by a lawyer. The Seventh Amendment extends the right to a jury trial inFederal civil cases. The Eighth Amendment bars excessive bail and fines and a crueland unusual punishment. The Ninth Amendment states that listing specific rights inthe Constitution does not mean that people do not have other right, that havenot been spelled out. The Tenth Amendment says that the Federal Government onlyhas those powers delegated in the Constitution. If it isn't listed, it belongsto the states or to the people.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the statutory scheme that empowers the Securities and Exchange Commission violate the Seventh Amendment, the nondelegation doctrine, or Article II of the U-S Constitution?    The case was decided on June 27, 2024. The Supreme Court held that when the Securities and Exchange Commission seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court. First, the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial applies to this SEC enforcement action. The claims are "legal in nature" and closely resemble common law fraud actions. The substance of the claim matters more than its statutory origin or which branch of government brings the action. Moreover, the civil penalties sought are punitive in nature, which is a type of remedy traditionally provided by courts of law rather than courts of equity. Second, the "public rights" exception to the Seventh Amendment does not apply here because this case does not fall within the narrow categories of matters that have historically been exclusively determined by the executive and legislative branches. The mere facts that Congress assigned the matter to an agency and that the government is the plaintiff do not change this outcome. Unlike the novel regulatory scheme in Atlas Roofing, these SEC fraud claims have close analogues in traditional common law actions that were historically adjudicated by courts with juries. Because this action is essentially a common law fraud suit seeking punitive remedies, it must be heard by an Article III court with a jury, despite Congress assigning it to an administrative proceeding. This conclusion preserves the constitutional separation of powers and the role of juries in adjudicating traditional legal claims. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a concurring opinion, in which Justice Clarence Thomas joined. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

In which a constitutional change finally happens after a two-hundred-year delay just to spite one Texas poli sci professor, and Ken likes it when scriveners get away scot-free. Certificate #43079.

This Day in Legal History: The Amsterdam Treaty Broadens the EUOn October 2, 1997, the Amsterdam Treaty was signed by European Union (EU) delegates, marking a significant step in the evolution of the EU's institutional framework and policy ambitions. The treaty aimed to enhance the efficiency, transparency, and democratic legitimacy of the Union, amending previous agreements like the Maastricht Treaty. One of its key features was strengthening the powers of the European Parliament, giving it greater legislative influence through the co-decision procedure, which allowed it to act as an equal legislator with the Council of the European Union.The Amsterdam Treaty also laid the groundwork for the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), aiming for more coordinated diplomatic actions and international influence. It introduced the role of the High Representative for the CFSP to improve coherence in foreign policy. Additionally, the treaty made strides in areas such as justice and home affairs, addressing issues like asylum, immigration, and judicial cooperation across member states. The treaty was also a response to the anticipated enlargement of the EU, as post-Communist countries in Eastern Europe were expected to join, requiring institutional reforms to manage an expanded Union. The Amsterdam Treaty signaled a shift toward a more integrated and politically unified Europe, preparing the EU for the challenges of a growing membership and a more globalized world.Alphabet Inc.'s Google is facing a renewed antitrust lawsuit from Sensory Inc., a voice recognition technology company, accusing the tech giant of monopolistic practices in the voice assistant market. Sensory alleges that Google used its dominance in general search to create barriers preventing consumers from using alternative voice assistants and wakeword software to access non-Google search engines. This lawsuit revives a previous case from April 2022, which was paused to allow other antitrust litigation against Google to proceed. In August, the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that Google had illegally monopolized the search market through exclusivity agreements. Sensory claims Google extended this behavior by preventing hardware manufacturers from allowing consumers to choose competing voice assistants with non-Google search engines. Sensory also argues that Google imposes restrictions on wakeword technology in various devices, including smartphones, home electronics, and cars, ensuring competitors like Siri and Bixby default to Google's search engine. Google has not yet commented on the case.Google Hit With Renewed Antitrust Suit Over Voice AssistantsThe US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has paused a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) case involving Amazon, following claims that the agency violates constitutional principles. Amazon argues that the NLRB breaches the separation of powers by acting as both prosecutor and judge, after it rejected Amazon's objections to a union election at a Staten Island warehouse. Amazon sought an emergency injunction to halt the NLRB's internal litigation regarding its refusal to bargain with the union. When a lower court didn't rule on the request, Amazon appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which had recently blocked a similar case involving SpaceX. Amazon's lawsuit challenges the constitutional structure of the NLRB, claiming its members are unconstitutionally shielded from removal by the president and that the agency's quasi-judicial powers violate the Seventh Amendment's guarantee of a jury trial. This case is part of a broader wave of constitutional challenges to the NLRB's authority. Neither Amazon nor the NLRB have commented on the ruling.Fifth Circuit Halts Amazon NLRB Case Over Constitutional DisputeThe Biden administration is pressuring U.S. port employers to improve their offer to striking dockworkers from the International Longshoremen's Association (ILA). The strike, now in its second day, has disrupted shipping across dozens of ports from Maine to Texas, affecting goods from food to automobiles and causing significant economic strain. With over 38 ships waiting to dock, the strike could cost the U.S. economy $5 billion per day. Despite a 50% wage hike offer from the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX), the ILA, led by Harold Daggett, is demanding more, including a $5 hourly raise per year and a halt to port automation projects. President Biden has urged foreign ocean carriers, which profited during the pandemic, to agree to a fair contract, while the administration monitors for price gouging. Retailers have initiated backup plans to mitigate potential impacts on the holiday season. Economists warn that while the strike could raise inflation, the broader economic effects depend on its duration. The National Retail Federation and some Republicans are calling on Biden to halt the strike, but he has refused.US port strike backed by White House | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Swiss Banks Settle with Holocaust SurvivorsOn August 12, 1998, a landmark settlement was reached when Swiss banks agreed to pay $1.25 billion to Holocaust survivors and their heirs. The settlement resolved lawsuits that accused the banks of withholding millions of dollars deposited by Holocaust victims before and during World War II. For decades, these accounts had been frozen, and the banks had been criticized for their lack of transparency and for making it difficult for survivors and their families to access the funds. The lawsuits brought to light the complex role that Swiss financial institutions played during the war, often prioritizing financial gain over moral responsibility. This settlement was seen as a significant acknowledgment of the wrongs committed and a step toward justice for the victims. The agreement also marked a broader recognition of the need to address the financial injustices faced by Holocaust survivors, setting a precedent for other restitution efforts globally. The $1.25 billion fund was distributed to survivors, heirs, and various Jewish organizations, symbolizing a long-overdue attempt to rectify the banks' wartime conduct. The settlement highlighted the intersection of financial institutions, moral responsibility, and historical accountability in the aftermath of one of history's greatest tragedies.The recent Supreme Court ruling in SEC v. Jarkesy has sent shockwaves through federal health agencies, significantly impacting their ability to impose civil penalties. The decision, which requires a jury trial for civil penalties in SEC cases, is expected to influence how agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conduct enforcement actions. Legal experts suggest that this ruling could lead to increased legal challenges from healthcare entities, such as hospitals and drugmakers, against penalties imposed by these agencies. The ruling has raised questions about the constitutionality of administrative procedures, particularly those handled by administrative law judges, and may force agencies to reassess their enforcement strategies. The decision could also slow down current enforcement actions while agencies evaluate their legal standing. This ruling is likely to embolden those facing civil penalties to challenge the HHS and its agencies in court, especially in areas like Medicare, tobacco regulation, and the 340B Drug Pricing Program.By way of very brief background, in SEC v. Jarkasy, the Fifth Circuit held that the SEC's administrative enforcement of fraud claims without jury trials violated the Seventh Amendment, as such claims involve traditional common law matters warranting a jury. The court also ruled that the Dodd-Frank Act's broad delegation of authority to the SEC to choose between administrative proceedings and federal court without clear guidelines violated the nondelegation doctrine. Additionally, the protections against removal for administrative law judges (ALJs) were found to infringe on the President's duty under Article II. The Supreme Court later upheld the Seventh Amendment violation but did not address the other issues.Health Agency Approach on Civil Penalties Shaken by High CourtIsmael "El Mayo" Zambada, a prominent Mexican drug lord and co-founder of the Sinaloa Cartel, claimed he was deceived and forcibly taken to the United States last month. In a statement released by his lawyer, Zambada alleged that he was lured into a meeting by Joaquin Guzman Lopez, the son of his former partner Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, and state officials in Sinaloa. He recounted being ambushed, restrained, and flown to the U.S. under duress. Contrary to Zambada's account, Guzman Lopez's lawyer and U.S. authorities assert that Guzman Lopez surrendered voluntarily after negotiations. During the incident, Zambada claims that one of the officials involved, Hector Cuen, was killed, and his bodyguard has since disappeared. Both Zambada and Guzman Lopez have pleaded not guilty to drug-trafficking charges in the U.S.'El Mayo' says he was ambushed in new account of US arrest | ReutersA federal appeals court has extended an order blocking President Joe Biden's administration from implementing its student debt relief plan, which aimed to lower monthly payments and accelerate loan forgiveness for millions of borrowers. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, responding to an appeal from seven Republican-led states, granted an injunction that halts further implementation of the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) Plan. This ruling follows a previous order that temporarily blocked parts of the plan. The court's decision means that while loans already forgiven won't be reversed, future implementations are on hold. The Biden administration criticized the ruling, arguing it would increase costs for borrowers, while the Republican-led states contend that the administration exceeded its legal authority with the plan. The SAVE Plan, which had partially taken effect, was projected to benefit over 20 million borrowers but now faces legal hurdles that may delay or alter its future. This development follows earlier challenges to Biden's broader $430 billion debt cancellation initiative, which was blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2023.Federal court extends block on Biden's student debt relief plan | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Host Gregg N. Sofer welcomes back to the podcast Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at New York University Law School, and Steve Renau, Husch Blackwell's Head of Thought Leadership, to discuss the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy. The Court held 6-3 that the Seventh Amendment's guarantee of a jury trial requires the SEC to pursue civil penalties for securities-fraud violations in federal court. No longer can the SEC rely on its own in-house tribunal to secure these penalties. Although Jarkesy applies only to the SEC, the Court's reasoning could have far-reaching implications across a number of federal agencies, particularly when “the ‘public rights' exception to Article III jurisdiction does not apply.”Our discussion highlights the administrative law history that was brought to bear upon the case and how it was that the adjudication of civil penalties came to be matters before non-Article III courts. We then pivot to some of the impacts Jarkesy could have in the future, including whether the Supreme Court will take up related issues of due process in future challenges to federal agency enforcement actions.Finally, we discuss Jarkesy in light of the Supreme Court's Loper Bright decision that ended the doctrine of Chevron deference and the implications of both decisions for administrative agencies and the private businesses they regulate.Gregg N. Sofer BiographyFull BiographyGregg counsels businesses and individuals in connection with a range of criminal, civil and regulatory matters, including government investigations, internal investigations, litigation, export control, sanctions, and regulatory compliance. Prior to entering private practice, Gregg served as the United States Attorney for the Western District of Texas—one of the largest and busiest United States Attorney's Offices in the country—where he supervised more than 300 employees handling a diverse caseload, including matters involving complex white-collar crime, government contract fraud, national security, cyber-crimes, public corruption, money laundering, export violations, trade secrets, tax, large-scale drug and human trafficking, immigration, child exploitation and violent crime.Richard Epstein BiographyRichard A. Epstein is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University Law School, a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago, and the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution.Professor Epstein has published work on a broad range of constitutional, economic, historical, and philosophical subjects. He has taught administrative law, antitrust law, communications law, constitutional law, corporation criminal law, employment discrimination law, environmental law, food and drug law, health law, labor law, Roman law, real estate development and finance, and individual and corporate taxation.Epstein's most recent book publication is The Dubious Morality of Modern Administrative Law (2020). Other works include The Classical Liberal Constitution: The Uncertain Quest for Limited Government (2014); Design for Liberty: Private Property, Public Administration, and the Rule of Law (2011); The Case against the Employee Free Choice Act (2009); Supreme Neglect: How to Revive the Constitutional Protection for Private Property (2008); How the Progressives Rewrote the Constitution (2006); Overdose (2006); and Free Markets under Siege: Cartels, Politics, and Social Welfare (2005).He received a BA degree in philosophy summa cum laude from Columbia in 1964; a BA degree in law with first-class honors from Oxford University in 1966; and an LLB degree cum laude, from the Yale Law School in 1968. Upon graduation he joined the faculty at the University of Southern California, where he taught until 1972. In 1972, he visited the University of Chicago and became a regular member of the faculty the following year.He has been a senior fellow at the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics since 1984 and was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1985. In 2011, Epstein was a recipient of the Bradley Prize for outstanding achievement. In 2005, the College of William & Mary School of Law awarded him the Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Prize.Additional ResourcesThe Justice Insiders, “The Administrative State Is Not Your Friend: A Conversation with Professor Richard Epstein” (Episode 7), June 21, 2022The Justice Insiders, “SEC Plays Chicken with Jarkesy” (Episode 18), October 16, 2023U.S. Supreme Court, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, June 27, 2024Gregg N. Sofer and Joseph S. Diedrich, “Landmark Supreme Court Decisions Restrain Federal Administrative Agency Power,” June 28, 2024© 2024 Husch Blackwell LLP. All rights reserved. This information is intended only to provide general information in summary form on legal and business topics of the day. The contents hereof do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. Specific legal advice should be sought in particular matters.

On June 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their opinion in SEC v. Jarkesy. The following three questions were presented in this case – (1) Whether statutory provisions that empower the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to initiate and adjudicate administrative enforcement proceedings seeking civil penalties violate the Seventh Amendment; (2) Whether statutory provisions […]

On June 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their opinion in SEC v. Jarkesy. The following three questions were presented in this case – (1) Whether statutory provisions that empower the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to initiate and adjudicate administrative enforcement proceedings seeking civil penalties violate the Seventh Amendment; (2) Whether statutory provisions that authorize the SEC to choose to enforce the securities laws through an agency adjudication instead of filing a district court action violate the nondelegation doctrine; (3) Whether Congress violated Article II by granting for-cause removal protection to administrative law judges in agencies whose heads enjoy for-cause removal protection.The Court held, in a 6-3 decision, that when the Securities and Exchange Commission seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial.Please join us in discussing the decision and its future implications.Featuring:Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute---To register, click the link above.

In a big week for administrative law watchers, the Supreme Court issued a pair of 6-3 decisions paring back the powers of administrative agencies. In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Court overruled Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and in Jarkesy v. S.E.C. it held that the Seventh Amendment prohibits agencies from seeking civil penalties for suits resembling actions at common law before administrative tribunals. Taken together, these cases demonstrate the Court's focus on separation of powers. Below, we consider their potential impact on the Federal Trade Commission. Kate White kwhite@kelleydrye.com (202) 342-8855 https://www.kelleydrye.com/people/katherine-white Hosted by Simone Roach Subscribe to the Ad Law Access blog - www.kelleydrye.com/subscribe Subscribe to the Ad Law News Newsletter - www.kelleydrye.com/subscribe View the Advertising and Privacy Law Resource Center - www.kelleydrye.com/advertising-and-privacy-law Find all of our links here linktr.ee/KelleyDryeAdLaw

The U.S. Supreme Court has restored the right to a jury trial for Americans facing the Administrative State by affirming the Fifth Circuit's decision in SEC v. Jarkesy. This overturned the SEC's unconstitutional administrative prosecution regime, which targeted George R. Jarkesy, Jr. in a lengthy administrative proceeding without a jury. The Court, agreeing with NCLA's brief, ruled 6-3 that the SEC violated Jarkesy's Seventh Amendment rights. In this episode, Mark, Vec, and Jenin are joined by Senior Litigation Counsel Peggy Little to discuss and celebrate this historic victory vindicating Americans' civil liberties.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The term is over, and what an ending it was! Presidents are entitled to broad immunity for official acts, Chevron deference is no more, the Seventh Amendment applies against the administrative state, nobody gets to sue over social media censorship, and the 8th Amendment does not prohibit anti-camping laws. These are the holdings of just […]

The term is over, and what an ending it was! Presidents are entitled to broad immunity for official acts, Chevron deference is no more, the Seventh Amendment applies against the administrative state, nobody gets to sue over social media censorship, and the 8th Amendment does not prohibit anti-camping laws. These are the holdings of just a few of the blockbuster cases released in the last few days of this term. After your hosts discuss those cases, GianCarlo gets one last chance to stump Zack in trivia, and then they follow the Court into the summer recess. Over the summer, your hosts arrange interviews with judges, lawyers, and experts, so please let them know if there are any people you'd like them to interview or legal issues you'd like them to cover in depth next term. Follow us on X @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right to a jury trial for Americans facing administrative proceedings, striking down the SEC's administrative prosecution regime. The Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's decision in SEC v. Jarkesy, ruling 6-3 that the SEC violated George R. Jarkesy Jr.'s Seventh Amendment rights by using an Administrative Law Judge without a jury. This decision, aligning with the New Civil Liberties Alliance's amicus brief, marks a significant victory for civil liberties and limits the SEC's abuse of power.Mark, Vec, and Jenin celebrate the victory in this latest episode. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right to a jury trial for Americans facing administrative proceedings, striking down the SEC's administrative prosecution regime. The Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's decision in SEC v. Jarkesy, ruling 6-3 that the SEC violated George R. Jarkesy Jr.'s Seventh Amendment rights by using an Administrative Law Judge without a jury. This decision, aligning with the New Civil Liberties Alliance's amicus brief, marks a significant victory for civil liberties and limits the SEC's abuse of power.Mark, Vec, and Jenin continue to discuss the win in this episode and dig into an interesting footnote. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Justices rule 6-3 in SEC v. Jarkesy that it violates the Constitution's right to a trial by jury for the securities agency to try fraud cases in internal proceedings. Plus, as Joe Biden and Donald Trump prepare to meet on the debate stage for the first time in 2024, what does each candidate need to accomplish, and will it matter that CNN is muting the microphones to stop crosstalk? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: Miranda RightsOn June 13, 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling in Miranda v. Arizona, fundamentally transforming the criminal justice system. The Court held that suspects must be informed of their rights prior to police interrogation, a decision aimed at protecting the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. This ruling introduced what is now known as "Miranda rights," which include the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and the warning that anything said can be used in court. The case arose from Ernesto Miranda's conviction based on a confession obtained without these warnings, which the Court deemed unconstitutional. Chief Justice Earl Warren emphasized the necessity of procedural safeguards to ensure suspects' awareness of their rights. This decision has since become a cornerstone of American legal procedure, significantly influencing law enforcement practices nationwide. The Miranda warning aims to prevent coercion and ensure fair treatment, highlighting the importance of individual rights within the justice system.Today, Tesla shareholders are voting to approve Elon Musk's $56 billion pay package and relocate the company's legal home to Texas. Musk announced on social media that the pay package and relocation were passing by wide margins. Approval of this substantial pay deal could alleviate investor concerns about Musk's future at Tesla and support the company's efforts to reverse a court decision that voided the pay package. However, the decision may still face challenges in the Delaware court, where a judge previously ruled that Tesla's board was too influenced by Musk. Despite the shareholder vote, legal experts, such as UC Berkeley's Adam Badawi, are uncertain if the court will uphold it.Tesla's stock rose significantly in premarket trading following the announcement. The final voting results will be disclosed at a shareholder meeting in Texas. Major proxy firms had advised against the pay package, but a mix of institutional and retail investor votes helped secure its passage. Shareholders also voted on relocating Tesla's legal headquarters and re-electing board members Kimbal Musk and James Murdoch. This vote is seen as a test of confidence in Musk's leadership amid Tesla's recent challenges, including a significant drop in stock value since 2021 and concerns about Musk's commitments across his multiple ventures.Musk says Tesla shareholders voting yes for his $56 billion pay package | ReutersDisney and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis have resolved their dispute with a deal allowing Disney to develop the Walt Disney World Resort near Orlando for the next 15 years. The feud began in 2022 when former Disney CEO Bob Chapek criticized a state law limiting discussions of sexuality and gender issues in schools, known as the "Don't Say Gay" law. The new agreement, made with the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District, commits Disney to spending at least $8 billion over a decade and $17 billion over 10 to 20 years on the resort. This investment will include expanding affordable housing, ensuring 50% of the spending benefits Florida businesses, and potentially building a fifth theme park, retail and office spaces, and 14,000 additional hotel rooms. Disney President Jeff Vahle highlighted that the agreement facilitates significant investments in the resort. This deal follows a settlement in March to end a lawsuit over control of the special district encompassing Walt Disney World.Disney, Florida's DeSantis end spat with deal on 15-year expansion plan | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court is set to rule on the constitutionality of the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) use of in-house judges for adjudicating enforcement actions. This decision could have significant consequences for other federal agencies that employ similar systems. The SEC employs administrative law judges who handle cases referred by the agency's commissioners. These judges conduct hearings, issue subpoenas, and make initial decisions on sanctions, which are then reviewed by the commissioners. This process is generally faster and more specialized than federal court proceedings.The challenge originates from George Jarkesy, a hedge fund manager fined by the SEC in 2013 for securities fraud. Jarkesy contested the SEC's in-house system, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2022 that these proceedings violate the Seventh Amendment's right to a jury trial. This ruling has prompted the Supreme Court to review the case.During a November hearing, the Supreme Court's conservative justices expressed doubts about the legality of the SEC's in-house system, particularly its exclusion of jury trials for fraud charges. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the constitutionality of depriving individuals of a jury trial based on the government's decision.If the Supreme Court decides to limit or abolish the SEC's in-house courts, it could affect not only the SEC but also other federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Labor Department, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. These agencies might face slower enforcement actions, increased resource demands, and challenges in targeting misconduct without the use of in-house tribunals.Explainer: What is the US SEC's in-house court under Supreme Court review? | ReutersFirst, some very brief background. Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that shields government officials, including law enforcement, from liability for civil damages unless they violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. It is intended to protect officials from lawsuits over actions taken in their official capacity, provided their conduct does not violate clearly established laws.Recently, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals told the Ohio Attorney General (AG) to stop blocking a ballot initiative aimed at ending qualified immunity. This initiative arose from widespread public dissatisfaction with various forms of immunity that often protect government employees from lawsuits. Ohio residents have been trying to place a measure on the ballot to eliminate these immunities. However, the Ohio AG, David Yost, has repeatedly refused to certify the proposed amendment, preventing it from advancing.We'll have to see what Ohio decides, but this development could pave the way for similar initiatives in other states. If Ohio successfully places the measure on the ballot and it gains voter approval, it may inspire activists and lawmakers in other jurisdictions to pursue comparable reforms. The outcome in Ohio could set a precedent and generate momentum for a broader movement to reassess and potentially limit qualified immunity across the United States.Sixth Circuit Tells Ohio AG To Stop Blocking Ballot Initiative Calling For End Of Qualified Immunity | Techdirt This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Summary of Introduction to the Jury System. Chapter 1 provides a comprehensive overview of the jury system in the United States, emphasizing its historical development, constitutional underpinnings, and pivotal role in both criminal and civil justice systems. This chapter sets the stage by tracing the evolution of the jury from its early roots in England, through its adaptation and critical importance in the American colonies, to its codification in the U.S. Constitution. Historical Origins: The chapter begins by exploring the early history of the jury system in England, where it evolved from a group of local informants into an essential component of the judicial system. This development was largely influenced by English common law traditions, which the American colonists later inherited and adapted. The significance of the jury as a safeguard of liberty is highlighted, particularly how it was perceived by the colonists as a defense against tyrannical rule, which was vividly expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Constitutional Provisions: The Sixth Amendment's guarantee of the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury in criminal cases is examined. The amendment's provisions are dissected to underscore their importance in ensuring fairness and maintaining public confidence in the judicial process. The Seventh Amendment extends this right to civil cases, stipulating that any disputes in federal courts where the value exceeds twenty dollars may be tried by a jury. This provision underlines the role of juries in civil justice, allowing ordinary citizens to participate directly in legal determinations. Significant Supreme Court rulings such as Duncan v Louisiana and Beacon Theatres, Inc. v Westover are discussed to illustrate how these amendments have been interpreted and applied over time, emphasizing the dynamic nature of constitutional law in adapting to changing societal needs. Role of Juries in Criminal and Civil Cases: The chapter delineates the distinct but equally crucial roles juries play in criminal and civil cases. In criminal trials, juries assess evidence, evaluate the credibility of witnesses, and render verdicts on guilt. In civil trials, they determine liability and may also set damages. The nuances of jury operations, including verdict requirements and the standards of proof needed in each type of case, are clarified to provide a thorough understanding of how juries function within the larger legal framework. This chapter sets the foundational knowledge necessary for understanding the subsequent complexities of the jury system, emphasizing its indispensable role in maintaining the democratic fabric of American society through active civic participation. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

It's Hump Day! First, in a pre-taped conversation, Sam speaks with Seth Goldstein, legal counsel for Trader Joe's United & the Amazon Labor Union (ALU), to discuss a recent legal filing by Amazon, Trader Joe's, and SpaceX that alleges that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is unconstitutional. Then, Emma speaks with Dr. Tarek Loubani, associate professor at the University of Western Ontario and leader of the Glia Project, to discuss what is happening on the ground now that hospitals in Gaza are mostly non-operational. First, Emma runs through updates on the US vetoing a UN ceasefire resolution for the THIRD time, Gaza's dire situation, Ukrainian troops, US sanctions on Russia, Trump's legal woes, the FBI's Biden Informant and his foreign connections, SCOTUS attacks, student debt, Starbucks unions, and the murder of a nonbinary child in Oklahoma, before watching Nikki Haley put on her best Hillary Clinton pants(uit) and accuse Trump of Russia-connected authoritarianism. Then, Sam is joined by Sam Goldstein as they dive into the evolution of the legal attacks on the NLRB, beginning with Amazon's objections to the NLRB's role in the Amazon Labor Union elections of 2022, and seeing Elon Musk file suit against the NLRB's constitutionality in the wake of a decision against SpaceX. Next, Goldstein steps back, walking through the establishment of the National Labor Relations Act in 1935 as an attempt to institutionalize the conflict between labor and management in an attempt to somewhat protect workers' rights, and the near-nonexistent changes in its management (outside of the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act) over the following eight decades, despite the overwhelming changes to the labor market with the rise of Tech and the gig economy. After tackling the history of challenges to its unconstitutionality, Seth walks Sam through the three major planks of SpaceX's case – namely: the requirement of good cause for Presidents to remove NLRB judges, the Seventh Amendment right to a jury, and the Board's combination of legislative, judicial, and executive powers. Exploring each point, Goldstein tackles the absurdity of each point within the broader operations of the US government, and the devastating impact the case could have on both the NLRB and the administrative state writ large. After discussing SpaceX's attempt to keep this legal battle in Texas, Goldstein wraps up with Trader Joe's similar case coming out of Connecticut, the threat IT poses to the NLRB, and what to expect moving forward. Dr. Tarek Loubani then joins, first parsing through his experience doing humanitarian and medical work in Gaza over the last decade, and touching on his experiences during Gaza's Great March of Return in 2018, which saw thousands of Gazans shot during peaceful and civil demonstrations against their conditions, including Dr. Loubani himself. Next, Loubani assesses the complete devastation of Gaza's medical care during Israel's ongoing ethnic cleansing of the region, with Israel's active attacks on both medical institutions and medical personnel setting a new standard for depraved warfare, also exploring the harrowing and devastating realities of genocide and apartheid on the ground, from both a medical and broader perspective. Tarek also discusses his experiences at Al-Shifa Hospital, and unpacks the insane claim that Hamas could operate its military out of overpacked and overwhelmed medical centers, before wrapping up by addressing the active culpability and complicity of the West and the need to hold our politicians accountable. And in the Fun Half: Emma is joined by the great RM Brown as they tackle the NBA All-Star game, watch Norm Finkelstein dunk on Rabbi Shmuley, and touch on some highlights from Rabbi Shmuley's agitprop tape. They also watch Dr. Irfan Galaria reflect on his experiences in Gaza with Joy Reid, and bask in the heckling of genocide-endorsers Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, plus, your IMs! Follow Seth on Twitter here: https://twitter.com/SethGoldstein13 Check out the "Repair Gaza" campaign courtesy of the Glia Project here: https://www.launchgood.com/campaign/rebuild_gaza_help_repair_and_rebuild_the_lives_and_work_of_our_glia_team#!/ Find out more about the Glia Project here: https://glia.org/ Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Get emails on the IRS pilot program for tax filing here!: https://service.govdelivery.com/accounts/USIRS/subscriber/new Check out a preview of Janek Ambros's documentary "Ukrainians in Exile" here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6HGVL6FJ-U&ab_channel=AssemblyLineEntertainment Check out StrikeAid here!; https://strikeaid.com/ Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: http://majority.fm/app Check out today's sponsors: Zippix Toothpicks: Make your lungs happy and try Zippix Nicotine Toothpicks. Ditch the cigarettes, ditch the vape and get some nicotine infused toothpicks at https://ZippixToothpicks.com today. Get 10% off your first order by using the code MAJORITY10 at checkout. Your lungs will be glad you did. MUST be 21 or older to order. Warning, nicotine is an addictive chemical. Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

Jeffrey B. Simon, trial attorney and author of the book 'Last Rights: The Fight to Save the Seventh Amendment.' Discusses the $1.8 billion settlement from Johnson & Johnson related to opioids, and the role of Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family in the opioid epidemic. Diving into the larger issue of the dismantling of the civil justice system and the impact of tort reform. The conversation concludes with personal insights from Simon on advice, his first job, and personal views on life.Takeaways  - The $1.8 billion settlement from Johnson & Johnson highlights the harm caused by the overprescription and misleading promotion of opioids.  - Purdue Pharma, owned by the Sackler family, is accused of starting the prescription opioid epidemic by overpromoting OxyContin as less addictive and more effective than it actually is.  - The bankruptcy process and the settlement with Purdue Pharma raise questions about the accountability of the Sackler family and the use of bankruptcy protections.  - The civil justice system has been undermined by legislative initiatives and tort reform, which favor corporations over consumer rights and public safety.Chapters00:00 Introduction and Background01:25 The Fight to Save the Seventh Amendment03:02 Opioids and the $1.8 Billion Settlement09:06 Purdue Pharma and the Sackler Family14:18 Mixed Feelings on the Settlement18:10 The Dismantling of the Civil Justice System19:05 Tort Reform and Political Divide23:43 Rapid Fire QuestionsCheck out www.razreport.com for more episodes!Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/the-raz-report/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Yes, I enjoy listening to SCOTUS Oral Arguments on my walks….. Enjoy - efd Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, No. 22-859 [Arg: 11.29.2023]Issue(s): (1) Whether statutory provisions that empower the Securities and Exchange Commission to initiate and adjudicate administrative enforcement proceedings seeking civil penalties violate the Seventh Amendment; (2) whether statutory provisions that authorize the SEC to choose to enforce the securities laws through an agency adjudication instead of filing a district court action violate the nondelegation doctrine; and (3) whether Congress violated Article II by granting for-cause removal protection to administrative law judges in agencies whose heads enjoy for-cause removal protection.Gene Douglass for Congress, NC #2 Battle Good v Evil is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. If you wish to donate to my campaign here is the link below: To Donate to my campaign for the US House NC #2. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit efdouglass.substack.com/subscribe

1. Whether statutory provisions that empower the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to initiate and adjudicate administrative enforcement proceedings seeking civil penalties violate the Seventh Amendment. 2. Whether statutory provisions that authorize the SEC to choose to enforce the securities laws through an agency adjudication instead of filing a district court action violate the nondelegation doctrine. 3. Whether Congress violated Article II by granting for-cause removal protection to administrative law judges in agencies whose heads enjoy for-cause removal protection.

The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial in most federal civil cases. It does not apply to the states, but most state protect this right in their constitutions. Center for Civic Education

On November 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in SEC v. Jarkesy. The following three questions are presented – (1) Whether statutory provisions that empower the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to initiate and adjudicate administrative enforcement proceedings seeking civil penalties violate the Seventh Amendment; (2) Whether statutory provisions that authorize the SEC to choose to enforce the securities laws through an agency adjudication instead of filing a district court action violate the nondelegation doctrine; (3) Whether Congress violated Article II by granting for-cause removal protection to administrative law judges in agencies whose heads enjoy for-cause removal protection.Please join us as Margaret A. Little, Counsel of Record on an amicus brief filed by New Civil Liberties Alliance, discusses the case and its developments after oral argument.

Leah, Melissa, and Kate recap the arguments in the hugely important administrative law case, SEC v. Jarkesy. Plus, they welcome Oona Hathaway and Sam Sankar-- two former clerks to the late Justice Sandra Day O'Connor-- to discuss her life and legacy.Read Kate's NYT op ed on Jarkesy: "This Quiet Blockbuster at the Supreme Court Could Affect All Americans"Read Oona Hathaway's NYT op ed on Justice O'Connor, "I Clerked for Justice O'Connor. She Was My Hero, but I Worry About Her Legacy."Read The 19th's reporting on how conservative groups are using the Supreme Court's affirmative action ruling to shut down the Abundant Birth Project: "Backlash to affirmative action hits pioneering maternal health program for Black women" Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, Threads, and Bluesky

The U.S. Supreme Court has heard arguments in the case of SEC v. Jarkesy. NCLA proudly filed an amicus curiae brief in this case, with core constitutional rights at stake. SEC prosecuted George R. Jarkesy, Jr. in a years-long administrative proceeding that denied him his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. His administrative proceeding was adjudicated by an ALJ who was improperly insulated from removal. For both of these reasons, NCLA encouraged the court to rule against the SEC. NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Peggy Little joins the show to discuss the oral argument in Jarkesy.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

QUESTION PRESENTED:Issue(s): (1) Whether statutory provisions that empower the Securities and Exchange Commission to initiate and adjudicate administrative enforcement proceedings seeking civil penalties violate the Seventh Amendment; (2) whether statutory provisions that authorize the SEC to choose to enforce the securities laws through an agency adjudication instead of filing a district court action violate the nondelegation doctrine; and (3) whether Congress violated Article II by granting for-cause removal protection to administrative law judges in agencies whose heads enjoy for-cause removal protection. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

A case in which the Court will decide whether the statutory scheme that empowers the Securities and Exchange Commission violates the Seventh Amendment, the nondelegation doctrine, or Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

Administrative Law: Do SEC adjudications violate the Appointments Clause, Non-Delegation Doctrine, and Seventh Amendment? - Argued: Wed, 29 Nov 2023 13:10:44 EDT

On this day in legal history, November 29 marks a significant turning point during the Vietnam War era. In 1967, Robert S. McNamara, the U.S. Secretary of Defense, announced his resignation from the position to become president of the World Bank. This decision came amidst the escalating unpopularity of the Vietnam Conflict both in the United States and internationally.McNamara, who had a rapid ascent from being an automotive executive, had become one of the most powerful Defense Secretaries in American history. His tenure, starting in 1961 under Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, was marked by a strong managerial style and significant involvement in foreign affairs, particularly the Vietnam War. Initially, McNamara was a staunch supporter of U.S. involvement in the war and played a key role in advising President Johnson to escalate the conflict in 1964. However, as the war progressed, he began to privately question U.S. policy in Vietnam and eventually advocated for a negotiated settlement.In the summer of 1967, McNamara was instrumental in drafting the San Antonio formula, a peace proposal that sought to end U.S. bombing in North Vietnam and invited the North Vietnamese to engage in productive talks. However, this proposal was rejected by North Vietnam in October of the same year. Following this, in early November, McNamara submitted a memorandum to President Johnson, recommending that the U.S. freeze its troop levels, halt the bombing in the north, and shift the responsibility of the ground war to the South Vietnamese. These recommendations, however, were outright rejected by President Johnson.McNamara's resignation was a significant moment in the history of the Vietnam War. He had become a target for the ire of the U.S. anti-war movement due to his initial support for expanding the Vietnam War. His departure marked the end of his tenure as the longest-serving Secretary of Defense. He was succeeded by Johnson adviser Clark Clifford. McNamara's resignation highlighted the internal conflicts and changing views within the U.S. administration regarding the Vietnam War. It also underscored the increasing unpopularity and complexity of the conflict, which continued to shape U.S. foreign policy and legal considerations for years to come.Law firms are grappling with whether to inform clients about their use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in legal work. While AI promises to enhance efficiency and speed, it raises questions about disclosure practices. Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, for instance, hasn't decided on a firm policy but emphasizes full disclosure in any AI use. This issue has sparked debate within the legal community, with differing opinions on whether and how AI use should be communicated to clients.Former U.S. magistrate judge and New York State Bar Association AI task force member Ron Hedges questions the need for detailed disclosure of every AI research tool used but stresses the importance of transparency about data use and client awareness. Various state bar associations are also weighing in. The California Bar recently advised lawyers to consider AI disclosure, while the Florida Bar recommends obtaining informed consent for AI use that involves sharing confidential information.AI disclosure is expected to feature in engagement letters, with law firms likely to follow client preferences. Ultimately, the consensus is to adhere to client instructions regarding AI use, but proactive disclosure policies run the gamut.Law Firms Wrestle With How Much to Tell Clients About AI UseOn November 29, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to deliberate on the legality of the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) in-house enforcement proceedings. This follows an appeal by President Biden's administration against a decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in 2022 that the SEC's internal tribunal system violates the U.S. Constitution's Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial and infringes on presidential and congressional powers.The case centers on hedge fund manager George Jarkesy, who was fined and barred from the securities industry by the SEC for securities fraud. Critics argue that the SEC holds an unfair advantage in its administrative proceedings compared to federal court juries. The SEC conducted 270 in-house proceedings in the fiscal year ending September 30, exceeding the 231 cases in federal court.The Supreme Court's ruling could significantly impact enforcement actions against misconduct in various sectors, potentially hampering the SEC and other agencies. The court has previously expressed skepticism towards broad federal regulatory powers, including in a 2018 ruling on the SEC's selection of in-house judges and a 2021 decision facilitating challenges to agency actions in federal court.Jarkesy's challenge, backed by various conservative and business groups, reflects broader concerns about the regulatory reach of the federal "administrative state" in areas like energy, environment, and financial regulation. The SEC, after investigating Jarkesy and his firm Patriot28 LLC, found them guilty of several violations, including misrepresentation, and imposed significant financial penalties.The 5th Circuit's decision criticized the SEC's discretion in choosing case venues and found that job protections for its administrative judges infringe on presidential powers. The Supreme Court's ruling, expected by the end of June, could also influence upcoming decisions on the constitutional conformity of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's funding structure and federal agencies' regulatory actions defense in court.US Supreme Court weighs legality of SEC in-house enforcementAdobe is set to defend its proposed $20 billion acquisition of Figma at a closed hearing on December 8, addressing EU antitrust concerns. The European Commission has previously warned that this acquisition could reduce competition in the global market for interactive product design software, where Figma is a significant player. The Commission is concerned that the deal might reinforce Adobe's dominance in vector and raster editing tools, eliminating Figma as a competitor. During the hearing, Adobe will have the opportunity to present its case to senior Commission officials, national antitrust watchdogs, as well as rivals and third parties. Adobe has expressed willingness to propose remedies to address regulatory issues. The EU antitrust enforcer is expected to make a decision on the deal by February 5. Additionally, the acquisition has raised concerns in Britain, with its competition agency indicating that the deal could negatively impact innovation in software used by the majority of UK digital designers.Adobe to defend Figma deal at Dec. 8 EU hearing, sources sayMeta Platforms, the owner of WhatsApp, Instagram, and Facebook, plans to appeal a U.S. judge's ruling in its ongoing privacy dispute with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Judge Timothy Kelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied Meta's motion for the court to oversee the dispute, leading Meta to file an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The core of the dispute is whether an FTC judge or a district judge should decide on potentially tightening a 2019 consent decree, which primarily affects Meta's earnings from users under 18. This legal battle began when the FTC proposed modifying the 2019 settlement, under which Facebook (now Meta) had to pay $5 billion. The FTC aims to restrict Meta from profiting from data collected on users under 18 and impose broader limitations on its use of facial recognition technology. The FTC also accused Meta of misleading parents about the controls in its Messenger Kids app. Additionally, the FTC has sought to force Meta to divest Instagram and WhatsApp in a separate legal action.Meta says it will appeal US judge's ruling in privacy fight with FTC | ReutersThe evolving U.S. energy policy, particularly with the focus on clean energy and infrastructure, is significantly increasing the demand for legal advisors experienced in these fields. This demand has led to notable partner hires among major law firms. The clean energy infrastructure legal market is rapidly expanding as governments and corporations prioritize sustainable energy solutions. This growth is driven by new regulations, incentives, and public demand for environmentally friendly energy sources, creating a plethora of opportunities for legal professionals specializing in this sector. Tax attorneys, contract lawyers, and regulatory specialists are increasingly sought after to navigate the complex legal landscape surrounding clean energy projects and investments.US clean energy push keeps deal lawyers in demand | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The Supreme Court considers the constitutional right to trial by jury, in a case that involves a $300,000 fine issued via an administrative process at the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC. How much could the Justices' decision affect America's sprawling regulatory state, and is there a critical distinction between a citizen's private rights and his so-called public rights? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As we discussed last week, the Sixth Amendment guarantees a trial by jury in a criminal trial, among other guarantees.  The Seventh Amendment guarantees a trial by jury in federal civil cases for disputes over $20. Why were the Founders so adamant about jury trials as opposed to a single judge?  What is the difference between a civil or common law trial and a criminal trial?  What are the exceptions to a trial by jury?  And how does this apply and function in conjunction with state law? Alongside our student panel, we are delighted to welcome Eric J. Wise, partner at Alston & Bird, to help us understand the historical context, need and purpose of the Seventh Amendment.

The Supreme Court returns October 2 for its 2023–2024 Term, and the justices will hear cases on a number of important issues: separation of powers, nondelegation, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, Second Amendment, Fifth Amendment double jeopardy clause, immigration, racial gerrymandering, and more.   For instance, […]

The Supreme Court returns October 2 for its 2023–2024 Term, and the justices will hear cases on a number of important issues: separation of powers, nondelegation, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, Second Amendment, Fifth Amendment double jeopardy clause, immigration, racial gerrymandering, and more.For instance, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Court will return to the question of whether Chevron should be overruled. In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, the Court will grapple with three questions which include, inter alia, whether statutory provisions empowering the SEC to seek criminal penalties through agency adjudication violate the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the Court will decide whether Title VII prohibits discriminatory transfer decisions absent a court determination that the transfer significantly disadvantaged the employee. And in O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed, the Court will determine when a public official blocking an individual on the official's personal social media account constitutes state action.Please join us for a lively discussion with two distinguished Supreme Court litigators, and former Solicitors General, about what could potentially unfold in the next Supreme Court term.Listen to other Heritage podcasts: https://www.heritage.org/podcastsSign up for The Agenda newsletter — the lowdown on top issues conservatives need to know about each week: https://www.heritage.org/agendaListen to podcasts from The Daily Signal: https://www.dailysignal.com/podcasts/Get daily conservative news you can trust from our Morning Bell newsletter: DailySignal.com/morningbellsubscription Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welcome back, everyone, to the third part of our session on the Preamble and Articles of the U.S. Constitution. In the previous segments, we analyzed the significance of the Preamble and conducted a comprehensive examination of each Article of the Constitution. Today, we will delve into the Amendments of the Constitution, with a specific focus on the Bill of Rights and the critical additions that have shaped our legal landscape. Introduction to the Amendments. As we explore the Amendments, it's important to remember that the Constitution is not static. The Founding Fathers understood the need for flexibility and adaptation, and thus, they established a mechanism to amend the Constitution. Amendments can address emerging issues, correct shortcomings, and expand upon the fundamental rights protected by the Constitution. The Bill of Rights - First Ten Amendments. The Bill of Rights, the first ten Amendments to the Constitution, holds a special place in American history and jurisprudence. These Amendments were added in response to concerns about individual liberties and governmental power, serving as a check against potential abuses. Amendment I: Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, and Petition. The First Amendment guarantees the fundamental rights of freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. These rights form the cornerstone of our democracy, ensuring that citizens can express their beliefs and opinions without fear of government interference. Amendment II: Right to Bear Arms. The Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms for self-defense and the defense of the nation. The interpretation of this Amendment has sparked debates about gun control and the balance between individual rights and public safety. Amendment III: Quartering of Soldiers. The Third Amendment prohibits the government from quartering soldiers in private homes during peacetime without the owner's consent. While less frequently litigated, it underscores the importance of protecting individual property rights. The Bill of Rights - Cont. Let's continue our exploration of the Bill of Rights: Amendment IV: Search and Seizure. The Fourth Amendment safeguards individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by requiring warrants to be issued based on probable cause. It ensures the protection of personal privacy and limits the government's power to intrude into citizens' lives. Amendment V: Due Process, Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination The Fifth Amendment enshrines several important protections, including the right to due process of law, protection against double jeopardy, and the right to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination. Amendment VI: Right to a Fair Trial. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a fair and speedy trial, the right to confront witnesses, and the right to legal representation. It ensures that individuals accused of crimes have the opportunity to present their case and receive a fair hearing. Amendment VII: Right to Trial by Jury. The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in civil cases involving disputes over property or money. This Amendment reflects the value placed on the judgment of one's peers. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

The Supreme Court continues to accept for review cases that challenge agency authority on separation of powers grounds, and its decisions may fundamentally reshape the modern administrative state. This term, it heard challenges to the jurisdiction of federal courts to hear challenges to agency proceedings (Axon v. FTC; SEC v. Cochran), and to the Biden administration’s authority to forgive student loan debt (U.S. Department of Education v. Brown; Biden v. Nebraska). Next term, it will hear a constitutional challenge to the funding structure of an independent regulatory agency (CFPB et. al. v. Com. Fin. Services Assn.). And pending in the certiorari queue is a case that raises a triumvirate of issues about the SEC’s administrative proceedings: whether they violate the Seventh Amendment, the non-delegation doctrine, and/or the President’s removal power (SEC v. Jarkesy).This panel will discuss the constitutional questions raised by these cases, the potential effect of the Court’s decisions on agency structure and practices, the rebalancing of power between the three branches, and the future of the administrative state.

Equitable remedies are judicial remedies developed by courts of equity from about the time of Henry the 8th to provide more flexible responses to changing social conditions than was possible in precedent-based common law. Equitable remedies were granted by the Court of Chancery in England, and remain available today in most common law jurisdictions. In many jurisdictions, legal and equitable remedies have been merged and a single court can issue either, or both, remedies. Despite widespread judicial merger, the distinction between equitable and legal remedies remains relevant in a number of significant instances. Notably, the United States Constitution's Seventh Amendment preserves the right to a jury trial in civil cases over $20 to cases "at common law". Equity is said to operate on the conscience of the defendant, so an equitable remedy is always directed at a particular person, and that person's knowledge, state of mind and motives may be relevant to whether a remedy should be granted or not. Equitable remedies are distinguished from "legal" remedies (which are available to a successful claimant as of right) by the discretion of the court to grant them. In common law jurisdictions, there are a variety of equitable remedies, but the principal remedies are: injunction, specific performance, account of profits, rescission, rectification, equitable estoppel, certain proprietary remedies, such as constructive trusts, subrogation, in very specific circumstances, an equitable lien, equitable compensation, appointment or removal of fiduciary, Interpleader and equitable tracing as a remedy for unjust enrichment. Specific performance is an equitable remedy in the law of contract, whereby a court issues an order requiring a party to perform a specific act, such as to complete performance of the contract. It is typically available in the sale of land law, but otherwise is not generally available if damages are an appropriate alternative. Specific performance is almost never available for contracts of personal service, although performance may also be ensured through the threat of proceedings for contempt of court. An injunction, often concerning confidential information or real property, is a type or subset of specific performance and is one of the more commonly-used forms of specific performance. While specific performance can be in the form of any type of forced action, it is usually to complete a previously established transaction, thus being the most effective remedy in protecting the expectation interest of the innocent party to a contract. It is usually the opposite of a prohibitory injunction, but there are mandatory injunctions that have a similar effect to specific performance and these kinds of distinctions are often difficult to apply in practice or even illusory. At common law, a claimant's rights were limited to an award of damages. Later, the court of equity developed the remedy of specific performance instead, should damages prove inadequate. Specific performance is often guaranteed through the remedy of a right of possession, giving the plaintiff the right to take possession of the property in dispute. As with all equitable remedies, orders of specific performance are discretionary, so their availability depends on its appropriateness in the circumstances. Such orders are granted when damages are not an adequate remedy and in some specific cases such as land (which is regarded as unique). --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Jury Trials in Administrative Hearings NCLA filed an amicus curiae brief in Burgess v. FDIC, et al., urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to redress the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's (FDIC) unlawful enforcement action against Cornelius Campbell Burgess, which the agency pursued through its in-house administrative court. NCLA argues that FDIC's allegations must be tried in front of a jury rather than an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). FDIC's current ALJ enforcement regime deprives Burgess of his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. Mark and Vec discuss jury trials in administrative hearings with NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Greg Dolin.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The RSB Show 2-16-23 - Jonathan Emord, Reclaim the Seventh Amendment, Ohio train derailment, Pete Buttigieg failure, Nurse Kate Shemirani, Big Pharma corruption, Covid plandemic

The Founding Fathers were fond of brevity in creating our constitution.  While few in words and somewhat overlooked compared to some of the other amendments, the 7th Amendment is long in impact.  To be succinct, the 7th Amendment guarantees civil cases can be heard and decided by a jury.  Why was this needed?  What concerns were the Founders alleviating?  And why does it mention a $20 minimum dispute?  Join returning guest Joerg Knipprath with Southwestern Law School and our brilliant student panel for this chat on the 7th Amendment.

This episode compares: the Fifth Circuit's May 2022 opinion in Jarkesy v. SEC, which held that the Seventh Amendment's right to civil jury trial extends to an SEC enforcement action (although the SEC did not exist in 1791), and the draft Supreme Court majority opinion in Dobbs (which held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not protect an abortion right in 1868, although the vast majority of women could neither vote nor own property at that time). The episode concludes that historical analogies, made in the name of "originalism," may not be a faithful application of that technique for constitutional reasoning when the historical context differs substantially from our own.  

The Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits any law that increases or decreases the salary of members of Congress from taking effect until after the next election of the House of Representatives has occurred. It is the most recently adopted amendment but was one of the first proposed. The 1st Congress submitted the amendment to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789, along with 11 other proposed amendments (Articles 1 thru 12). The last ten Articles were ratified in 1791 to become the Bill of Rights, but the first two, the Twenty-seventh Amendment and the proposed Congressional Apportionment Amendment, were not ratified by enough states to come into force with them. The proposed congressional pay amendment was largely forgotten until 1982, when Gregory Watson, a 19-year-old sophomore at the University of Texas at Austin, wrote a paper for a government class in which he claimed that the amendment could still be ratified. He later launched a nationwide campaign to complete its ratification. The amendment eventually became part of the United States Constitution, effective May 5, 1992, completing a record-setting ratification period of 202 years, 7 months, and 10 days, beating the previous record set by the Twenty-second Amendment of 3 years and 343 days. The idea behind this amendment is to reduce corruption in the legislative branch by requiring an election before a congressperson's salary increase takes effect. The public can thus remove members of Congress from office before their salaries increase. Text. No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Procedural due process When the government seeks to burden a person's protected liberty interest or property interest, the Supreme Court has held that procedural due process requires that, at a minimum, the government provide the person notice, an opportunity to be heard at an oral hearing, and a decision by a neutral decision-maker. For example, such a process is due when a government agency seeks to terminate civil service employees, expel a student from public school, or cut off a welfare recipient's benefits. The Court has also ruled that the Due Process Clause requires judges to recuse themselves in cases where the judge has a conflict of interest. For example, in Caperton v A T Massey Coal Company (2009), the Court ruled that a justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia had to recuse himself from a case involving a major contributor to his campaign for election to that court. Incorporation. While many state constitutions are modeled after the United States Constitution and federal laws, those state constitutions did not necessarily include provisions comparable to the Bill of Rights. In Barron v Baltimore (1833), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Bill of Rights restrained only the federal government, not the states. However, the Supreme Court has subsequently held that most provisions of the Bill of Rights apply to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment under a doctrine called "incorporation". Whether incorporation was intended by the amendment's framers, such as John Bingham, has been debated by legal historians. According to legal scholar Akhil Reed Amar, the framers and early supporters of the Fourteenth Amendment believed that it would ensure that the states would be required to recognize the same individual rights as the federal government; all these rights were likely understood as falling within the "privileges or immunities" safeguarded by the amendment. By the latter half of the 20th century, nearly all of the rights in the Bill of Rights had been applied to the states. The Supreme Court has held that the amendment's Due Process Clause incorporates all of the substantive protections of the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth (except for its Grand Jury Clause) and Sixth Amendments, along with the Excessive Fines Clause and Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment. While the Third Amendment has not been applied to the states by the Supreme Court, the Second Circuit ruled that it did apply to the states within that circuit's jurisdiction in Engblom v Carey. The Seventh Amendment right to jury trial in civil cases has been held not to be applicable to the states, but the amendment's Re-Examination Clause does apply to "a case tried before a jury in a state court and brought to the Supreme Court on appeal". The Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment became the last right to be incorporated when the Supreme Court ruled in Timbs v Indiana (2019) that right to apply to the states. Equal Protection Clause

For additional notes and resources check out Douglas' website.So farWe have studied four commandments related to God and 2 related to our fellow human beings. Here we find ourselves in the middle of the ethical commandments.Sexual ethics is an area considered to be highly personal and "private," yet through most of human history sexual mores were never a matter of personal preference.Of all the commandments, this one may generate the greatest push-back. Western culture seems obsessed with breaking the 7th and 10th commandments.TextThe 7th commandmentExodus 20:14: You shall not commit adultery.Comments"The Adulterous Bible" of 1631 accidentally omitted the not (oops!). Watching movies and popular TV sitcoms, one would think God's will for us did include extramarital affairs!Like the prohibitions on murder, theft, and lying, this prohibition is universal. All religions condemn it. Only oversexed and irreligious (modern western) culture celebrates adultery.Whereas in the ancient world men often had wives (for procreation) and mistresses (for recreation), in God's word we are to be one-woman men, or one-man women (to use Paul's phrasing in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1). Such dedication outside God's people is as rare today as it was back then.Adultery was originally a property crime, a sin against the husband. Of course it is more. In Psalm 51, we read that David's sin (2 Samuel 11) was fundamentally against God, even though he's sinned against the woman he lusted for, the husband he displaced, and the accomplices to his adultery (his servants and Joab). Like all sin, sexual sin is an offense against God. In fact, failure to obey the 5th - 10th commandments is always a sin against God.Jesus ups the stakes, doesn't he (Matthew 5)?Not just heterosexual sin; homosexual too. If homosexuals were truly married, then they would be forbidden to cheat, yet this is hardly the norm. It is not unfair to state that they are unfaithful to God, to God's plan for sexual fulfillment, and to each other.Yet the most widespread sexual sin isn't homosexual, but heterosexual. And you don't have to be married, or be romantically involved with a married person, to commit sexual sin.ApplicationAdultery is a discrete action, though like murder it may also take place in the heart. With this is mind, do I allow my eyes or thoughts to wander? Do I avoid places in the city or on the web where I am likely to be tempted?Do I have a sufficiently intense spiritual life -- am I busy? -- that I don't wander into sexual sin (2 Samuel 11)?Do I take steps to keep my heart pure by spending time daily in God's word and prayer?In the ancient world, one could expand his sexual options without technically sinning (take another wife). In the modern world, there are many ways to sin sexually without technically violating another individual. Do I rationalize such behaviors?If I'm married, do I have eyes only for my husband or wife (Proverbs 5, Job 31)?Have I bought into the devil's lie that our private life has little effect on our public competence? (E.g., how can we trust politicians who are unfaithful to their own wives not just to follow self-interest instead of honoring their office?)In the Bible, spiritual unfaithfulness is frequently compared to adultery (e.g. in Hosea and in James 4). Is there any way in which I am "two-timing" on God?Can we pray Psalm 19:12-14 with sincerity?God's holiness is for our well-being, health, and happiness (Psalm 119:32).Further studyTake a look at some of the Koine Greek words for various sins here.Learn about the destructive effects of cohabitation.For more on homosexuality, learn from Guy Hammond's book Caring Beyond the Margins (2012) as well as his CD series Helping Christians Understand Homosexuality (2010).

The Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. This amendment codifies the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases and inhibits courts from overturning a jury's findings of fact. An early version of the Seventh Amendment was introduced in Congress in 1789 by James Madison, along with the other amendments, in response to Anti-Federalist objections to the new Constitution. Congress proposed a revised version of the Seventh Amendment to the states on September 28, 1789, and by December 15, 1791, the necessary three-quarters of the states had ratified it. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson announced the adoption of the amendment on March 1, 1792. The Seventh Amendment is generally considered one of the more straightforward amendments of the Bill of Rights. While the Seventh Amendment's provision for jury trials in civil cases has never been incorporated (applied to the states), almost every state has a provision for jury trials in civil cases in its constitution. The prohibition of overturning a jury's findings of fact applies to federal cases, state cases involving federal law, and to review of state cases by federal courts. United States v Wonson (1812) established the historical test, which interpreted the amendment as relying on English common law to determine whether a jury trial was necessary in a civil suit. The amendment thus does not guarantee trial by jury in cases under maritime law, in lawsuits against the government itself, and for many parts of patent claims. In all other cases, the jury can be waived by consent of the parties. The amendment additionally guarantees a minimum of six members for a jury in a civil trial. The amendment's twenty dollar threshold has not been the subject of much scholarly or judicial writing and still remains applicable despite the inflation that has occurred since the late 18th century ($20 in 1800 is equivalent to $300 in 2020). This estimate is open to interpretation because it uses the Consumer Price Index which was not established until 1919. A wider historical scope helps to reveal that $20 USD in 1791 is roughly $440 in 2021.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to trial by jury, and it is the best form of consumer protection we have as Americans. With the seventh amendment, we can hold even the most powerful corporations accountable for wrongdoing. So wherever you are, put in your earbuds and dive in with us as we talk about the origins and importance of the right to trial by jury. 

Clause 3: Federal trials. Clause 3 of Section 2 provides that Federal crimes, except impeachment cases, must be tried before a jury, unless the defendant waives their right. Also, the trial must be held in the state where the crime was committed. If the crime was not committed in any particular state, then the trial is held in such a place as set forth by the Congress. The United States Senate has the sole power to try impeachment cases. Two of the Constitutional Amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights contain related provisions. The Sixth Amendment enumerates the rights of individuals when facing criminal prosecution and the Seventh Amendment establishes an individual's right to a jury trial in certain civil cases. It also inhibits courts from overturning a jury's findings of fact. The Supreme Court has extended the protections of these amendments to individuals facing trial in state courts through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Section 3: Treason. Section 3 defines treason and limits its punishment. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted. The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against , or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby crimes including conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman, (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war." Under English law effective during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there were several species of treason. Of these, the Constitution adopted only two: levying war and adhering to enemies. Omitted were species of treason involving, encompassing, or imagining the death of the king, certain types of counterfeiting, and finally fornication with women in the royal family of the sort which could call into question the parentage of royal successors. James Wilson wrote the original draft of this section, and he was involved as a defense attorney for some accused of treason against the Patriot cause. The two forms of treason adopted were both derived from the English Treason Act 1351. Joseph Story wrote in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States of the authors of the Constitution that: they have adopted the very words of the Statute of Treason of Edward the Third; and thus by implication, in order to cut off at once all chances of arbitrary constructions, they have recognized the well-settled interpretation of these phrases in the administration of criminal law, which has prevailed for ages. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

The Twenty-Seventh Amendment to the US Constitution was proposed by the first Congress in 1789 but wasn't adopted to the Constitution until 1992. The amendment is simple and deals with Congressional salaries. This is what you need to know about this amendment, why it took so long to become part of the US Constitution, and what it says. Podcast Show Notes: https://ancestralfindings.com/the-twenty-seventh-amendment-the-constitutional-amendments/  Genealogy Clips Podcast https://genealogyclips.com Historical Postcard Giveaway https://ancestralfindings.com/postcard-giveaway/ Free Genealogy eBooks https://ancestralstuff.com Hard To Find Surnames https://ancestralfindings.com/surnames Follow on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/AncestralFindings Support Ancestral Findings https://ancestralfindings.com/donation #Genealogy #AncestralFindings #GenealogyClips

Welcome to the Instant Trivia podcast episode 264, where we ask the best trivia on the Internet. Round 1. Category: Battles 1: In the 490 B.C. battle of this plain, the Greeks ran up their first important victory over the Persians. Marathon. 2: The defeat of this city's invasion force at Syracuse in 413 B.C. was the beginning of its end and the start of Sparta's rise. Athens. 3: This foolhardy "charge" took place at 1854's Battle of Balaklava during the Crimean War. the Charge of the Light Brigade. 4: England's King Harold II lost the all-important Battle of Hastings in this year. 1066. 5: "2 ships, 2 brigs, 1 schooner and 1 sloop" were the fleet defeated in this battle in the War of 1812. the Battle of Lake Erie. Round 2. Category: The Age Of Aquariums 1: The Great Lake Aquarium featured fish that live in this kind of water, as opposed to saltwater. freshwater. 2: It's fun to ride the riverboat from the Audobon Zoo to the Aquarium of the Americas in this Louisiana city. New Orleans. 3: These "tuxedoed" birds are a highlight of the Splash Zone at the Monterey Bay Aquarium. penguins. 4: Seen here, the beluga type of this mammal is one of the main attractions at Chicago's Shedd Aquarium. a whale. 5: On April 13, 2001 a bottlenose one of these mammals was born at the National Aquarium in Baltimore. a dolphin. Round 3. Category: I'm In "Seventh" Heaven 1: "...the right of trial by jury...". the Seventh Amendment. 2: The Davidians are a branch of this religion. Seventh-day Adventists. 3: One theory is this sports tradition began at Manhattan College in 1882 to control restless students in the stands. the seventh inning stretch. 4: Folklorically, this descendant will have occult powers; it's also an Iron Maiden album. seventh son of a seventh son. 5: Released in 1957, this film was based on the play "Tramalning" that had also been written by the director. The Seventh Seal. Round 4. Category: Location, Location, Location 1: Suisse is the French name for this mountainous country. Switzerland. 2: Washington Irving gave New York City this nickname in 1807. Gotham. 3: There are only 31 states and 1 federal district in this North American country. Mexico. 4: The Tasman Sea separates Australia and this nation. New Zealand. 5: Robin Hood's nemesis was the sheriff of this district. Nottingham. Round 5. Category: Sports Stuff 1: The opposing coaches at this Feb. 3, 2013 event were brothers Jim and John Harbaugh. the Super Bowl. 2: The opposing coaches at this Feb. 3, 2013 event were brothers Jim and John Harbaugh. the Super Bowl. 3: Burnie is the "scorching" mascot of this NBA team. the Miami Heat. 4: In an interview with Oprah, he finally admitted to using performance-enhancing drugs to win the Tour de France. Lance Armstrong. 5: In an interview with Oprah, he finally admitted to using performance-enhancing drugs to win the Tour de France. Lance Armstrong. Thanks for listening! Come back tomorrow for more exciting trivia!

You are tuned in to Copyright Chat. Copyright Chat is a podcast dedicated to discussing important copyright matters. Host Sara Benson, the copyright librarian from the University of Illinois, converses with experts from across the globe to engage the public with rights issues relevant to their daily lives. Sara: Welcome to a fun and exciting and unique episode of Copyright Chat. Today, I am here at the Copyright Conference at Miami University, live, creating an episode of Copyright Chat along with Will Cross. We've been talking about the Scholarly Communication Notebook and my podcast's involvement in it, in teaching and learning. And our audience has live, live polled, decided that what we're going to talk about today is potential liability under the CASE Act and sovereign immunity, which is a very timely topic. So I'm very excited to talk about this. There's a lot going on at the Copyright Office with the CASE Act and their proposed rules. So I would love to see if a member of our audience has a question they'd like to start us off with, about either sovereign immunity or the CASE Act. Yeah, someone just posted that the October 4th deadline is weighing heavily on them. It's September 29th and we have until October 4th to respond to the call for comment. Will, have you made any comment to the Copyright Office in response to that call? Will: That's a great question, Sara, and I wonder if it would be useful to give a very quick, like 30-second overview of the topic just so people know what they're thinking about. I see several hands raised as well. So I'll, I'll say that, that very quickly, yes, I've been involved with several, several groups including the EUIPO that I know you are part of as well, and Sara, you released a really nice ALA-sponsored resource in this area. So yeah, we've been thinking about this issue a lot. We did a webinar last week talking to a bunch of different librarians as well. So I see several hands raised. Sara: Yeah, I think Alvin, would you like to ask a question? Alvin: I work at a land-grant, and we should, should, enjoy sovereign immunity. Does that immunity extend to librarians and the scope of their job? Sara: That's a really good question. And, so, sovereign immunity generally would protect individuals who work there in the scope of their employment, at least protecting them from large damages. So I'll use an example. I think most of us on this call are aware of the Georgia State University case, right, where Georgia State was sued for their E-reserves policy, where they said that a flat percentage could be copied from a textbook for E-reserves use. And of course, we know that there's no flat percentage that equals a fair use. And the court actually said that at one point in the case, which was helpful to us copyright librarians. So, that doesn't mean that they're immune from suit. It does mean that they would be immune from the large damages, because that's what sovereign immunity protects, right, from copyright damages. So what they could obtain, in that instance, is an injunction, telling folks to stop doing whatever they're doing that is potentially violating the law. And that's what the plaintiffs, Oxford University Press was one of them in that case, sought. The word of caution about that case is, it lasted a really long time. So even though in the end there were no damages at stake, the case kind of went on and on, and of course, during that time, you incur attorney's fees and other things. So, and I would add as an aside, and someone posted in the chat also, under the CASE Act, state and federal governments are also immune from liability under the CASE Act, presumably following sovereign immunity. However, and one of the things that is a little unclear is, does that extend to employees? And it really should. But if you read the last US Copyright Office proposed rule, they made some really weird claims about agency law, which seemed to make a distinction and say, well, they didn't say employees when they talked about opting out, so maybe they aren't talking about employees when they're talking about state and federal governments? I don't know. I personally think that probably employees shouldn't be held liable under CASE Act either under principles of sovereign immunity, but as we all know, it doesn't prevent you, even in federal court from being sued. It prevents you from incurring damages. It would then say, okay, well, they have less incentive to sue you because they're not going to get those big statutory damages, but they could still sue you and go for an injunction. Will, that was a long answer. I'm going to let you clarify or add your two cents or correct me if I said anything wrong, cause Lord knows I do sometimes. Will: Well, there's two of us, so hopefully between the two of us we'll be okay. No, I think you said it really well. It's important at the outset to say that these are two, sort of parallel aspects of the law, that sovereign immunity specifically says if you are a public institution, a state institution, those damages are not available. But exactly as you say in Georgia State, the, the plaintiffs were not really interested in damages. They were interested in coercing people into accepting a blanket license, right? That was the endgame for them. So that's the first piece. The CASE Act is specifically the Small Claims Tribunal that you described, that is there, in theory because copyright lawsuits are so expensive and complicated, right? The number that's being thrown around a lot, is what, $276,000 or so, is what it costs to, just to basically begin a suit in federal court. So, so, that speaks to the, both the cost of suing somebody and potentially the cost of being sued, even if there are no damages, as those attorney's fees can certainly add up from there. The question then about whether individuals can either opt out or just say, “I'm an employee acting within the scope of my duty, I shouldn't even need to opt out. I'm, I am covered in this case under basic, sort of fundamental principles of agency law.” That, I think, is the heart of this, this comment that's coming up due October 4th, is how we think about library employees in that space. And I, and I think several people have said this and it's absolutely right. Libraries can't do anything without librarians, right? The, the building doesn't get up and walk around and scan books or whatever, right? It's the people doing the work. So, any sort of opt out or exception that said, “The library is immune from suit, but all the individual people can be sued.” is sort of illusory. It doesn't do anything useful, right? So, from my perspective, it's hard to make a good faith argument that librarians shouldn't be considered, sort of, protected by both sovereign immunity and the broad sort of limitations that the CASE Act provides as well, when they're acting within the scope of their employment. And we can have conversations about scope, scope of employment, and that sort of thing as well. But, but to me, that's the, that's the baseline piece of it. The other thing I wanted to say at this stage is it's important, I think, to articulate the sort of privileged nature of libraries and librarianship generally, that this is a core principle in copyright law, that what libraries do is society serving. It meets the mission of the progress clause. So, libraries have this whole, you know, set of copyright exceptions in Section 108. If you've ever put that weird notice on your photocopiers or scanners, that's what you were doing in that context. So, so not only is it a weird reading of agency law to say, “We want to protect the institution, but not any of the people doing the institution's work.” It also sort of flies in the face of the core policy judgment that Congress and the courts have made in terms of saying, “Libraries are really important. The work they do promotes the progress of science and the useful arts. We need to make sure they have the space to do that good work.” So that's, that's my soapbox that I was on for a long time. Sara: I get that. I think, whenever you engage in advocacy with a public body, right, you're not usually, your name is attached to it. And if you're stating what you do for a living and you know, you're, you're potentially letting them know what you do and why you do it. At my library, and this may not be true of others, my name is already out there and what I do is already out there, right? I'm listed very publicly. My resources, my library guides have my name on them, right? So, to me, it didn't raise any specter of liability that I wasn't already kind of dealing with. I think the title copyright librarian kind of indicates, oh yeah, I do have to make fair use assessments and people do come to me and ask questions about copyright information. Of course, I don't make other people's fair use assessments, but I guide them and empower them into making their own. I would say the person who posted here said that they are engaged in interlibrary loan. Again, I, I know what interlibrary loan is, right? That means that you are scanning copyright protected works. That's the nature of the job. And I think most people know that as well. And so to me, hopefully that doesn't really raise any additional liability on your part when you submit something. But of course, I can't promise that there aren't copyright trolls out there, right? Unfortunately, they already exist. I think the benefit in us submitting these comments is that we're trying to let the Copyright Office know that this will impact our daily work. And the goal here, at least for me, in calling for large collective action, is that I want the Copyright Office to understand the impact, that this proposed ruling would have, right? The proposed rule that they put forth about the opt-out provisions said, you know, yes, a library or an archive can opt out, one time, of the CASE Act or Small Claims Act proceedings, and then they never have to worry about it again, right? If someone tries to sue them, they, they opt out automatically. And the benefit of that is that if you forget to opt out, you can get a default judgment against you, right? And then all of a sudden you have damages. And so that's why that was, as Will said, libraries are protected and archives are protected if they do this one time, right? Because our society and our Congress understands that what we do is important. That what we do shouldn't be interrupted constantly by little lawsuits, right? That the library can't function in that way. But what they don't understand, what the Copyright Office doesn't understand, I think, and what Will said quite brilliantly, right, was the library isn't making the scanning. The library, you know, the library is just a building. It doesn't do anything. The library only does things through its employees, and if the employees are constantly being sued, guess what, the library might as well shut down. And so, if Congress really wants to protect libraries from being sued constantly and having to remember to opt out constantly, they should also protect employees from the same. And so, this is what, um, this is why I encourage advocacy. And my real sincere hope is that we will move the needle on this. This was a proposed rule by the Copyright Office. It's not final. And I'm really hopeful that through collective action we're able to convince the Copyright Office that they got it wrong. And if we do that, then our goal has been met, right? Having your name on that document is not going to subject you to any potential liability because you, when your library opts out, it will also cover you. And that's the goal. Can I promised that goal will be met? No. Unfortunately, advocacy is always like that, right? You, you do your best and you hope that it makes that impact. But I do think it's worth doing. I think advocacy is worth doing, even if it does mean that we have to put our name on a public document. Will: Totally agree. And I see we've got an anonymous question I want to address in just a second, but before that, I just want to jump on what you're saying and plus one it as well. There are a surprising number of cases where some larger sort of legal policy fight is happening and librarians can sort of get swept up in it in different ways. I think about the Kirtsaeng case a few years back, where there was this large and sort of technical conversation, about, you know, whether works were lawfully made under this title and what that meant geographically. I don't think most people were thinking about libraries when that litigation was happening. But several library organizations wrote amicus briefs to the Supreme Court and said, “Don't forget about us while you're weighing all these other policy questions, please don't let us get sort of squished underfoot for these big other conversations.” And not only did we get the outcome we wanted, we got some language in the opinion that basically said that “The work of libraries is important, a different ruling in this case would have an adverse effect on libraries and librarianship.” So that was part of our calculus. I think we have some nice case studies where we said, properly, “You might not be thinking about us, but please do in this moment to make a decision that recognizes that.” Sara: Great, I do see that question about whether you can make an anonymous comment. Do we know the answer to that, Will? Will: I think it was answered in the chat, which is that you can, but it's still recorded in certain ways. There was also a person wrote in and asked to, to ask a question here anonymously. So if it's okay, I'll read that one out. And then I see Jonah has his hand up as well. So the question is sort of a strategic one and it asks, is there a risk in, risk involved in stressing how much effect this might have on our daily operations, when we know that some folks in the Copyright Office seem to already think libraries are sketchy, and library users especially, are sort of sketchy edge users, like it does in a sense that confirm the, I think, wildly inaccurate, but existing bias, that like where “We were already sort of looking at you with side-eye and now you're coming back and asking for more protection. What's up with that?” And I think there's something to say around sovereign immunity with that. But Sara, I'm interested how you would respond to that question. Sara: So I think what you're saying is when you write this letter saying how it might impact your daily work, are you going to get kind of a, more scrutiny, I guess, into what you're doing. My answer would be no, but I also didn't, when I wrote in, I didn't write every single thing that I do on a daily basis, in very great detail, right? Because I first of all, like I just, I need to protect patron privacy. So like, that is foremost right? In everything we do, we all know this, right? So I would never say I scanned this thing for this patron or you know, a specific thing. But what I did say is that I routinely make fair use determinations for my own teaching and for my own library guides and my own educational outreach that I do on campus. And it would be hindered if I would have to respond to these lawsuits for everything that I did, right? It would just it, and it might also put me in a position where the risk gets higher and higher, right? I mean, fair use is a risk assessment every time. And so I don't think anyone would look askew at that, only because what I say that I'm doing is really typical. I mean, I'm not I'm not doing anything atypical. And I don't know what you could say that they would feel like is pushing it too far. I mean, I see, I see your point. Maybe if you get into, we're doing controlled digital lending and here's how many books we're scanning and all this, right? Maybe they would think that was pushing it far, but I even think there, many libraries are publicly stating that they're doing controlled digital lending. So that's not even anything super controversial. So I guess, I, I don't think so, but I wonder what you think, Will. Will: Yes, I mean, I think that's right, and along with what you said about fair use being a risk assessment, fair use is a muscle as well, right? And so I think, I personally think there's real value in getting on the record some of these concerns even if we don't win the day. So that as the conversations about the constitutionality of this stuff and other things are there, that that's out there. The piece that I do understand is that they're historically, the Copyright Office has not always been a library-first policy body, right, for better or for worse. So I, I, I could imagine somebody saying if I was talking to a judge or a legislature, they often love libraries, but this particular context feels different. The other piece I wanted to bring in is, we included sovereign immunity in this conversation because that's been kind of a third rail in this space and it's not the same thing, but I think in terms of the way policy folks are thinking about it, it overlaps. So just to quickly share that context, my state, North Carolina, relied on sovereign immunity for some pretty aggressive use of photographs of Blackbeard's ship, without, sort of going through the steps that they maybe should have done. That's for a court, and not for me, to decide. And last term, the Supreme Court upheld sovereign immunity. They said that sovereign immunity should exist. Even in this context where this doesn't seem like the best case study. Like, if I wanted to defend sovereign immunity, those set of behaviors or not, the model set of behaviors I would have brought forward. Sara: And just sovereign immunity means that a state or federal government cannot be sued in copyright for damages, for money. Not that they can't be sued, right? Because we all know that they could for Georgia State purposes, right, for maybe an injunction or, injunction means stop doing that, right? Whatever you're doing, stop it. But that they can't get those statutory damages. Sorry. I'm just interrupting you, go on. Will: No. Thank you. Sara: I like and I also love the fact that it was a pirate case. Will: Yes. Sara: Yeah, there's nothing better than a case about copyright that involves a pirate, just saying. Will: At last we find when piracy is the right statement, finally, when using the term so much. Anyway, one of the results of that is the court's opinion basically said, “Under current law, sovereign immunity stands. But if you have concerns, the legislature can do something about it.” So this large study was launched to try and determine whether or not we should revisit sovereign immunity. It, we could spend some time talking about that report. I think it, it, the people watching it came in with a set of expectations that weren't necessarily met by the data they found on the ground. But, at least to me, that creates a sense that people are sniffing around the broader concept of sovereign immunity and saying, “This, this blanket shield from liability makes me suspicious and skeptical.” And these larger questions about the policy values of that liability are being asked. I think there's a really overwhelmingly strong way to articulate why it's important to have that immunization and that protection both for sort of nerdy, you know, principles of federalism reasons, but also for actual on the ground work. But if there's already an environment where people are launching studies trying to undo or remove sovereign immunity, having the conversation about how librarians are treated under the CASE Act may touch that third rail in some places. So I, the thing that really resonated to me in that question was that, that sense of like, “These are stormy times, I'm going to be careful where I stick my umbrella.” Or something. Sara: Well definitely, and folks have been, folks being legislators, had been kind of attacking sovereign immunity. And the Copyright Office has done their own inquiry into it. And for now, at least, according to the Supreme Court and the Copyright Office, there is no viable evidence of you know, enough harm to individuals through sovereign immunity that we should breach sovereign immunity or get rid of it. However, yes, that's an ongoing thing and it kind of continues to poke, rear its head, right, because the Copyright Office will tell them, “Well, we don't have enough evidence right now, but come back to us in five years with another report,” right? I mean, that's kind of what happens. It's like “Gather some more evidence.” And they had a horror story, a parade of horribles of, you know, that poor individuals, and some of them I really did feel for, I have to tell you, I was there during the hearings and they were saying like, “The university stole this and made all this money. And then they told me to go away because the sovereign immunity,” and that does happen. I'm not going to lie it does, but I mean, that's not what, that's not typical. I mean, at my university, my general counsel joined me for the sovereign immunity hearings, and, you know, we consider ourselves good faith actors. Like, if we find out that a faculty member has done something illegal or copied something, put on their website, we immediately go take it down. We say, “Okay, we need to do something about this right away.” We don't just say “Too bad, we're not going to pay any damages,” right? So it's, it's just, it does happen. It's unfortunate. But I think that it's pretty rare. And I think that was what the Copyright Office concluded, that the evidence really just didn't show that it's widespread enough to create that kind of irreparable harm that we would need to pierce sovereign immunity. I see Jonah's had his hand up for a while, so Jonah - Jonah: So I've seen several commentators and Will just mentioned a moment ago that there was some question about the constitutionality of the CASE Act. I was wondering if both of you could expand a little bit about why people feel that the CASE Act might be unconstitutional. And also, I assume that unconstitutionality applies to the entire framework of the CASE Act and not just vis-à-vis, like library employees. Sara: That's right. And great question, and I'm not the most familiar with these arguments, so I'll let Will jump in, but my understanding is that it has to do with the tribunal, and that it's not an official court. And I think that's the concern, that you've got, not, not a real, it's not a real court, right? It's, it's appointed by, these are judges appointed by the Copyright Office to handle these claims. Over to Will. Will: That's exactly right. The Seventh Amendment talks about the right to trial by jury. And obviously you can opt out of your trial by jury in some cases. But the CASE Act, by creating this weird tribunal, that's not necessarily even in the article 3 constitutional space, that's where judges tend to live, generally, there's this question about whether people's rights are being impacted in some way. Because it's this sort of weird, made-up, quasi court where you don't have all of your rights and protections, but it does still seem to be bind right? You can't lose under a case tribunal and then just kick back to the federal court if you don't like the results. So are we locking people and especially through this, right, the, the, if you get an email or if you don't get an email because it went to your spam, telling you that you have been accused and you don't respond, you're stuck with whatever judgment they have. So if, you can, without getting any opportunity to trial by jury, or even in some cases, any opportunity to meaningfully understand that anything has been raised, and you're bound by that, there are, I think, serious constitutional problems there as well. People have also, I think, rightly asked some questions about whether this is described as a small claims process. Well, where I sit, $30,000 is not small claims, right? That's, that would be a real life-changer for me in some ways. So, from the perspective of a large international rights holder, $30,000 might be the thing you find in your couch cushion or whatever. But I think that the claim that “This is just for the little stuff, you know, up to $30,000,” feels a little maybe disingenuous or just out of tune with the way most people's lives and finances work. Sara: Right. And one thing that I struggle with is how this court would be compared with administrative judges, for instance. Because I think their argument on the other side would be like “This is just like an administrative court where we don't have all the same rules as, you know, regular court and you don't necessarily have a trial by jury, but we have delegated our rights to this administrative court judge.” You think that's going to fly here, Will? Will: I have stopped trying to predict the Supreme Court over the past year or two as it has continued to surprise me. If we could go this podcast without using the word Chevron at any point, that would make me super happy. I do not know, To me both the equities in the constitutional arguments seem pretty compelling in terms of questioning it, but it would, because that's where I sit and that's the world I live in and those are the issues I think about. So I, I would like to imagine that the Supreme Court would take a close look at this, but I would like to imagine a lot of things. Sara: Yeah. No, and I do think, that that's, I think that's going to be their response. And again, I don't, also don't know how that would turn out. I do also know, I think the Electronic Frontier Foundation is looking into this and very serious about suing, but they have to wait till they have a real case. So I think they have to wait until someone gets sued, and then they'll have standing to bring a lawsuit. Until then you don't have, so standing is, is one of the requirements we have to file a lawsuit. You can't say well, “Prospectively, I'm just mad about this.” You have to have some real damages happening to a real person, a real plaintiff. So I think that they're gathering up what they can in the meantime and all their arguments, and they're kind of waiting for the first plaintiff to come along who says, “Yeah, take my case and let's fight it constitutionally.” That's my understanding, and I'm, I'll definitely be on the sidelines cheering them on, or happy to help them if I can in any way. Will: Yeah, I feel the same way and I imagine there will be a certain amount of plaintiff shopping. Who is the most, you know, who, who is the best example of why this is problematic set of practices. Sara: Great point. Will: Something to watch. Sara: We have a question in the chat that other people are, are kind of saying “Me too!” So I'm going to read it out loud here. It says “I'm organizing an email to our library staff to alert them about the CASE Act so they can submit their own statements, and I'm pushing for an institutional statement. I'm wondering if I should reach out to faculty at my institution. Would this potentially affect faculty as well. Those working on OERs are using course reserves, for example. Or is this more librarian oriented?” So the opt out provision is for libraries and archives specifically. And so, generally, I would say, “Will the CASE Act impact faculty?” Probably so, right, and that also depends on whether you're a public institution or private institution because we again, don't know how the courts are going to look at sovereign immunity. And they've, they've allowed and said, state and federal governments can't be sued under the CASE Act, but we don't really know how that's going to play out in terms of individual employees. So there's that. But in terms of this opt out, if you're trying to have people respond about the opt out specifically, that is about library employees and archival employees. Will: Well said, I'll ask the follow-up question to you and if other folks want to jump in as well, what, if anything, are you going to do to prepare your non-library employees there? Are there a series of workshops coming out to say, “This is a wacky thing. It might never affect you, but if you're interested, here it comes.” Or how are we as a community thinking about educating beyond the libraries in this matter? Sara: That's a really good question. And, and for me, I feel like it's a little early, only because these proposed rules are still coming out. Like there's another proposed rule that came out just today. And I got it in my e-mail and said, “Okay, too long, didn't read yet, but will, right?” So I think it's such a moving target that I'm not prepared yet to reach out to faculty generally, but I do think it will be important once we kind of know where the playing field is and what's going on to have some, some strategic conversations. Like first, I'm going to have strategic conversations with library administration. Like, even if we are state and federal, a state or federal library, which we are at University of Illinois, if the opt-out provisions are extended to employees, I'm, I'm going to push that we just file the opt-out regardless, because it would cover our employees. That would be my ask to my administration, if we get what we're asking for in this push right now. Secondly, I would have to say, yeah, to faculty and say, “Let's have this conversation. What is this thing? What is this small claims court? What are the potential outcomes and how does this impact you?” And then again, big question mark, “We are at a state government institution, how does that impact employees?” And I would also really encourage them to understand that they can always opt out no matter what. So even if you can't opt out preemptively and do it once and it's going to apply to everything, which is, of course a good scenario, you can opt out for every single suit. And then that would say to the person, “Hey, sue me in federal court.” Now, we know how sovereign immunity works in federal court, right, at least currently. And so that would give us some measure of protection there if we're not sure about the CASE Act outcome. And so, you know, without giving legal advice, which I'm not allowed to do in my role as copyright librarian, I would try to let them know, like here are the options, right? The option is you go to this court and try to argue that because you're a state or federal employee, you know, they can't sue you, but, you know, I don't know how that's going to turn out. Or you can opt out and say, “Hey, you would have to come and sue me in federal court.” And we know that's pretty cost-prohibitive for them. And we also know that they can't get damages against you there. So I would let them know these are their options and of course, everyone has to make their own decision because I might have a faculty member who knows a lot about this and is like, “I'm really angry, really angry that they're suing me, they shouldn't be. So I'm going to fight this.” I mean, hey, more power to them, but like, I'm not going to tell them to do that necessarily. I'm going to give them options. Will: Thank you. Yeah, a couple of people, Molly Keener, and others have added in chat, and it sounds like they're doing basically the same thing. “We're keeping high level administration aware, we're talking to counsel's offices. But it's a little early.” I also wanted to, I think Nancy in the chat mentioned that if you're especially at a larger institution, the question I get sometimes is like “I work in the library, so I'm going to write on behalf of the library where, I work at NC State, so I'm going to write.” And at most institutions, especially as Nancy says, large institutions, there are pretty clear rules around who can and cannot speak and write on behalf of the institution. So if I submitted comments on behalf of NC State, our legislative advocacy people would murder me and you would never find my body, right? So, so be aware that there are a small set of people who can speak on behalf of the institution, and that there are probably people on your campus who have big feelings about who is doing that work. Sara: That's a really good point. And on the flip side of that, I've been really fortunate to work with those government outreach folks at Illinois to get their kind of permission, if you will, to speak on behalf of the library and the sovereign immunity instance, for instance. I'm, I coauthored a letter on behalf of our institution with our counsel's office. So if you go through the right channels, you can get those permissions, but you have to be aware that you need that. You can't just go ahead and do it. And also usually you need the Dean of the library to say it's okay, the counsel's office to say it's okay, the government relations folks to say it's okay, and just to go through a variety of, of processes. When things come up really quickly like this, this current call for responses, I just signed it on behalf of myself individually because I sometimes I don't have time to run through the chain of command, right? Like to know like, okay, I need to go to this person and this person then this. Like, just because you have permission to do it once doesn't mean it's kosher to do it again and again and again. So I had permission, like I said, on sovereign immunity to really speak up on behalf of the university. But I don't have that permission like as a blanket statement. It's a really good point. Any other questions? Take it away. Will: So Susan Kendall asks whether we can share some communication that you would have the library administration, that those of us who are not lawyers, can use with your administration. I don't have anything in my back pocket, but it seems like a great service. Some group, whether it's EUIPO or ALA, or whomever, could do is to say, “Here's some model language to let people know what's happening with CASE, here's some model language that's targeted towards faculty” and you know that there is a broad need for that. So that might be something that maybe somebody has already done. I'd love to learn about it. And if not, it would be great if somebody could do it. Sara: Will, I love that idea. And I think in terms of when we move forward, I think that we are, that would be a great service, right? To have some standard like “Here's language to communicate about CASE with your employees. Here's some if you're a public employee. Here's some if you're a private employee, here's some for libraries, here's…” something like that would be such a great thing. And I am a member of the ALA Policy Corps group and I think that would be an awesome project for us. And again, I would say it's a little early for that in terms of how we can, we can't predict the future about CASE. So we gotta wait a little bit and then I'm really, fingers crossed, that the lawsuit about constitutionality actually goes forward and we can get rid of all of these concerns, but it's just a moving target. And unfortunately, that's, that happens a lot with copyright, right? It's, it's, it's a moving target a lot of the time. So I do, I think we should have some sort of repository for that kind of information. And I, I, I think it's a great idea. There's a question, did the Library Copyright Institute create a sample of language that could be used? I don't think so, but I do know, you know, if you look at the comments that have been posted about the CASE Act, there's a lot of good information you can gather. It's all public. Will, do you know of anything that they created the Library Copyright Institute? Will: We did a webinar on this last week and we borrowed your language. We said “This is what ALA has provided. This is a nice way to, here's some specific verbiage you can borrow, but also here's a nice way to frame, sort of introduce the idea, provide your context, give specific examples.” So that's the thing that was circulating in those slides that should be available, the recording should be available at this point, but that's not LCI's credit, that's ALA's credit. We were just sharing their good work. Sara: You know, everyone has their own unique perspective and we all have different ways of looking at things, right? And so it's really good to get, just a variety of perspectives, about all the things that are happening in copyright world. Kenny is obviously a wonderful person to talk to always because he's just a really nice person. And I have a Copyright Chat episode talking with Kenny. So I recommend you listen to it if you're interested. He of course authored the famous Copyright Checklist, that most people use for fair use. I recommend it to folks all the time. And in our, in that particular episode, we were talking about the copyright guidelines in Circular 21 and how they're really outdated. Other questions? Audience Member: I do. So what is next? How should we proceed in the coming months, while we kind of wait to see what comes down? And once those things come down, the final rulemaking, what the court looks like, what are ways we can work together to move forward? Sara: That's a great question. I mean, I think one thing that I would recommend to everyone here, is to sign up for the US Copyright Office Notices. This is how I learn about what's going on with the CASE Act and the new rulings and things, right? Instead of hearing it from someone else, you can hear it directly from the Copyright Office. So I highly recommend that, and read, read the proposed rulings as they come out. And if you feel that there's something that you or your library could respond to, pass it up to your dean, pass it up to general counsel and keep them apprised of what's going on because things are definitely still moving along and not solidified yet. So keep on being engaged in that process because I think it's really important that we are aware of how it's, how it's moving. And then once, once we have some final idea of what's going on, hopefully the ALA Policy Corps or someone else can put out some really helpful, useful information. I'm thinking like the SPARC information that they have about the state by state laws on OER, right? They're just so good. I love their website and their tools. If we can come up with something like that, that's just really short, but really comprehensive, I think that we could be doing a really great service. So maybe come up with your own stuff and we can kind of put our heads together and come up with that documentation because I think we're going to need a lot of outreach to our faculty and to fellow librarians about how this might impact our work. Will: Yeah, that's, that's a great point. And the question that you mentioned a moment ago is, is if this constitutionally goes away next term, have we spent all this time getting people invested and raised all this awareness, and then suddenly it's like “What happened to that CASE thing you said was going to ruin the world?” “Well, it just went away.” So as, as we were talking about engagement with faculty, that's one of the issues that I'm really thinking about is, one, getting faculty to show up for a website on copyright Small Claims Tribunal can be challenging. So I'm, I'm wondering if other people are having that, like, is this something faculty and others aren't going to care about until they're being sued and it's too late. Like, is there a way to say “This might be nothing. It might be really important, but you need to know about it now. Because once you get a notification, it's probably too late for us to do anything about it.” Sara: Yeah, I mean, I don't think it's too late for us to do anything once they get a notification as long as they didn't sit on it. Because I, I just read, the one thing that I did read is that you have 60 days to respond to the notice under the proposed rules. Again, nothing final, which is quite a long time, if it got to the right place. Like Will was saying, if it got in your junk email or went to the wrong location, like that's just a problem. But if, if a faculty member does come to me and they have the notice in hand, I think that's a really good time to have that kind of “Here are your options” conversation, right? I mean, you could do nothing and then you could get a default judgement. That's not a good idea, right? Default judgment means “You didn't even bother to show up, pay these damages, because this is what we've decided.” So that's bad, and right, your options are, you know, opt out and decide to say, “Hey, you know, I'm not, I'm not engaging in this process. If you want to sue me, take me to federal court” or respond, right? And then you can respond with, “Hey, this was a fair use,” or “Hey, this is, I'm a government employee” or whatever your defense is, but of course you don't have any guarantees that how that's going to turn out because these are the judges, judges are not real, they're not federal judges, they're not necessarily trained. And even federal judges on copyright sometimes get pretty confused. They get a little turned around. So I've had experiences as a practicing lawyer that you wouldn't believe or I have a motion that I think is a slam dunk and I get denied. And then I have another motion that I think there's no way in heck, this is going to go through and the judge lets it through. So judges sometimes do wonky things. So it's important for people to know that too. Even if they're like, “I know I have a fair use. I know that this is permissible, that's so obvious.” That's why, yeah, judges sometimes make mistakes and I think these judges could too, right? Will: You would hope. And I'm sure the argument is, these judges are going to have that specialist training, so they'll be especially well-prepared. So then the question is, who's going to give them that training? Is CCC's version of a copyright webinar, is it ALA's, et cetera. So that specialization you're right, is a problem too. Sometimes comedic levels, at the federal level, whether the specialization that these judges have means they are more sophisticated or just more invested in one view of the doctrine is a different thing. Carla, please go ahead. I'm sorry. Carla: No, this conversation brings something to mind for me in that happened back when I was in college, which was during the time of Napster in the late 1990s. And I met one of my friends for lunch and he was looking very depressed. He had gotten notice from a music company and they said “We saw you've been sharing our music illegally online, that you can either pay $3,000” in the late 1990s to a college student, which was terrifying, “Or we will sue you.” And you know, something I was just thinking is, could we see with the CASE Act, copyright trolls saying, “Hey, we're going to see you in small claims court. But if you don't opt to do that, we're going to take you to federal court, or you can just make this all go away by paying us X amount of dollars and we'll leave you alone.” And the chilling effect that might have, do you think that's a possibility? Sara: I definitely think that's a possibility and I think that, that's part of the art, the goal of outreach, right? Is to educate people that they can opt out and that they don't have to pay that money, right? So yeah, it's, it's, it's definitely a possibility and, and if folks are just unaware of what this is, right, they think, “Oh, I'm going to go to court, I better pay this” and they don't even know. I know that the notice is supposed to tell you about the opt-out provision and all of those things. But, you know, some people just get really scared. You get a letter in the mail saying you have to pay this money. And you think, “Oh no, I have to do this,” right? You just want it to go away. And so I think that is a real possibility. Will: Yeah, I've, I've dropped the phrase, but somebody basically described the CASE act as a copyright troll factory. I think there's, there's something to that. Nancy, I saw your hand raised. If you'd like to ask a question or jump in, please do. Nancy: Yeah, I, I realized that what I was thinking about is, is rather tangential. But with respect to trolling, those of you who work in academic libraries may have seen some of this lately. I've seen an increase in people who put some kind of vaguely copyrightable measurement tool online. And then other people use it without permission, which is only questionably a copyright violation anyway, forms are not usually very copyrightable. But the people who made the form, some people really seem to have gone full trolling model on this. Their form is out there primarily to get people to use it. And then once people have used it, if they publish on the research they did with the tool, they are now threatening the authors with lawsuits. I don't know if they're getting payments, but they are getting retractions. Which is, I'm concerned about, just because that's not a correct legal response to this kind of, if it is a copyright violation, retractions are not the right answer. But, but I think that the over, as I said, this is tangential, that's why I put my hand down. But it is an illustration that the trolling model already exists, and has both some monetary drivers and some other weird drivers that I don't understand. Sara: Yes, it definitely does exist. And as Jonah was pointing out, there is someone who is licensing under Creative Commons and then using that to sue people, which is even worse in my opinion, it's like you're using Creative Commons to trap people into violating the whatever you put on there and then you're suing them. It's just mind-blowing. But yes, I think, I think unfortunately, some people are trying to trap people into using their thing and then suing them. But I would agree that a retraction is maybe not the way to go. And also someone, I wish someone, would just fight that, right? And get a court to say, “Hey, by the way, this isn't even copyrightable.” But the problem is, and we all know this, going to court is not free, right? You can't go, most people can't just go to court and say, “Okay, I'm going to be pro se.” You have the court filing fees, you have to show up and you have all these deadlines. It's a very complicated process, so it's not as easy as all that, although I wish someone would fund it, maybe EFF, and like, find out if there is someone they could defend and really push the issue. Because if this is happening again and again and again, it needs to be dealt with, in my opinion. Will: And good discussion in the chat on the, sort of the rise of copyleft trolls. There's an article in there documenting the practice, and then Creative Commons has been working recently on updating their license enforcement language to say, “It's your right, but what we hope the community will do is follow this set of practices.” Sara: Yeah, Nancy, Nancy is like “Exactly what academic author is going to say, “I'm going to defend this and see you in court, sue me” and then like get their own lawyer.” I mean, it's just so expensive, so we really would need an organization to take that on. Agreed. But it would be great. Other questions. This has been such a fun conversation. I just have to say this was a really fun thing to do. And I'm so happy that you all were so engaged. I just, the time has been flying by and I've been really enjoying it and it was fun for me to be on the other side, right? Not to be the one asking all the questions, but to get to answer some of them. So I really enjoyed engaging with you all. I hope this will inspire some of you to listen to other episodes of Copyright Chat and to give me your feedback about those and to get engaged with them. And maybe use the Scholarly Communication Network output that I come up with about teaching with Copyright Chat, or come up with your own ways to teach with Copyright Chat. I've actually used, that, that method with Gordon Spiegel before. And I did it live in a class. I played the episode and then I would stop it. And as I asked him a question, I would say to the class like, “What's your answer?” right? And have them kind of figure out if they knew the answer to a common copyright myth. And it was a really fun way of holding a live class. So you can even use the, the podcast live during class. There are just so many different ways to use it for teaching. So I really hope that some of you are inspired to do that. Will: Yeah, thank you for saying that. That brings us back to the sort of the SCN conversation at the top that this can be a “Your final assignment is create a podcast.” instead of writing a research paper that gets thrown away, it's there, or, “Take two podcasts and remix them in different ways.” All the pedagogical opportunities here, I think are really, really exciting and important. Sara: Or come up with a new module, right? “Find one of Sara's Copyright Chat podcasts that she didn't turn into a teaching module and come up with your own teaching module” and then add it in to the OER right there. Just so many, possibilities are endless, but I do love the idea of creating your own copyright podcast, which is kind of fun. Because I just think I've had assignments like that where I've gotten to create something myself and I always find them really, really engaging. And active learning is just, for me, a lot more rewarding. Any, any other final comments from the crowd or things you would love to hear a Copyright Chat podcast about? Because I'm always looking for ideas. If you have other topics that you just think, “Hey, you really should do a topic about this.” Oh, a music one, ooh, that's a really good idea. I should definitely do a music one. “Do you use videos from Copy Talk as part of educational material?” So I don't have videos on the Copyright Chat because it's a podcast, but I do have sometimes links to readings and sometimes links to other videos and things so, that I'll put with, so I always have a transcription of the podcast because obviously some folks can not engage with it, if they're hard, they have hearing struggles, so I always have a transcript available. And with the transcript is where I put additional materials. Will: I was just going to say, one of the things I really appreciated about this session is the way you've demystified the technical aspects. I think if you said to somebody out of the blue “Do you want to make a podcast?”, they'd go, “That sounds really complicated and difficult.” And I think this has been a nice demonstration that it's actually not as challenging and not as big of an ask as it could be. And obviously the opportunity to have some intro music from ccMixter, or right, you can sort of walk that copyright walk in terms of the way you build resources and, or rely on fair use to play a short clip from something. You could ask students to demonstrate their understanding of those concepts in the way they build the podcast. Carla: So, as we're nearing the end of the podcast, I just want to express my deepest thanks, first off to Will and Sara, for this wonderful and very informative discussion on the CASE Act. I know this has been in so many folks' minds and I am welcoming every learning opportunity I can get on this. And I think this has been an exceptional one. My deepest thanks also to our participants. It has really warmed my heart over the last few days to see how much you all are engaging with these presentations, the conversations going on in the chat. I just think this is so fantastic and the chat will be preserved. I know there's some questions about that, so you can download that, and I'm happy to pull links out of the chat, to put in a document that we can ask later. Before we close out, any final thoughts to share, Will and Sara? Sara: I would just say, I'm so happy to see so many people engaging with copyright here in this room today. And just keep on, keep on doing that, right? I mean, I'm always learning something new about copyright every day. And copyright is one of those fun things that changes a lot. Right, as someone was pointing out, “You should talk about music, cause there are a lot of new cases and it's changing a lot”, right? It is. And then the Music Modernization Act changed it even more, right? That's what makes it fun is that it's, it's a moving target, something that you can always learn something new about. I never claim to know everything about copyright because… Kenny Crews might know everything about copyright, but not me. But I always, I just have a passion for it. And I think that's what you need to have if you want to be a copyright librarian and if you're interested at all, reach out to me, we are a really great group of people. We are a really nice group of people and we help each other. It's been, it's been a fabulous career choice for me. I've really enjoyed working with everyone including Karla and Will, and Nancy on this call, and Emily. And I just really can't say enough about it as a career choice. So if you're thinking about it at all, feel free to reach out to me, and I'm happy, I'm always happy to chat with anybody, especially because I love Copyright Chat. Will: Yeah, I'll say the same thing, but not as well, as I've been doing for most of the session today. I, I, it's a really fun community to be part of, and I'm really excited about resources like Copyright Chat and the SCN, that sort of capture the community conversation. And it's not just like “This is the expert and we're going to shut up and listen to them.” It is, “Let's talk about this as a group and share different experiences.” I think we'll get a better and more robust and more invitational, and inclusive as well, understanding of what this body of practice is and can and should be. So I appreciate everybody adding your voice today and I'll second Sara, what she said, please reach out anytime. Questions like “I'm new to the field, and how do I deal with that?” or “What do you think about this?” We're all very happy to have those conversations. Sara: And shout out to Molly and Sandra. I mean, it's just a really fabulous group of people. I cannot say enough about my copyright colleagues. They are just wonderful people also. If you're at all intimidated and you say, “Ooh, it's law, I just don't want to get engaged,” like, talk to us, because really, really you can do it. And especially if you find it really interesting and fascinating and you know, you just really want to learn more. That to me is a sign that you're, you're interested, right? And so, even if you don't want to become a copyright librarian, if you're just like, “I'm going to be the go-to copyright person at my library.” Hey, everyone needs that. That's a certainty. So, and then, don't feel afraid to ask questions when you have them. Because again, I mean, we, we ask questions all the time, and no question is a bad question, and I'm always happy to engage with people, so please, please reach out, and thanks for joining us today. It was so much fun.

Tune in on Monday, 9/27/21 at the NEW TIME of 6:30am EST, for a new episode of The Doctor Whisperer Show featuring Malpractice Attorney, Jeff Goodis. Mr. Goodis a shareholder in the firm, "La Cava, Jacobson, and Goodis." In this episode, he explains the acronym "ATFQ." Visit the practice's website here: https://www.lacavajacobson.com/ ▪︎ ▪︎ ▪︎ Mr. Goodis' trial practice concentrates on the defense of professional (medical, dental, legal, insurance, E&O) negligence claims. His experience also provides him the opportunity to provide litigation avoidance and risk management consultations and to successfully defend other casualty claims. Mr. Goodis has successfully defended catastrophic injury claims brought against hospitals, medical providers and various other defendants in state and federal courts across the Country. Mr. Goodis is a member of ABOTA and a past FLABOTA President. Founded in 1958, ABOTA is a national association of experienced trial lawyers dedicated to the preservation and promotion of the civil jury trial right provided by the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. ABOTA membership consists of more than 7,600 lawyers—equally balanced between plaintiff and defense and is an invitation-only organization. Mr. Goodis is also a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, one of the premier legal associations in America. Fellowship to the College is extended by invitation and only after careful investigation, to those experienced trial lawyers who have mastered the art of advocacy and whose professional careers have been marked by the highest standards of ethical conduct, professionalism, civility and collegiality. Mr. Goodis is also a member of the International Society of Barristers which was formed to recognize each era's best advocates. ABOTA , The College and the ISOB memberships are only offered after rigorous screening processes that consider a lawyer's ability, experience, accomplishments and ethical standards as assessed by trial lawyers and judges. PRACTICE AREAS Professional Malpractice Civil and Commercial Litigation Casualty Litigation Sovereign Immunity Defense ▪︎ ▪︎ ▪︎ Thank you to our incredible sponsor, TieTechnology, for sponsoring the show! #businessofmedicine #podcast #malpracticeattorney #attorney --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/thedoctorwhisperer/message

The Founding Fathers really wanted to make sure that the common, everyday people of America would have fair and equal legal rights, no matter their wealth or status in society. They wanted everyone on equal footing in the nation’s criminal and civil courts. The seventh amendment deals with civil lawsuits, and how the Founding Fathers set up the courts to treat everyone equally.   Podcast Show Notes: https://ancestralfindings.com/the-bill-of-rights-the-seventh-amendment/    Click Here to listen to the weekly podcast: https://ancestralfindings.com/podcast    Weekly Giveaways: https://ancestralfindings.com/drawing    Genealogy eBooks: https://ancestralfindings.com/ebooks    Hard To Find Surnames: https://ancestralfindings.com/surnames    Social Media: https://www.facebook.com/AncestralFindings  https://www.instagram.com/ancestralfindings  https://www.twitter.com/ancestralstuff    Support Ancestral Findings: https://ancestralfindings.com/donation    #BillofRights #AncestralFindings #FoundingFathers

A citizen's right to a trial by jury is a central feature of the United States Constitution. It is considered a fundamental principle of the American legal system. Laws and regulations governing jury selection and conviction/acquittal requirements vary from state to state (and are not available in courts of American Samoa), but the fundamental right itself is mentioned five times in the Constitution: Once in the original text (Article III Section 2) and four times in the Bill of Rights (Fifth, the Sixth, and the Seventh Amendments). The American system utilizes three types of juries: Investigative grand juries, charged with determining whether enough evidence exists to warrant a criminal indictment; petit juries (also known as a trial jury), which listen to evidence presented during the course of a criminal trial and are charged with determining the guilt or innocence of the accused party; and civil juries, which are charged with evaluating civil lawsuits. The most outstanding feature of the U.S. system is that convictions (but not necessarily acquittals) in serious criminal cases must be unanimous, which the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed to be a constitutional guarantee in Ramos v Louisiana. History. The U.S. Declaration of Independence accused George III of "depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury." Article III of the U.S. Constitution states that all trials shall be by jury. The right was expanded with the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states in part, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed," and the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees a jury trial in civil cases. The U.S. Supreme Court noted the importance of the jury right in its 1968 ruling of Duncan v Louisiana: Those who wrote our constitutions knew from history and experience that it was necessary to protect against unfounded criminal charges brought to eliminate enemies and against judges too responsive to the voice of higher authority. The framers of the constitutions strove to create an independent judiciary but insisted upon further protection against arbitrary action. Providing an accused with the right trial by a jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt or overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

You have been injured in an accident or tragedy and are trying to get better. What's worse is you are in no condition to go back to work in the foreseeable future. You are battling insurance companies and are in the middle of a personal injury lawsuit in an attempt to get your life back. Meanwhile, the bills are piling up and you need assistance to hold you over while the civil justice system runs its course. Brooke Kibrick and the Bairs Foundation give many people the opportunity to meet those basic needs during this difficult time. Join host Nick Koziol and discover the terrific mission of the Bairs Foundation, a first-of-its-kind non-profit that helps injured people avoid high-interest loans that could cripple their future. That Sounds Terrific Podcast: Host Nick Koziol enjoys connecting with Terrific people that are doing Terrific things. For more information on our Podcast, That Sounds Terrific visit our website at www.thatsoundsterrific.com and be sure to follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. If you or someone you know are doing some terrific things that should be featured by our show then be sure to reach out to us by emailing us at thatsoundsterrfic@gmail.com. The Bairs Foundation: The Bairs Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that helps people suffering as a result of a catastrophic accident. They provide financial assistance to families that need help paying for basic living expenses during the course of litigation. The for-profit, non-recourse industry is unregulated. Many players in the litigation finance space have business models that make the cost of capital exorbitant for plaintiffs. But access to capital for families enduring a personal injury lawsuit (even at very costly rates) is so often preferred over letting go of the quest for justice. Funding families in need during the course of litigation is critical to the civil justice system. The Bairs Foundation provides low-cost access to capital so families have the resources to go the distance with their lawsuit. They offer low, simple interest in the name of the Seventh Amendment. Find out more by visiting www.bairsfoundation.org Follow on Twitter Connect on Facebook More About Brooke Kibrick: Brooke is the executive director of Bairs Foundation. She started with the foundation in August 2020 and oversees all operations, fundraising initiatives, partnerships, and finances for the organization. Brooke has a diverse background with 15 years of experience in non-profit work and marketing and communications roles. She started her career working as a producer in television news before transitioning into marketing and events. Before coming to Bairs Foundation, she was the marketing & events director at Olmsted Center for Sight now VIA, helping raise awareness and funds for the blind and visually impaired community in WNY. Brooke graduated from Oswego State University with a degree in broadcasting and communications. In her personal life, Brooke and her husband, Sean, have three kids Shea, Easton and Cyrus. Connect with Brooke on LinkedIn --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/thatsoundsterrific/support

Res judicata (RJ), also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for "a matter decided" and refers to either of two concepts in both civil law and common law legal systems: a case in which there has been a final judgment and is no longer subject to appeal; and the legal doctrine meant to bar (or preclude) relitigation of a claim between the same parties. In the case of res judicata, the matter cannot be raised again, either in the same court or in a different court. A court will use res judicata to deny reconsideration of a matter. The doctrine of res judicata is a method of preventing injustice to the parties of a case supposedly finished but perhaps also or mostly a way of avoiding unnecessary waste of resources in the court system. Res judicata does not merely prevent future judgments from contradicting earlier ones, but also prevents litigants from multiplying judgments, and confusion. Common law. In common law jurisdictions, the principle of res judicata may be asserted either by a judge or a defendant. Once a final judgment has been handed down in a lawsuit, subsequent judges who are confronted with a suit that is identical to or substantially the same as the earlier one will apply the res judicata doctrine to preserve the effect of the first judgment. A defendant in a lawsuit may use res judicata as defense. The general rule is that a plaintiff who prosecuted an action against a defendant and obtained a valid final judgment is not able to initiate another action versus the same defendant where: The claim is based on the same transaction that was at issue in the first action. The plaintiff seeks a different remedy, or further remedy, than was obtained in the first action. The claim is of such nature as could have been joined in the first action. Once a bankruptcy plan is confirmed in court action, the plan is binding on all parties involved. Any question regarding the plan which could have been raised may be barred by res judicata. The Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no fact having been tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examinable in any court of the United States or of any state than according to the rules of law. For res judicata to be binding, several factors must be met: The identity in the thing at suit. The identity of the cause at suit. The identity of the parties to the action. The identity in the designation of the parties involved. Whether the judgment was final. Whether the parties were given full and fair opportunity to be heard on the issue. Regarding designation of the parties involved, a person may be involved in an action while filling a given office (e.g. as the agent of another), and may subsequently initiate the same action in a differing capacity (e.g. as his own agent). In that case res judicata would not be available as a defense unless the defendant could show that the differing designations were not legitimate and sufficient. Scope. Res judicata includes two related concepts: claim preclusion and issue preclusion (also called collateral estoppel or issue estoppel), though sometimes res judicata is used more narrowly to mean only claim preclusion. Claim preclusion bars a suit from being brought again on an event which was the subject of a previous legal cause of action that has already been finally decided between the parties or those in privity with a party. Issue preclusion bars the relitigation of issues of fact or law that have already been necessarily determined by a judge or jury as part of an earlier case. It is often difficult to determine which, if either, of these concepts apply to later lawsuits that are seemingly related, because many causes of action can apply to the same factual situation and vice versa. The scope of an earlier judgment is probably the most difficult question that judges must resolve in applying res judicata. Sometimes merely part of the action will be affected. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

We WILL find a new world order! But not this week.The Confederacy of Andropolia | The United States of Sebmerica | The Democracy of ZanstraliaLet us know what you think about how we deal with these issues by contacting/arguing with us on social media!Please consider supporting us on PatreonLike us on Facebook!Follow us on twitter @worldorderpodEmail us: anewworldorderpodcast@gmail.comOr visit our Website: www.thatsnotcanonproductions.comHosts: Sebastian Briguglio, Andrew Szosler & Zane C WeberRecorded and Produced by Zane C Weber Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

About Rob Schenk: Rob Schenk is a lawyer with the law firm Schenk Smith Trial Attorneys based in Atlanta, Georgia. The Schenk Smith Law firm focuses exclusively on representing families with loved ones that have been seriously injured or killed in nursing homes. In this episode, Steve and Rob Schenk discuss: 1. Why do nursing homes so greatly want residents to sign binding arbitration?Arbitration is an alternative to litigating a case in a court of law. By signing a binding arbitration you are forfeiting your right to litigate your case in a court of law. The nursing home benefits from this because it keeps the case out of the private eye. Everyone in the case will be held to a confidentiality agreement. Studies have also proven that companies which require arbitration will ultimately benefit from arbitration because they are the company that hires the arbitrators.2. Alright, so what you're saying is that it's kind of like the employers, the nursing homes, they have relationships with the arbitration panels or, there's a friendly kind of, you watch our back, we'll watch your back kind of thing?I won’t say that’s explicitly what’s happening because that would be unethical, but the statistics show that arbitration awards compared to jury awards tend to favor the defendants, in this case meaning the nursing homes.3. So if they come out with large verdicts, or awards against nursing homes, the nursing homes aren't going to pick that particular arbitrator again, right? That's right. It's the free market. They're aware of the fact that if the industry continues to get burned from one particular arbitration company, they can just choose another arbitration company.4. The other option, if you don't sign an arbitration agreement, is that you have the right to take the case in front of a jury. Jurors deal with the case in front of them and they try to get it right and without bias, prejudice, or other types of conflicts that an arbitrator might have.That's the basis of the Seventh Amendment. You want your community to hear your case, and decide the outcome because theoretically, they are, they are the benefactors of whatever the decision is. The jurors are the gateway to protecting the community that that nursing home sits in. The jury can see this as their way to step in as the community and put a check on that system.5. Are there any advantages to potential nursing home residents signing a binding arbitration agreement?None. You may be told up front that it is less expensive and faster than hiring and paying a lawyer. In many cases neither instance is true as you end up paying an arbitrator hourly to review your case when in court of law cases most of the same services are paid for with your filing expenses.6. How is an arbitrator hearing a case different than when a jury hears a case?An arbitrator is expected to apply the law as applicable to their area but the information and judgements are ultimately under their discretion.7. So if a nursing home resident signs a binding arbitration agreement are they allowed to be represented by an attorney? You can be represented by an attorney but some agreements word their agreement in a way that makes you believe you can represent yourself.8. What are some of the best reasons to not sign a binding arbitration agreement?The best reason not to sign an arbitration agreement is because we live in a country that has a Constitution. The constitution allows civil trials with the jury to hear your claims. I believe that 12 community members can do a better job of understanding what's fair, and what's allowable and what's preferred in a particular community, versus an arbitrator that is employed by an arbitration company that is selected by an industry to hear claims.9. It might take longer to get your day in court than with an arbitration. Is it worth waiting a little longer to get in front of a panel of jurors who are your peers, as opposed to an arbitrator, who may be prejudicial and biased in favor of the nursing home?Yes. I would agree with that.10. Have you ever seen cases where the nursing homes actually trick or deceive a resident into signing an agreement requiring a binding arbitration?If there's any trick, it’s that there is no one  competent enough to explain what arbitration is. The family members will usually just sign whatever documentation it takes to get their family member in, never understanding what they are signing.11. Are there situations where the residents actually are signing the paperwork on when they're getting admitted? Yes. For arbitration to take place the person who has signed the document must be deemed to a have sound mind. In my experience the resident should usually not be the one signing anything. However, there are sometimes exceptions.12. Have you ever seen situations when an arbitration agreement was overturned because a potential resident signed, who was not of sound mind or didn't have the requisite capacity?Yes. In the instance of people who sign their own documents to get themselves into nursing homes,or you have the nursing home saying that this resident was of sound mind. Those facilities, within 14 days of admission, are required to complete a comprehensive assessment of every resident if that nursing home was taking Medicare, Medicaid, which 95% of them do. They need to do an assessment of the cognitive capacity of the residents. So sometimes we see a nursing home argument that the person was able to sign themselves in and the next day, 24 hours later, 48 hours later Two weeks later says they were not of right or sound mind.13. Have you seen instances when a nursing home is saying that this person has the capacity to sign this arbitration agreement, but then two weeks later you said the person is not of sound mind. So, which is it?There are instances where this does happen. More likely though is not the argument of capacity but, authority. No one is allowed to sign away the rights of another person unless there is some sort of written authority given. In most cases for a binding arbitration to be lawful the person signing the agreement has been lawfully recognized as being guardian or given authority over the resident going into the nursing home.14. So there has to be their power of attorney, a directive, or a guardianship in order to be able to sign the arbitration agreement?That’s correct and even in those instances, this is state specific, but a healthcare power of attorney might not grant you the authority to sign the arbitration agreement.So even within the written authorities, sometimes the scope is not broad enough to allow the arbitration agreement and it is not enforceable.15. If you're a caregiver or a loved one and your loved one signed the arbitration agreement, or you signed the arbitration agreement, not really knowing what you did. Are there different ways that you can look at it where it may be able to be voided, or overturned? The best advice is that you should seek out the advice of an attorney in your state if you've signed one of these and you might not want to arbitrate. A Lawyer will advise you on the best way to move forward and have your case heard in court.16. What would be some questions that people or loved ones should be asking about arbitration agreement paperwork? I would recommend asking if they have an arbitration agreement? Ask to see it, strike through it, and initial it. Make sure to note that you do not agree with those terms. Nursing homes cannot make the signing of an arbitration agreement mandatory for being admitted.17. Would the patient or family be able to take the agreement and have it looked at by an attorney?There are different laws for different states, but you would be within your right to ask for an attorney to go over it. Make sure that you know how many days you have before a decision needs to be made about signing the document. Additionally, I would recommend whatever you do try to get it in writing as best you can.18. Do they have the right to bring in an attorney or bring in an ombudsman when they're right there in the nursing home office?Yes. You have the right you have the right to do all those things. Many of these documents encourage the resident or the residents family to get legal counsel. Many of these forms have language that states you've had the opportunity to review this with your attorney. So having an attorney there or having an attorney review the information is well within your rights.An ombudsman is just the Swedish word for advocate. A long term care ombudsman is actually an advocate on behalf of residents of nursing homes. The Ombudsman is your tool for when your rights as a resident have been infringed upon. If there's been some type of physical injury or improper discharge from the facility. That's when you need to contact a lawyer.19. Would it be accurate to say that the verdicts or decisions from arbitrators, as opposed to verdicts from juries, in the court system are lower than in the court system?I have not conducted the studies but the statistics that I've seen would reflect that. Yes.20. If you are admitting your parent or a loved one, and something really bad happens to that person. You may need additional medical treatment for them, or need money to pay the medical bills for the damage that was done in the nursing home. Are those things that you can get from a jury trial?The issue is that the process, the fairness is not the same as in a jury trial, although the measure of damages is probably going to be the same."Within 14 days of admission, there must be a comprehensive assessment of every resident if that nursing home was taking Medicare, Medicaid, which 95% of them do, and they need to do an assessment of the cognitive capacity of the residents." —  Rob SchenkTo find out more about the National Injured Senior Law Center or to set up a free consultation go to https://www.injuredseniorhotline.com/ or call 855-622-6530Connect with Rob Schenk:  Twitter: @Schenk SmithFacebook: Rob SchenkInstagram: @Schenk_SmithWebsite: Schenk Smith Trial AttorneysShow: The Nursing Home Abuse PodcastLinkedIn: Rob Schenk CONNECT WITH STEVE H. HEISLER:Website: www.injuredseniorhotline.comFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/attorneysteveheisler/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-law-offices-of-steven-h.-heisler/about/ Email: info@injuredseniorhotline.com Show notes by Podcastologist Kristen Braun  Audio production by Turnkey Podcast Productions. You're the expert. Your podcast will prove it. 

We WILL find a new world order! But not this week.The Confederacy of Andropolia | The United States of Sebmerica | The Democracy of ZanstraliaLet us know what you think about how we deal with these issues by contacting/arguing with us on social media!Please consider supporting us on PatreonLike us on Facebook!Follow us on twitter @worldorderpodEmail us: anewworldorderpodcast@gmail.comOr visit our Website: www.thatsnotcanonproductions.comHosts: Sebastian Briguglio, Andrew Szosler & Zane C WeberRecorded and Produced by Zane C Weber Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We WILL find a new world order! But not this week.The Confederacy of Andropolia | The United States of Sebmerica | The Democracy of ZanstraliaLet us know what you think about how we deal with these issues by contacting/arguing with us on social media!Please consider supporting us on PatreonLike us on Facebook!Follow us on twitter @worldorderpodEmail us: anewworldorderpodcast@gmail.comOr visit our Website: www.thatsnotcanonproductions.comHosts: Sebastian Briguglio, Andrew Szosler & Zane C WeberRecorded and Produced by Zane C Weber Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Rick Dodd Joins us to discuss the Seventh Amendment.  And Matt tells you why the Mossberg 500 might be the best Home Defense shotgun.  

We WILL find a new world order! But not this week.The Confederacy of Andropolia | The United States of Sebmerica | The Democracy of ZanstraliaLet us know what you think about how we deal with these issues by contacting/arguing with us on social media!Please consider supporting us on PatreonLike us on Facebook!Follow us on twitter @worldorderpodEmail us: anewworldorderpodcast@gmail.comOr visit our Website: www.thatsnotcanonproductions.comHosts: Sebastian Briguglio, Andrew Szosler & Zane C WeberRecorded and Produced by Zane C Weber Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Normans bring the original form of the jury to England in 1066 (or did they?) The colonists make jury rights central to the revolution, but the delegates don’t make the effort to add them to the Constitution. The Seventh Amendment preserves the right to a civil jury, without much guidance. The Supreme Court looks to history, except as to size. The Patterson team debates the continued relevance and importance of juries in modern cases.

We WILL find a new world order! But not this week.The Confederacy of Andropolia | The United States of Sebmerica | The Democracy of ZanstraliaLet us know what you think about how we deal with these issues by contacting/arguing with us on social media!Please consider supporting us on PatreonLike us on Facebook!Follow us on twitter @worldorderpodEmail us: anewworldorderpodcast@gmail.comOr visit our Website: www.thatsnotcanonproductions.comHosts: Sebastian Briguglio, Andrew Szosler & Zane C WeberRecorded and Produced by Zane C Weber Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We WILL find a new world order! But not this week.The Confederacy of Andropolia | The United States of Sebmerica | The Democracy of ZanstraliaLet us know what you think about how we deal with these issues by contacting/arguing with us on social media!Please consider supporting us on PatreonLike us on Facebook!Follow us on twitter @worldorderpodEmail us: anewworldorderpodcast@gmail.comOr visit our Website: www.thatsnotcanonproductions.comHosts: Sebastian Briguglio, Andrew Szosler & Zane C WeberRecorded and Produced by Zane C Weber Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week on A New World Order, Zane digs a large hole in search for shiny rocks. Seb fights off a civil war and Andrew looks at robots and thinks... nah.The Confederacy of Andropolia | The United States of Sebmerica | The Democracy of ZanstraliaLet us know what you think about how we deal with these issues by contacting/arguing with us on social media!Please consider supporting us on PatreonLike us on Facebook!Follow us on twitter @worldorderpodEmail us: anewworldorderpodcast@gmail.comOr visit our Website: www.thatsnotcanonproductions.comHosts: Sebastian Briguglio, Andrew Szosler & Zane C WeberRecorded and Produced by Zane C Weber Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Luke and Jay spend this episode digging into the peculiar American institution of the civil jury: recruiting your fellow citizens to decide disputes over everything from a cow to a global corporation. The civil jury grows in response to concerns about courts of equity: In revolutionary America (and in England), parties could choose whether to have their cases decided according to law or according to a separate equitable judicial system. Americans aren't willing to let the equity system continue without juries, so we wind up with the Seventh Amendment. Yet this raises a question: When does the common law begin or end? As it turns out, the founding generation simply asserts that the English common law applies up to revolution and then lets things run after that. However, always skeptical of the citizenry, the states resist implementing the civil jury, and despite the 14th Amendment, the civil jury has never been incorporated against the states. The guys dig deeply into the ideology and the empirical evidence underpinning hostility to the civil jury, but ultimately side with the civil jury as a virtuous institution reflective of the Founders' devotion to citizen power. 

We WILL find a new world order! But not this weekThe Confederacy of Andropolia | The United States of Sebmerica | The Democracy of ZanstraliaLet us know what you think about how we deal with these issues by contacting/arguing with us on social media!Please consider supporting us on PatreonLike us on Facebook!Follow us on twitter @worldorderpodEmail us: anewworldorderpodcast@gmail.comOr visit our Website: www.thatsnotcanonproductions.comHosts: Sebastian Briguglio, Andrew Szosler & Zane C WeberRecorded and Produced by Zane C Weber Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Today's Flash Back Friday comes from Episode 86, originally published in April 2012. We all remember the famous McDonald's hot coffee case where Stella Liebeck sued McDonald's after her scalding coffee spilled and burned her.  But do we know the actual facts?  Jason Hartman interviews Susan Saladoff, former attorney and producer of the documentary “Hot Coffee,” regarding the distorted facts surrounding the case and what is wrong with our court system today. Susan purports that our justice system has become partial to big business through public relations campaigns, and people believe that we have an out-of-control court system where anyone can sue for any frivolous reason, which has resulted in tort reforms – or tort “deforms” as Susan describes it. Susan says it is actually very difficult for a person with a non-meritorious case to win any money or even find a lawyer to defend them. She also says that people tend to think that many civil suits are ridiculous and are brought about by greedy people and businesses until it happens to them. Large corporate interests have this belief that if they can convince the public that the system is broken, that there are too many frivolous lawsuits, people will vote against their own best interests for tort reform. In doing so, we forfeit our Seventh Amendment right to access the court system. Jason and Susan discuss arbitration consequences, the corruption of the legal system, and what people can do to protect their rights. Susan Saladoff (Producer, Director) spent twenty-five years practicing law in the civil justice system, representing injured victims of individual and corporate negligence. She stopped practicing law in 2009 to make the documentary, HOT COFFEE, her first feature-length film. She began her career as a public interest lawyer with the law firm of Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, now known as Public Justice, an organization that, for the last 25 years, has been at the forefront of keeping Americas courthouse doors open to all. Susan was recognized by her peers as an Oregon Super Lawyer for five consecutive years from 2006 to 2010. She is a graduate of Cornell University and George Washington University Law School, and has frequently lectured at the state and national levels on the importance of the civil justice system. Website: www.HotCoffeeTheMovie.com

We WILL find a new world order! But not this week. The Confederacy of Andropolia | The United States of Sebmerica | The Democracy of ZanstraliaLet us know what you think about how we deal with these issues by contacting/arguing with us on social media!Please consider supporting us on PatreonLike us on Facebook!Follow us on twitter @worldorderpodEmail us: anewworldorderpodcast@gmail.comOr visit our Website: www.thatsnotcanonproductions.comHosts: Sebastian Briguglio, Andrew Szosler & Zane C WeberRecorded and Produced by Zane C Weber Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Time travel is hard!Zane tries to outmaneuver the time travelers by giving his people the freedom to self-negotiate with them.Seb is convinced they are here to steer him away from his regular choices and does so by continuously choosing the opposite option to what he wanted.Andrew tries his best to curtail his high crime rate, but between Time Travellers and other countries interference, it may not be as easy as he first thought.The Confederacy of Andropolia | The United States of Sebmerica | The Democracy of ZanstraliaLet us know what you think about how we deal with these issues by contacting/arguing with us on social media!Please consider supporting us on PatreonLike us on Facebook!Follow us on twitter @worldorderpodEmail us: anewworldorderpodcast@gmail.comOr visit our Website: www.thatsnotcanonproductions.comHosts: Sebastian Briguglio, Andrew Szosler & Zane C WeberRecorded and Produced by Zane C Weber Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We WILL find a new world order! But not this week. This week we discuss and/or argue about Currency. The Confederacy of Andropolia | The United States of Sebmerica | The Democracy of ZanstraliaLet us know what you think about how we deal with these issues by contacting/arguing with us on social media!Please consider supporting us on PatreonLike us on Facebook!Follow us on twitter @worldorderpodEmail us: anewworldorderpodcast@gmail.comOr visit our Website: www.thatsnotcanonproductions.comHosts: Sebastian Briguglio, Andrew Szosler & Zane C WeberRecorded and Produced by Zane C Weber Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We WILL find a new world order! But not this week. This week we discuss and/or argue about thinking beyond your own interests.Sebastian answers the most important question of all. What wins in a fight, a vat of acid or parliament?Zane buys some peanuts and crackerjacks and thinks about the future of Baseball in his country.Andrew callously snubbed disabled athletes and caught the ire of disability advocate groups. Will he build a handicapable bridge to peace or will he take the staircase of eugenics to the top?The Confederacy of Andropolia | The United States of Sebmerica | The Democracy of ZanstraliaLet us know what you think about how we deal with these issues by contacting/arguing with us on social media!Please consider supporting us on PatreonLike us on Facebook!Follow us on twitter @worldorderpodEmail us: anewworldorderpodcast@gmail.comOr visit our Website: www.thatsnotcanonproductions.comHosts: Sebastian Briguglio, Andrew Szosler & Zane C WeberRecorded and Produced by Zane C Weber Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We WILL find a new world order! But not this week. This week we discuss and/or argue about issues in the workplace. The Confederacy of Andropolia | The United States of Sebmerica | The Democracy of ZanstraliaLet us know what you think about how we deal with these issues by contacting/arguing with us on social media!Please consider supporting us on PatreonLike us on Facebook!Follow us on twitter @worldorderpodEmail us: anewworldorderpodcast@gmail.comOr visit our Website: www.thatsnotcanonproductions.comHosts: Sebastian Briguglio, Andrew Szosler & Zane C WeberRecorded and Produced by Zane C Weber Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In 2011, Congress created a new administrative tribunal in the U.S. Patent Office with the power to cancel previously granted patents, called the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB). The PTAB has become a flashpoint of controversy. Some companies and organizations defend it as an important tool for eliminating invalidly issued patents. Critics have highlighted a wide range of concerns, including, among others, not providing patent-owners with basic due process protections and a structural bias against patents that has led to inordinately high “kill" rates. In Oil States v. Greene's Energy Group, the Supreme Court will decide whether assigning such power to an administrative agency is consistent with the constitutional requirements of Article III, the Seventh Amendment, and the nature of patents as property rights. At the intersection of patent law, administrative law, and constitutional law, Oil States is a blockbuster case in the October 2017 term that will impact the governmental branches, the law and the innovation economy.Prof. Gregory Dolin, Co-director of the Center for Medicine and Law, University of Baltimore School of LawProf. John F. Duffy, Samuel H. McCoy II Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Arti K. Rai, Elvin R. Latty Professor of Law, Duke University School of LawMr. Robert Greene Sterne, Director, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox PLLCModerator: Hon. F. Scott Kieff, Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School, and former Commissioner, United States International Trade Commission

In 2011, Congress created a new administrative tribunal in the U.S. Patent Office with the power to cancel previously granted patents, called the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB). The PTAB has become a flashpoint of controversy. Some companies and organizations defend it as an important tool for eliminating invalidly issued patents. Critics have highlighted a wide range of concerns, including, among others, not providing patent-owners with basic due process protections and a structural bias against patents that has led to inordinately high “kill" rates. In Oil States v. Greene's Energy Group, the Supreme Court will decide whether assigning such power to an administrative agency is consistent with the constitutional requirements of Article III, the Seventh Amendment, and the nature of patents as property rights. At the intersection of patent law, administrative law, and constitutional law, Oil States is a blockbuster case in the October 2017 term that will impact the governmental branches, the law and the innovation economy.Prof. Gregory Dolin, Co-director of the Center for Medicine and Law, University of Baltimore School of LawProf. John F. Duffy, Samuel H. McCoy II Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Arti K. Rai, Elvin R. Latty Professor of Law, Duke University School of LawMr. Robert Greene Sterne, Director, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox PLLCModerator: Hon. F. Scott Kieff, Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School, and former Commissioner, United States International Trade Commission

We WILL find a new world order! But not this week. This week we discuss and/or argue about... The Confederacy of Andropolia | The United States of Sebmerica | The Democracy of ZanstraliaLet us know what you think about how we deal with these issues by contacting/arguing with us on social media!Please consider supporting us on PatreonLike us on Facebook!Follow us on twitter @worldorderpodEmail us: anewworldorderpodcast@gmail.comOr visit our Website: www.thatsnotcanonproductions.comHosts: Sebastian Briguglio, Andrew Szosler & Zane C WeberRecorded and Produced by Zane C Weber Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We all remember the famous McDonald’s hot coffee case where Stella Liebeck sued McDonald’s after her scalding coffee spilled and burned her. But do we know the actual facts? Jason Hartman interviews Susan Saladoff, former attorney and producer of the documentary “Hot Coffee,” regarding the distorted facts surrounding the case and what is wrong with our court system today. Susan purports that our justice system has become partial to big business through public relations campaigns, and people believe that we have an out-of-control court system where anyone can sue for any frivolous reason, which has resulted in tort reforms – or tort “deforms” as Susan describes it. Susan says it is actually very difficult for a person with a non-meritorious case to win any money or even find a lawyer to defend them. She also says that people tend to think that many civil suits are ridiculous and are brought about by greedy people and businesses until it happens to them. Large corporate interests have this belief that if they can convince the public that the system is broken, that there are too many frivolous lawsuits, people will vote against their own best interests for tort reform. In doing so, we forfeit our Seventh Amendment right to access the court system. Jason and Susan discuss arbitration consequences, the corruption of the legal system, and what people can do to protect their rights. Susan Saladoff (Producer, Director) spent twenty-five years practicing law in the civil justice system, representing injured victims of individual and corporate negligence. She stopped practicing law in 2009 to make the documentary, HOT COFFEE, her first feature-length film. She began her career as a public interest lawyer with the law firm of Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, now known as Public Justice, an organization that, for the last 25 years, has been at the forefront of keeping Americas courthouse doors open to all. Susan was recognized by her peers as an Oregon Super Lawyer for five consecutive years from 2006 to 2010. She is a graduate of Cornell University and George Washington University Law School, and has frequently lectured at the state and national levels on the importance of the civil justice system.

On this episode of the podcast, we break down the Seventh Amendment and look at the pros and cons of the jury system, as well as reforms and alternatives, including the possibility of professional jurors, Summary Jury Trials, additional verdicts and plenty more. Feel free to email us your thoughts at politicaltheorypodcast@gmail.com, visit our website … More The Seventh Amendment: Juries