Podcasts about seventh circuit

We're pleased to have as our guest Daniel Whitehead. Daniel was a 2022 James Wilson Fellow. He served in the General Counsel's Office of Governor Ron DeSantis and has clerked on two federal courts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. He was also a John Marshall Fellow of the Claremont Institute. He is currently a Senior Fellow of the Hungary Foundation, where he is spending a year living in Budapest. We were eager to hear about Daniel's experience in Hungary living amidst the Hungarian people, learning the Hungarian language, and conducting original research and writing. We also discuss his recent article we republished at Anchoring Truths titled Securitization: A Solution to the Migration Crisis in the United States.

Where should the line be drawn in the debate between the rights of persons to hold religious beliefs and transgender advocates when it comes to government policies? Whether teachers or others can be compelled to use names and pronouns for students who identify as transgender is becoming a common battleground. The school district in Brownsburg, Indiana ordered Mr. Kluge to use incorrect pronouns, which he believes are a lie. The school moved to fire him when he expressed a religious objection—without considering any Title VII religious accommodations, as the law requires. Once Mr. Kluge suggested he use all students’ last names like a coach, the district relented. But school officials changed their minds when some students and teachers complained, saying no future accommodations would be allowed. They forced Mr. Kluge to either violate his religious beliefs with his own words, face termination, or resign. Mr. Kluge resigned under protest and filed suit under Title VII for religious discrimination and retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment to the school district, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed, under Hardison’s more than a de minimise cost test for undue hardship. After the Supreme Court held in Groff that undue hardship requires more—a substantial burden in the overall context of the employer’s business, the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded. But the district court’s analysis did not change. Mr. Kluge’s case is now back before the Seventh Circuit, which will be one of the first appellate courts to grapple with Groff’s new standard. Featuring: David A. Cortman, Senior Counsel and Vice President of U.S. Litigation, Alliance Defending Freedom (Moderator) Miles Coleman, Partner, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP

The Indianapolis community is celebrating Black history with three trailblazing federal judges.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana featured a conversation with all three.Inside the Birch Bayh Federal Building and courthouse, history, progress, and perseverance took center stage as the community gathered for a conversation with the Honorable Ann Claire Williams, Honorable Candace Jackson-Akiwumi, and Honorable Doris Pryor, all Black women who have made history in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.Williams was the first woman of color to serve on a district court in the three-state Seventh Circuit after a nomination from President Bill Clinton. She was also the first judge of color to sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and third Black woman to serve on any federal circuit court.She says it's an honor to be a part of living history with two other Black women.Williams, who's now retired from the bench and works at law firm Jones Day, says it's important in any career to think about the people who will come behind you.The judges discussed their journeys to the bench and the importance of representation, mentorship, and the impact of diversity on the justice system.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

G&T701 - Episode #127 - POWERED BY LAUER AUTO REAPAIR - Jan 29th 2025 - www.GunsAndThe701.comIn the chamber for the stream

It's not just the MAGA crowd who are concerned with government waste and inefficiency. In a convincing Wall Street Journal op-ed, best-selling tech author Larry Downes questions the need for a thousand Social Security offices around the country. Downes argues that the federal government's resistance to digital transformation has resulted in staggeringly low user satisfaction rates - just 12% for federal government services. Despite more than 85% of federal workers being based outside Washington, there have been few serious attempts to modernize these services through e-government initiatives. While the incoming Trump administration's "Doge" team has talked about reforming government, Downes remains skeptical about implementation, citing political obstacles rather than technical challenges. He notes that while Estonia and Denmark offer successful e-government models, American reform efforts face unique hurdles, including congressional resistance to closing local offices and bureaucratic procurement processes that often outlast technology cycles. Downes suggests that modernization could significantly improve service delivery while reducing costs, though it would impact federal employment. He emphasizes that this isn't about privatization but rather bringing government services into the digital age - something that could potentially serve as a safeguard against authoritarian overreach by systematizing government processes in transparent, digital systems.Larry Downes is the author of five books on the impact of technology on business, society, and the law. His first book, “Unleashing the Killer App” (Harvard Business School Press), was an international bestseller, with over 200,000 copies in print. The Wall Street Journal named it one of the five most important books ever published on business and technology. His most recent book is “Pivot to the Future” (Public Affairs), co-authored with Omar Abbosh and Paul Nunes of Accenture. It has been nominated for the 2019 Thinkers50 Strategy Award. Downes writes the “Innovations” column for The Washington Post and is a regular contributor to Harvard Business Review. He was previously a columnist for Forbes, CNET and The Industry Standard. He has written for a variety of other publications, including The New York Times, USA Today, Inc., The Economist, Wired, MIT Sloan Management Review, Entrepreneur, Fast Company, Recode, The Hill, Congressional Quarterly, Slate, The European Business Review, The Boao Review, and The San Francisco Chronicle. Downes has held faculty appointments at The University of Chicago, Northwestern University, and the University of California—Berkeley, where he was Associate Dean of the School of Information. From 2006-2010, he was a Fellow with the Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society. From 2015-2019, he was Project Director at the Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy at the McDonough School of Business. Downes testifies frequently before Congress on issues related to the regulation of technology, including those dealing with antitrust, privacy, communications policy, media law, and the role of the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission in the 21st century. He holds a B.A. from Northwestern University and a J.D. from the University of Chicago. From 1993-1994, he served as law clerk to the Hon. Richard A. Posner, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. He lives in Berkeley, CA.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

The importance of judicial selection and confirmation is now a point of emphasis for all presidential administrations. In 2025 and going forward, what principles and considerations will govern judicial selection (and confirmation) in a new administration, with a new Senate majority. These and other important Article III issues will be considered by our panel of experts.Featuring:Mr. Michael Fragoso, Chief Counsel, Office of the Republican Minority LeaderMr. David Lat, Founder, Above the LawProf. Robert Luther III, Distinguished Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityProf. Carl Tobias, Williams Chair in Law, University of Richmond School of LawModerator: Hon. Michael B. Brennan, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

Third-year UVA Law students Jake Flansburg and Malia Takei, arguing for the appellant, face off against classmates Nathaniel Glass and Benjamin Baldwin, arguing for the appellee, in the final round of the 96th William Minor Lile Moot Court competition. Presiding over the competition were Judge Michael Scudder of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Judge Kevin Ohlson '85 of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and former acting Virginia Solicitor General Trevor Cox, a partner at Hunton Andrews Kurth. (University of Virginia School of Law, Nov. 14, 2024)

Abortion: Does Indiana's abortion ban unlawfully impair Satanists' sincerely held religious beliefs and practices? - Argued: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 9:21:3 EDT

This week, we have a special guest from the University of Florida Levin College of Law—Christopher D. Hampson. Our topic is a good one: the cancellation of debt. To that end, Chris and I discussed his forthcoming article tentatively entitled Law and the Jubilee Tradition. Some of the things we spoke about was the jubilee tradition in the Old Testament text, the many ways that tradition connects with the history of American society, his approach based on a Rawlsian ideal of practical reason, principle of equality undergirding his project, and more. Chris is a scholar of bankruptcy, insolvency, and the ethics of debt. His research focuses on how legal institutions can best serve our shared values during times of financial distress. Chris served as a law clerk for Judge Richard A. Posner on the Seventh Circuit in Chicago and practiced law at a number of promient law firms in Miami and Boston. Full bio and CV here. Cross & Gavel is a production of CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY. The episode was produced by Josh Deng, with music from Vexento.

First Amendment: May Indiana require those observing the police to remain at a distance of least 25 feet? - Argued: Fri, 27 Sep 2024 9:21:5 EDT

You do not have the right to repair your own belongings because of intellectual property rights granted to corporations by Congress in 1998. In this episode, listen to the debate happening in Congress about if and how they should grant customers the right to repair and get a status update on the multiple efforts under way in the current Congress, including one with a good chance of becoming law. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes McDonald's Ice Cream Machines Andy Greenberg. December 14, 2023. Wired. Joseph Fawbush. March 29, 2022. FindLaw. John Deere Luke Hogg. January 8, 2024. Reason. Internet of Things Updates and Maintenance Márk Szabó. August 27, 2024. WeLiveSecurity. Massachusetts Auto Repair Law Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General. DoD's Revolving Door OpenSecrets. OpenSecrets. Karl Evers-Hillstrom and Reid Champlin. June 18, 2019. OpenSecrets. OpenSecrets. Salary.com. Military Right to Repair Issues Kyle Mizokami. February 11, 2020. Popular Mechanics. Max Finkel. February 8, 2020. Jalopnik. Elle Ekman. November 20, 2019. The New York Times. Lucas Kunce and Elle Ekman. September 15, 2019. Technological Protection Measures (TPMs) Jennifer Zerkee. November 8, 2023. Simon Fraser University. Cyber Risks Sam Curry et al. January 3, 2023. samcurry.net. Apple Lawsuit Brandon Vigliarolo. December 18, 2023. The Register. NDAA Sec. 828 Jason Koebler. August 28, 2024. 404 Media. AdvaMed et al. July 30, 2024. DocumentCloud via 404 Media. Laws Bills Sec. 828 : REQUIREMENT FOR CONTRACTORS TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCESS TO REPAIR MATERIALS. Fair Repair Act Audio Sources May 16, 2024 Senate Armed Services Committee Witnesses: Carlos Del Toro, Secretary of the Navy Clip Sen. Elizabeth Warren: So the Navy acquires everything from night vision goggles to aircraft carriers through contracts with big defense contractors, but the contractors often place restrictions on these deals that prevent service members from maintaining or repairing the equipment, or even let them write a training manual without going back through the contractor. Now the contractors say that since they own the intellectual property and the technical data underlying the equipment, only they have the right to repair that equipment. These right to repair restrictions usually translate into much higher costs for DOD, which has no choice but to shovel money out to big contractors whenever DOD needs to have something fixed. So take the Navy's littoral combat ship, General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin considered much of the data and equipment on the ship to be proprietary, so the Navy had to delay missions and spend millions of dollars on travel costs, just so that contractor affiliated repairmen could fly in, rather than doing this ourselves. Secretary Del Toro, when a sailor isn't allowed to repair part of their ship at sea, and a marine isn't allowed to access technical data to fix a generator on a base abroad. One solution is for the Navy to buy the intellectual property from the contractors. So can you say a little bit about what the benefits are of the Navy having technical rights for the equipment that it has purchased. Sec. Carlos Del Toro: The benefits are enormous, Senator, and we've actually had tremendous success, I'd say, in the last year and a half to two years, through the taxpayer advocacy program that we initiated when I came in. There have been three examples, one, gaining the intellectual property rights for the new ACV class of ships that will replace the AAVs. The F-35 negotiations really proved themselves out in a significant way as well, too. And lastly, the 20 F-18s that the Congress authorized in ‘22 and ‘23, we were able to make significant gains in terms of the government finally getting the intellectual property rights that were necessary for us to be able to properly sustain those moving forward. Sen. Elizabeth Warren: So I am very, very glad to hear this. I like the taxpayer advocacy project and how you're training contract officers to secure technical equipment that the Navy buys, but I think you should have the support of Congress on this. Senator Braun and I have introduced the Stop price gouging the military act to give DoD more tools to get cost and pricing data so that you will be in a better position to negotiate better deals with contractors. There's also more that we can do to ensure that the Navy and the rest of the services have the rights they need to bolster readiness. So let me ask you, Secretary Del Toro, would having a stronger focus on right to repair issues during the acquisition process, like prioritizing contract bids that give DoD fair access to repair materials, and ensuring that contract officers are looking into buying technical rights early on, would that help the Navy save costs and boost readiness at the same time? Sec. Carlos Del Toro: Very much. Senator, in fact, one of the things that we have prioritized since I came in as Secretary of the Navy, given my acquisition background, is actually those negotiations need to happen as early as possible before that we even as we develop the acquisition strategy for that contract to go out to bid, and by doing so, we will reap tremendous returns. July 18, 2023 House Judiciary Committee Witnesses: Aaron Perzanowski, Thomas W. Lacchia Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School , Legal Fellow, Hudson Institute's Forum for Intellectual Property Kyle Wiens, Co-founder and CEO, iFixit Paul Roberts, Founder, SecuRepairs.org; Founder and Editor-in-Chief, the Security Ledger Scott Benavidez, Chairman, Automotive Service Association; Owner, Mr. B's Paint & Body Shop Clips 41:25 Scott Benavidez: My name is Scott Benavidez. I'm the Chairman of the Automotive Service Association's Board of Directors. I am also a second generation shop owner from Albuquerque, New Mexico, Mr. B's Paint and Body Shop. Scott Benavidez: We do have concerns when some insurers insist on repairs that are simply cheaper and quicker, without regard to quality and safety. Repairers understand better than anyone the threat of replacement crash parts or lesser quality. We can and should have a competitive marketplace that doesn't compromise quality or safety, deciding to only cover the cheapest option without understanding implications for quality leaves collision shops and their customers in a tough position. Very few consumers have the knowledge about these types of crash parts used on their vehicles as numerous crash parts in the marketplace, such as OEM (original equipment manufactured) parts, certified aftermarket parts, aftermarket parts, reconditioned crash parts, and recycled crash parts. Repairers can make recommendations, but their customers are unlikely to hear if the insurance won't cover them. 46:45 Paul Roberts: My name is Paul Roberts, and I'm the founder of Secure Repairs. We're an organization of more than 350 cyber security and information technology professionals who support the right to repair. 46:55 Paul Roberts: I'm speaking to you today on behalf of our members to make clear that the fair access to repair materials sought by right to repair laws does not increase cyber risk, and in fact, it can contribute to a healthier and more secure ecosystem of smart and connected devices. Paul Roberts: Proposed right to repair legislation considered by this Congress, such as the Repair Act, or last session, the Fair Repair Act, simply asks manufacturers that already provide repair information and tools to their authorized repair providers to also provide them at a fair and reasonable price to the owners of the devices and to third parties that they may wish to hire to do their work. 47:35 Paul Roberts: By definition, the information covered by right to repair laws is not sensitive or protected, as evidenced by the fact that the manufacturers already distribute it widely to hundreds, thousands, or even tens of thousands of workers for their authorized repair providers. This could be everyone from mechanics working at auto dealerships to the folks staffing the Geek Squad at Best Buy. 48:00 Paul Roberts: Also, we have yet to find any evidence that the types of information covered by right to repair laws like schematic diagrams, service manuals, diagnostic software and replacement parts act as a portal to cyber attacks. The vast majority of attacks on internet connected devices - from broadband routers to home appliances to automobiles - today exploit weaknesses in the embedded software produced and distributed by the manufacturers, or alternatively, weak device configurations so they're deployed on the internet in ways that make them vulnerable to attack. These security weaknesses are an epidemic. A recent study of the security of Internet of Things devices, by the company Phosphorus Labs, or a cybersecurity company, found that 68% of Internet of Things devices contained high risk or critical software vulnerabilities. As an example, I'd like to call attention to the work of a group of independent researchers recently led by Sam Curry, who published a report, and you can Google this, "Web Hackers vs. the Auto Industry" in January 2023. That group disclosed wide ranging and exploitable flaws in vehicle telematics systems from 16 different auto manufacturers. At a leading GPS supplier to major automakers, the researchers claimed to obtain full access to a company-wide administration panel that gave them the ability to send arbitrary commands to an estimated 15.5 million vehicles, including vehicles used by first responders, police, fire and so on. Hacks like this take place without any access to repair materials, nor is there any evidence that providing access to repair software will open the doors to new attacks. 50:05 Paul Roberts: For the last 25 years, Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act has given manufacturers an incentive to deploy software locks widely and to limit access to security researchers. That's kind of a model what we call in cybersecurity, security through obscurity. In other words, by keeping the workings of something secret, you're making it secure. But in fact, that doesn't work, because cyber criminals are very resourceful and they're very determined, and they don't really care what the law says. 50:35 Paul Roberts: Section 1201 has also enabled what one researcher has described as dark patterns in the design and manufacture of hardware that includes everything from locking out customers from access to administrative interfaces, administrative features of the products that they own, as well as practices like part pairing, which Kyle will talk to you more about, in which manufacturers couple replaceable components like screens and sensors and cameras to specific device hardware. Such schemes make manufacturers and their authorized repair providers gatekeepers for repairs, and effectively bar competition from the owners of the devices as well as independent repair providers. 54:45 Kyle Wiens: You think about what is local? What is American? Main Street you have a post office and a repair shop. And unfortunately, we've seen the whittling down of Main Street as the TV repair shops went away when the manufacturers cut off access to schematics, as the camera repair shops went away when Nikon and Canon decided to stop selling them parts. We've seen this systematically across the economy. In the enterprise space, you have Oracle and IBM saying that you can't get security updates to critical cyber infrastructure unless you buy a service contract with them, so they're tying long term service contracts with the security updates that are necessary to keep this infrastructure secure. 56:45 Kyle Wiens: Over the last decade plus, I've been working on Section 1201, trying to get exemptions for the ability to repair products. The challenge that we've had in the section 1201 process every triennial I go back and we ask for permission to be able to fix our own things is that the exemptions we've gotten really only apply to individual consumers. They aren't something that I could use to make a tool to provide to one of you to fix yourself. So in order for someone to take advantage of a 1201 exemption that we have, they have to be a cybersecurity researcher and able to whittle their own tools and use it themselves, and that just doesn't scale. 57:45 Devlin Hartline: My name is Devlin Hartline, and I'm a legal fellow at the Hudson Institute's forum for intellectual property. 57:50 Devlin Hartline: I'd like to start with a question posed by the title of this hearing, is there a right to repair? And the answer is clearly no. A right is a legally enforceable claim against another, but the courts have not recognized that manufacturers have the duty to help consumers make repairs. Instead, the courts have said that while we have the ability to repair our things, we also have the duty not to infringe the IP rights in the process. So it is in fact, the manufacturers who have the relevant rights, not consumers. 58:30 Devlin Hartline: Right to repair supporters want lawmakers to force manufacturers to make the tools, parts, and know-how needed to facilitate repairs available to consumers and independent repair shops. And the assumption here is that anything standing in the way of repair opportunities must necessarily harm the public good, but these tools, parts and know-how, are often protected by IP rights such as copyrights and design patents. And we protect copyrighted works and patented inventions because, as the Constitution recognizes, this promotes the public good. We reward creators and innovators as an incentive for them to bring these things to the marketplace and the public benefits from the introduction of new products and services that increase competition. Thus, the right to repair movement isn't based on a pre-existing right. It's instead asking lawmakers to create a new right at the expense of the existing rights of IP owners. 1:00:45 Devlin Hartline: IP owners are merely exercising their federally protected IP rights, and this is not actionable anti-competitive conduct. It is instead how the IP system is supposed to work. We grant IP owners exclusive rights so they can exclude others, and this, in turn, promotes the investments to create and to commercialize these creative innovations in the marketplace, and that promotes the public good. Aaron Perzanowski: My name is Aaron Perzanowski. I am a professor of law at the University of Michigan, and for the last 15 years, my academic research has focused on the intersection of personal and intellectual property rights in the digital economy. During that time, the right to repair has emerged as a central challenge to the notion that we as consumers control the devices that we buy. Instead consumers, farmers, small businesses, all find that manufacturers exert post-sale control over these devices, often in ways that frustrate repair. Aaron Perzanowski: Repair is as old as humanity. Our Paleolithic ancestors repaired hand axes and other primitive tools, and as our technologies have grown more complex, from the Bronze Age through the Renaissance, to the high tech devices that we all have in our pockets here today, repair has always kept pace. But today, manufacturers are employing a range of strategies that restrict repair, from their hardware and software design choices to clamp downs on secondary markets, and we also troublingly see attempts to leverage IP rights as tools to restrict repair. These efforts are a major departure from the historical treatment of repair under the law, the right to repair is not only consistent with nearly two centuries of IP law in the United States, it reflects half a millennium of common law property doctrine that rejects post-sale restrictions on personal property as early as the 15th century. English property law recognized that once a property owner sells an item, efforts to restrain how the new owner of that item can use it are inconsistent with the essential nature of private property and obnoxious to public policy. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized, IP laws' respect for the property interests of purchasers of copyrighted and patented goods was profoundly shaped by this common law tradition. In 1850, the Supreme Court recognized that the repair of a patented machine reflected "no more than the exercise of that right of care, which everyone may use to give duration to that which he owns." A century later, the Court held that the repair of a convertible car roof was justified as an exercise of "the lawful right of the property owner to repair his property." And just a few years ago, the court reaffirmed the rejection of post-sale restrictions under patent law in Impression Products vs. Lexmark, a case about refurbishing printer ink cartridges. Copyright law, not surprisingly, has had fewer occasions to consider repair restrictions. But as early as 1901, the Seventh Circuit recognized "a right of repair or renewal under US copyright law." When a publisher sued to prevent a used book dealer from repairing and replacing damaged components of books, the court said that "the right of ownership in the book carries with it and includes the right to maintain the book as nearly as possible in its original condition." A century after that, Congress itself acknowledged repair as a right that owners enjoy, regardless of copyright restrictions, when it enacted section 117 C of the Copyright Act. That provision was designed to undo a Ninth Circuit decision that allowed copyright holders to prevent third party repairs of computers. Section 117 C explicitly permits owners of machines to make copies of computer programs in the course of maintenance or repair. And finally, the US Copyright Office over the last decade has repeatedly concluded that diagnosis, repair, and maintenance activities are non-infringing when it comes to vehicles, consumer devices, and medical equipment. So the right to repair is firmly rooted in basic principles of US IP law. Aaron Perzanowski: Section 1201 of the DMCA makes it practically impossible for consumers to exercise their lawful right to repair a wide range of devices, from tractors to home electronics, even though the copyright office says those activities are not infringing, and the weakening of standards for design patents allow firms to choke off the supply of replacement parts needed to repair vehicles, home appliances, and other devices. Aaron Perzanowski: One way to think about a right is as an affirmative power to force someone else to engage in some behavior, and in some cases, that is what we're talking about. We're talking about imposing, especially on the state level, regulations that impose requirements on manufacturers. I think that's true of the Repair Act on the federal level as well. But, I think part of what we also need to keep in mind is that sometimes what you need to effectuate a right is to eliminate barriers that stand in the way of that right. So we can think about this, I think, helpfully in the context of tools that enable people to engage in repair. The state level solution has been to require manufacturers to give their own tools to repair shops, sometimes compensated under fair and reasonable terms. The other solution would be to change section 1201 to say, let's allow independent repair shops to make their own tools. I think both of those solutions have some value to them. I also think it's really important to keep in mind that when we're talking about IP rights, there are always multiple sets of interests at stake, and one of the key balances that IP law has always tried to strike is the balance between the limited statutory exclusive rights that the Patent and Copyright Acts create and the personal property rights of consumers who own these devices. And so I think a balancing is absolutely necessary and appropriate. 1:15:20 Aaron Perzanowski: I think the best solution for Section 1201 is embodied in a piece of legislation that Representatives Jones and Spartz introduced in the last Congress, which would create a permanent exception to Section 1201 for repair that would apply not only to the act of circumvention, but would also apply to the creation and distribution of tools that are useful for repair purposes that does not open the door to broad, unrestrained, creation of circumvention tools, but tools that are that are targeted to the repair market. 1:16:40 Devlin Hartline: He cited a case about where you can repair a cover on a book. That's very different than recreating the book, every single word in it, right? So there's a difference between repairing something and then crossing the line into violating the exclusive rights of IP owners in the patented product or the copyrighted book. And so the things that repair supporters are asking for is that, if somebody has a design patent that covers an auto body part, well, they have the right to exclude other people from making that part, but repair supporters say they shouldn't have that exclusive right, because, you know, we could increase competition if we just took away their design patent and now other people could make that part, and so that's competition. But that's not the type of competition that IP law and competition law seek to support. That's like saying, if we just let the Pirate Bay copy and distribute all of the Disney blockbuster movies, then that's competition, and prices would go down. But that's not the way that we do it, right? So competition means other people come up with new products and new services, and so that's what we should be trying to support. 1:26:45 Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY): Repair advocates argue that section 1201, prevents non-infringing circumvention of access controls for purposes. But Congress contemplated this use when it passed the DMCA in 1998, allowing for a triennial exemption process. Is the exemption process working as intended? And if not, are there actions Congress can take to expand exemptions or make them easier to acquire? Devlin Hartline: What's important about the triennial rulemaking is that the proponent of an exemption has to come forward with evidence and demonstrate that there's actually a problem and it relates to a certain class of works, and then they can get a temporary exemption for three years. And so it is true that the Librarian of Congress, the last few rulemakings, has said that because using a copyrighted work in a way for repair, maintenance, etc, is Fair Use that they grant these exemptions. But these exemptions are quite narrow. They do not allow the trafficking of the computer programs that can crack the TPMs. And so it's very narrowly done. And the concern is that if you were to create a permanent exemption that opens things all the way up with access controls, copy controls and trafficking thereof, is now you're getting to the point of why we even have these TPMs under 1201 in the first place, and that's because they guard against piracy. And so the concern is that you're opening the piracy floodgates. You make these devices less secure, and then content owners are going to be less likely to want to put their content on these devices. Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA): How does section 1201 of the DMCA impact the ability of consumers and independent repair shops to modify or repair devices that have proprietary software and data in the consumer electronics industry? Aaron Perzanowski: Thank you so much for the question. As we've been talking about the copyright office in 2015, 2018, 2021, and they're in the process for the current rulemaking, has determined that engaging in circumvention, the removal or bypassing of these digital locks for purposes of repair, is perfectly lawful behavior, but there is a major practical mismatch here between the legal rights that consumers enjoy under federal law today and their practical ability to exercise those rights. And that's because, as Devlin was just describing, the section 1201 rulemaking does not extend to the creation or distribution of tools, right? So I have the right under federal law, to remove the technological lock, say, on my video game console, if I want to swap out a broken disk drive. How do I do that? I'd like to think of myself as a pretty technologically sophisticated person. I don't have the first clue about how to do that. I need a person who can write that code, make that code available to consumers so that I can. All I'm trying to do is swap out a broken disk drive on my video game. But you would argue that code is proprietary, correct? So I'm talking here about a third party making their own code that is simply allowing me to engage in activity that the Copyright Office has repeatedly said is non-infringing. Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA): So you want to give them a map. Is that, essentially, what you're saying? Aaron Perzanowski: Absolutely, yes, I do. Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA): Do trade secrets play a role in the right to repair debate? Aaron Perzanowski: There are occasions where trade secrets are important. I don't think in the context that we're talking about here with section 1201, that we're typically running into trade secret issues. The state-level bills that have been introduced do typically address trade secrets and often have carve outs there. And I think that's something worth considering in this debate. But I think it's important to keep in mind that just because we have some hypothetical worry about some unknown bad actor taking a tool that I use to fix my video game console -- Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA): It's not unknown. The Chinese do it all the time. Aaron Perzanowski: I don't think the Chinese are particularly worried about whether or not I can fix my video game console, and in fact, I think that point is important, but the bad actors already have these tools. All we're trying to do is get very targeted tools in the hands of law abiding citizens who just want to repair the stuff they buy for their kids for Christmas, right? If the Chinese are going to hack the PlayStation, they've already done it. 1:32:25 Aaron Perzanowski: So the 1201 process is what established the legality of circumvention for repair purposes. But when Congress created that rulemaking authority, it only extends to the act of circumvention, the actual removal. Congress did not give the [Copyright] Office or the Librarian [of Congress] the authority to grant exemptions to the trafficking provisions, and that's where I think legislative intervention is really important. 1:39:00 Kyle Wiens: One of the challenges was section 1201. It doesn't just ban repair tools, it also bans the distribution of cybersecurity tools. And so we've seen security researchers....Apple sued a company that made a security research tool under 1201 and that tool has markedly made the world more secure. It's very popular amongst government security researchers. So I think that's kind of the sweet spot is, allow some third party inspection. It'll make the product better. 1:41:25 Kyle Wiens: These ice cream machines are made by Taylor, and there is an incredibly complex, baroque set of touchscreens you have to go through. And then there's a service password you have to be able to get past in order to access the settings that really allow you to do what you want. And so, in an ideal world, you'd have an entrepreneur who would come along and make a tool to make it easier for McDonald's, maybe they could have an app on their phone that they could use to configure and help them diagnose and repair the machine. Unfortunately, the company who made that tool is struggling legally because of all these challenges across the board. If we had innovation outside of the manufacturers and to be able to develop new tools for fixing ice cream machines or anything else, you have a whole flowering ecosystem of repair tools right now. It doesn't exist. The US is like this black hole where innovation is banned in software repair. There's all kinds of opportunities I could see, I had a farmer ask me for help fixing his John Deere tractor, and I had to say, I can't do that particular repair because it's illegal. I'd love to build a cool app for helping him diagnose and fix his tractor and get back back in the field faster. We don't have that marketplace right now. It's like farmers have been forced to, like, use cracked Ukrainian versions of John Deere diagnostic software, right? Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC): So it's not just ice cream machines. I led off with that, but it's farmers, it's farm equipment, it's iPhones, it's somebody's Xbox, right? I mean, these are all things.... in your experience, what are the challenges that these customers and stakeholders face when they're trying to repair their own devices? What are some things that they face? Kyle Wiens: It's absolutely infuriating. So my friend, farmer in San Luis Obispo, Dave grows all kinds of amazing products. He has a $300,000 John Deere tractor, came to me and said, Hey, there's a bad sensor. It's going to take a week to get that sensor sent out from Indiana, and I need to use the tractor in that time. Will you help me bypass the sensor? I could hypothetically modify the software in the tractor to do that. Practically, I didn't have the legal ability, and so he had to go and rent an expensive tractor for the week. This is impacting people's lives every single day. 1:43:50 Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC): So, to pivot a little bit, what role do you see from a federal side, from legislation, and what specific measures do you think might be included in such legislation? Kyle Wiens: So we've seen the solutions being approached from two angles. At the state level, you have states saying John Deere and other manufacturers, if you have a dealership that has fancy tools, sell those tools to consumers and to independent shops, allow that competition. At the federal level, what we can do is enable a competitive marketplace for those tools. So rather than compelling John Deere to sell the tool, we can say, hey, it's legal for someone, an entrepreneur, to make a competing tool. And you have this in the car market. You can take your car down the AutoZone, you can buy a scan tool, plug it into your car, and it'll decode some of the error messages. Those tools exist on the auto market because we have a standard diagnostic interface on cars that you can access without circumventing a TPM. We don't have that for any other products. So another farmer in my town, he showed me how if he has a transmission go out on a truck, he can fix that. But if he has a transmission go out on his John Deere tractor, he can't. He can physically install the transmission, but he can't program it to make it work. I'd love to be able to make a software tool to enable him to replace his transmission. Aaron Perzanowski: So I think if we see passage of the SMART Act, we can anticipate significant reductions in the expenses associated with auto collision repairs. Estimates are that design patents on collision parts are responsible for about $1.5 billion in additional expenditures. We see price premiums on OEM parts over third party parts often reaching into like the 40% range, right? So these are pretty significant cost savings associated with that. Part of this problem, I think, does relate back to the kind of unique structure of this market. Most consumers are not paying out of pocket for collision repairs. Those costs are being covered by their auto insurance provider, and so the consumer doesn't see that the - I'm pulling this from memory, so don't hold me to this figure - but the side view mirror of a Ford Fiesta costing $1,500, that's not something that the consumer is confronted with, right? So this goes back to the question of notice. Do consumers know when they buy that vehicle that the repairs are going to be that expensive? I think in most cases, they don't. And so I think the SMART Act is a very targeted solution to this problem. I do think it's important to note that the design patent issue for replacement parts is not limited to the automotive industry. I think it's the most, I think that's the area where the problem is most pressing. But home appliances, consumer electronics, we see companies getting design patents on replacement water filters for refrigerators so that they can charge three times as much when the little light comes on on your fridge to tell you that your water might not be as clean as you want it to be. So I think we have to think about that problem across a range of industries, but the automotive industry, I think, is absolutely the right place to start. Paul Roberts: I mean, one point I would just make is that with the Internet of Things, right, we are facing a crisis in the very near future as manufacturers of everything from home appliances to personal electronics to equipment, as those products age and those manufacturers walk away from their responsibility to maintain them. So we're no longer supporting the software. We're no longer issuing security updates. Who will step in to maintain those devices? Keep them secure, keep them operating right? The manufacturers walked away. Do we just get rid of them? No, because the equipment still works perfectly. We're going to need a market-based response to that. We're going to need small businesses to step up and say, hey, I'll keep that Samsung dishwasher working for another 20 years. That's a huge economic opportunity for this country, but we cannot do it in the existing system because of the types of restrictions that we're talking about. And so this is really about enabling a secure future in which, when you buy a dishwasher with a 20 year lifespan, or 25 year lifespan, it's going to last that 25 years, not the five to six years that the manufacturer has decided, you know, that's how long we want to support the software for. Paul Roberts: My understanding is the use of design patents has increased dramatically, even exponentially, in the last 10 to 15 years. If you go back to the 90s or 80s, you know, parts makers, automakers were not applying these types of patents to replaceable parts like bumpers and rear view mirrors. Somebody had a business decision that, if you can do so, then we can capture more of that aftermarket by outlawing identical aftermarket replacements that has a huge downstream impact on car owners and on insurers and on all of us. 2:10:15 Paul Roberts: Both of the things that we're really proposing or talking about here, which would be changes to Section 1201 of the DMCA as well as passage of robust right to repair laws, would empower a market-based response to keeping the internet of things working, secure and functioning. DMCA 1201 reforms by making it clear that you can circumvent software locks for the purpose of repair and maintenance and upkeep, right? So that would take the threat of the federal crime away from small business owners as well as security researchers who are interested in, you know, plumbing that software for purposes of maintenance, upkeep and repair. And on the right to repair by making the tools available to maintain and upkeep products - diagnostic software, schematic diagrams, service manuals - available. Once again, you'll be empowering small business owners to set up repair shops and say, I'm going to keep your smart appliance running for its full 25 or 30 year lifespan, and I'm going to support my family doing that locally, and not be basically choked out of business by a company that says, Well, you don't have the right to access this product. From a cybersecurity perspective, that is really important, because one thing we don't want is a population of millions or tens of millions of out of date, unsupported, unpatched, insecure internet connected home appliances, webcams, home routers out there available to nation state actors, cyber criminal groups, to compromise and use for their own purposes. And that's something we already see, particularly around broadband routers and other types of devices, and it's a real threat going forward that I think this type of these types of changes would support. Aaron Perzanowski In a lot of instances, this conversation, and we've touched on this earlier, focuses on cost savings, right? And cost savings are an important consideration, right? Farmers aren't thrilled that they have to pay a technician from the John Deere dealer to drive maybe hours to get to their farm and connect their laptop and, you know, download these payload files to enable their equipment to work. But in the agricultural space, the thing I hear most often in the conversations I have with farmers is and Kyle touched on this a bit earlier, is a real concern about the time sensitivity of their work. If your tractor is out of commission for a week or two in the wrong part of the season, that is going to have disastrous effects, right, not only on that farm's economic outlook, but collectively, it can have an impact like, not to be hyperbolic here, but on our national food supply, and so I think it's really important that farmers have flexibility in terms of where and how they execute repairs, so that they can get their equipment back up and running. If my laptop breaks and I can't get it fixed for a week or two, I'm annoyed there will be emails that go unanswered, but like the world will continue to spin. That is not the case in the agricultural space where we, I think, have to be much more concerned. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA): If I remove from my BMW, at least during certain models, I remove the radio, unplug it, and then plug it back in, simply because I was fiddling around with the dash, I now have to go back to the dealer to reinstall it. Similarly, the transmission example. I've got two John Deere tractors. One's got a busted engine, the other's got a busted transmission. Currently, they will prohibit you from moving the transmission from one to the other. From a standpoint of intellectual property, where, in God's green earth or the Constitution, are any of those designed to be rights that belong to the manufacturer, rather than rights that belong to the owners of those two John Deere tractors? Devlin Hartline: So those are a bunch of different situations, and so I think there would be underlying facts that differ with each right. So we started on the iPhone, and I was going to point out that iPhone will actually give you the tool to synchronize it. In those other situations, I don't know the business justification for it. How is that an IP problem? Right? So if that's locked up with the TPM, and you have to bypass the TPM, well then that's a violation of 1201, so that's how they can that's how they can lock -- Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA): So what you're saying is that Congress has created impediments to the right to repair. Mr. Roberts, would you say that is correct? That, in fact, the right to repair, were Congress never to have done anything since, you know, George and Thomas were our presidents, so to speak, knowing those two presidents, we'd be able to do things we're not able to do because they're now prohibited by acts of Congress. Paul Roberts: Yes, and we certainly know going back to the 50s, 60s, 70s, there was a much more you know....First of all, companies would ship products with service and repair manuals with detailed schematic diagrams with the understanding that owners would want to replace and service them. And what I would say is, yes, absolutely. I doubt very much. And I know we had members who were here in 1998 authoring the DMCA. I think if you had said to them, in 25 years time, this law will be used to prevent somebody with a broken dishwasher from getting that serviced by their local repair shop or by for fixing it themselves, this law will prevent them from doing that, I doubt very much they would have said, yeah, that's pretty much what we want. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA): Well, I will tell you that the I was the chairman of what is now the Consumer Electronics Association in 1998 and we did predict a lot of these items were going to be expanded beyond the scope of the original. Paul Roberts: Right now this is not an urgent issue, because most of the cars out there are older vehicles. As we move forward, as telematic systems evolve, as automakers continue their trend of moving more and more information to telematic systems, this is going to become a bigger problem. I'll point out another problem, which is the Massachusetts law is contingent on data transfers of diagnostic and repair information via the OBD or onboard diagnostic two port under the dashboard. That's only there because of federal Clean Air law. Electronic vehicles don't have that port because they don't have emissions, and so in the very near future, as we shift to electronic vehicles, that data access port will no longer be there. It will all be telematics data, and so the utility of the Massachusetts law is going to decline over time, going forward. And again, I you know, when you start talking about right to repair, you become like this crazy person who talks about right to repair every time it comes up. But one thing I try and stress to people when I talk to them about auto repair is, if you live in Michigan or California and you have taken your vehicle to the local independent repair shop, you have only done that because the voters in Massachusetts passed a ballot measure over a decade ago and then updated it in November 2020. That is the very thin thread that our right to use independent auto repair hangs by in this country. That's not the way it's supposed to be. This is something that affects vehicle owners, hundreds of millions of them in all 50 states. And it's a type of thing that the federal government needs to address with federal legislation. It should not hang by this very thin thread. 2:30:20 Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA): Are software updates new creations, and thus copyrightable? Devlin Hartline: Software updates, yeah, they're computer programs, and so Congress said explicitly in 1980, but it was understood before then, that computer programs are literary works and they're protected, just like any other copyrighted work. Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA): Thank you, Professor Perzanowski, do you disagree? Aaron Perzanowski: I don't disagree at all that software updates are protectable subject matter under the Copyright Act. But what I think is important to keep in mind right is the Copyright Act and copyrights exclusive rights, and all of the exceptions and limitations to copyrights exclusive rights are created by Congress, and so if you think those rights are interfering with other important issues and concerns, then I think Congress clearly has the power to make changes to the copyright law in order to best serve what you ultimately determine to be in the public interest. 2:35:30 Aaron Perzanowski: Access to firmware and other code is really essential to the functioning and repair of lots of devices. I think there's some important differences between the standard essential patent context and kind of what we're talking about here in that in the standard essential patent context, we're relying on standard setting bodies to identify technologies and to require companies to license their patents under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. We don't quite have that infrastructure in place in the copyright context, but what we do have are compulsory licenses that exist within the Copyright Act already, one of which you were alluding to earlier, the mechanical license for musical works. We also have compulsory licenses for retransmissions of satellite and broadcast content that essentially say the copyright owner is entitled to compensation of some form, but they're not entitled to prevent people from using or accessing that underlying work, and I think that could be a useful framework here for getting owners of devices access to the firmware that they need. Music by Editing Production Assistance

It's time to reform the Supreme Court. The founders would not recognize the modern incarnation of what Alexander Hamilton called “the least dangerous” branch. The Court wields far more power on far more issues than it did in the 18th century. And it does so in the absence of adequate checks and balances. The individual justices hold this power longer than they ever have. For the first 180 years of U.S. history, justices served an average of approximately 15 years. In recent years, justices have served an average of 26 years. Momentum for reform is growing. Numerous polls have shown overwhelming bipartisan support for term limits and an enforceable code of ethics. The president and vice president have both announced their support for real change. Listen to this discussion from August 13th with Supreme Court experts to talk about what exactly these proposals entail and what they would mean for American democracy.  Speakers: Cristina Rodríguez, Leighton Homer Surbeck Professor of Law, Yale Law School; Co-Chair, Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States Diane Wood, Circuit Judge (ret.), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; Director, American Law Institute; Senior Lecturer, University of Chicago Law School Alicia Bannon, Director, Judiciary Program, Brennan Center for Justice; Editor in Chief, State Court Report Moderator: Michael Waldman, President, Brennan Center; Member, Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States Produced with support from the Kohlberg Center on the U.S. Supreme Court Please give us a boost by liking, subscribing, and sharing with your friends. If you're listening on Apple Podcasts, please give it a 5-star rating. You can keep up with the Brennan Center's work by subscribing to our weekly newsletter, The Briefing: https://go.brennancenter.org/briefing

When:Thursday, September 26, 2024, 8:00 AM until 4:30 PM Where:The Chicago Bar Association The Chicago Bar Association 321 S. Plymouth Court Chicago, IL 60604 Register Now: https://nela-il.clubexpress.com/content.aspx?page_id=4002&club_id=853437&item_id=2353547

In this episode, Jordan discusses a Seventh Circuit decision in a case of first impression over whether the DTSA applies outside the United States.

Second Amendment: Are gun manufacturers entitled to remove state tort actions for wrongful death because they are regulated by the federal government? - Argued: Thu, 04 Apr 2024 11:31:3 EDT

Host Paul Musser welcomes as his guest Judge Timothy A. Barnes, who presides over matters in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago. Judge Barnes brings a unique perspective to the bench, having worked in private practice at major law firms in different segments of the insolvency industry, including on behalf of debtors, then lenders, and in complex litigation and international cases. As part of their conversation, Paul and Judge Barnes discussed the personalities that drew Judge Barnes to the law, the bankruptcy practice and the bench. And they talked about current trends that he is seeing in his courtroom, his passion for Chapter 15 cases and international insolvency law, and why the Seventh Circuit's K-Mart decision should not stop commercial debtors from filing their Chapter 11 cases in Chicago.

David Frank Spanbauer could be the poster child for recidivism. A man who never felt bad for what he did, just looked forward, towards a day when he would be able to do whatever he wanted. He already knew he'd be out again, it was just a matter of… time. SOURCES: David Spanbauer, Serial Child Killer and Rapist by James Card, from crimelibrary.org. David Frank Spanbauer v. John C. Burke, Warden, Wisconsin State Prison, 374 F.2d 67 (7th Cir. 1966) Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Filed: December 28th, 1966‘Pure evil' serial killer Spanbauer dead at 61, By Dan Wilson and Ed Culhane - Appleton Post-Crescent July 30, 2002Access ad-free episodes, bonus content, and get all of the 11:59 Media Podcast library!Access hours of extra content each week, exclusive merch, and early access to new podcasts.Visit https://1159plus.com

      Slam the Gavel welcomes back Brian Vukadinovich to the podcast. Brian is the author of Motion for Justice: I Rest My Case and Rogues in Black Robes. Brian was last on the podcast Season 4, Episodes 69, 99 and 119 and Season 5, Episodes 13, 37 and 44.      On our show today and he will discuss his pending federal court lawsuit against a very famous judge, Richard A. Posner, formerly of the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago where he was on the bench for almost 36 years before he retired in 2017 over disagreements with the other judges about how PRO SE'S were being TREATED in the Seventh Circuit.  He read about how Brian represented himself in a five day federal civil rights jury trial in 2016 and how Brian beat a team of corporation lawyers at the five day jury trial where he was awarded more than $200,000 by the jury for the school corporation's violation of his due process rights. When they terminated his employment as a teacher, and in 2018 Posner asked Brian to come work for him in his newly created company "Posner Center for Pro Se's" to help unrepresented litigants and agreed to pay Brian $120,000 a year to serve as the executive director of the Posner Center and to also provide advisory services to Posner in Posner's personal capacity.  But Posner REFUSED TO PAY  him for his work and Brian had to take him to court for BREACH OF CONTRACT.       Brian is representing himself and is battling lawyers from 3 DIFFERENT STATES (New York, Chicago and Indiana) in the case.  Recently, there was a hearing in the federal court and Brian tried to get the judge to take JUDICIAL NOTICE of a PERJURED AFFIDAVIT that the New York lawyer, Justin M. Ellis, signed under penalty of perjury.  The judge, after rethinking things over DECIDED TO ADMIT THE DOCUMENT into the record, and that's when it hit the fan: when the New York Lawyer started to WHINE and BACKPEDAL, trying to cover the perjury.       HOWEVER, magistrate judge, Joshua Kolar, has been accepted to be a federal court of appeals judge at the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago, the SAME COURT that Posner was at.  Brian gave us updates on his case and now that the case is back in Judge Theresa L. Springmann's hands.  Brian is hoping she will do the right thing and allow not only Discovery, but a FAIR TRIAL.    To Reach Brian Vukadinovich: motionforjustice@yahoo.com,  www.brianvukadinovich.com and Twitter: @motion4justiceThis episode of Slam the Gavel is sponsored by CPSprotect Consulting Services. CPS  cases are among the most finding experiences. Any parent can endure, do not face it alone. With urgent assist by CPS protect, you get the peace of mind to raise your children as you see fit and the personalized assistance of their team of expert child, welfare, consultants, CPS investigators themselves. Get started absolutely free at CPSprotect.com/register Support the showSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/Support the showSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/

    Slam the Gavel welcomes back Brian Vukadinovich to the podcast. Brian is the author of Motion for Justice: I Rest My Case and Rogues in Black Robes. Brian was last on the podcast Season 4, Episodes 69, 99 and 119 and Season 5, Episodes 13, 37 and 44.      On our show today and he will discuss his pending federal court lawsuit against a very famous judge, Richard A. Posner, formerly of the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago where he was on the bench for almost 36 years before he retired in 2017 over disagreements with the other judges about how PRO SE'S were being TREATED in the Seventh Circuit.  He read about how Brian represented himself in a five day federal civil rights jury trial in 2016 and how Brian beat a team of corporation lawyers at the five day jury trial where he was awarded more than $200,000 by the jury for the school corporation's violation of his due process rights. When they terminated his employment as a teacher, and in 2018 Posner asked Brian to come work for him in his newly created company "Posner Center for Pro Se's" to help unrepresented litigants and agreed to pay Brian $120,000 a year to serve as the executive director of the Posner Center and to also provide advisory services to Posner in Posner's personal capacity.  But Posner REFUSED TO PAY  him for his work and Brian had to take him to court for BREACH OF CONTRACT.       Brian is representing himself and is battling lawyers from 3 DIFFERENT STATES (New York, Chicago and Indiana) in the case.  Recently, there was a hearing in the federal court and Brian tried to get the judge to take JUDICIAL NOTICE of a PERJURED AFFIDAVIT that the New York lawyer, Justin M. Ellis, signed under penalty of perjury.  The judge, after rethinking things over DECIDED TO ADMIT THE DOCUMENT into the record, and that's when it hit the fan: when the New York Lawyer started to WHINE and BACKPEDAL, trying to cover the perjury.       HOWEVER, magistrate judge, Joshua Kolar, has been accepted to be a federal court of appeals judge at the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago, the SAME COURT that Posner was at.  Brian gave us updates on his case and now that the case is back in Judge Theresa L. Springmann's hands.  Brian is hoping she will do the right thing and allow not only Discovery, but a FAIR TRIAL.    To Reach Brian Vukadinovich: motionforjustice@yahoo.com,  www.brianvukadinovich.com and Twitter: @motion4justiceThis episode of Slam the Gavel is sponsored by CPSprotect Consulting Services. CPS  cases are among the most finding experiences. Any parent can endure, do not face it alone. With urgent assist by CPS protect, you get the peace of mind to raise your children as you see fit and the personalized assistance of their team of expert child, welfare, consultants, CPS investigators themselves. Get started absolutely free at CPSprotect.com/register Support the show Supportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/ --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/maryann-petri/support

Show notes are available at QueenofPeaches.com. This week I am absolutely thrilled to share my conversation with the writer Michael O'Donnell. Michael is the author of the novel Above the Fire. Published by Blackstone Publishing in December 2023, Above the Fire crystallizes the relationship between a father and son as they survive a winter of isolation. The book has received starred reviews from Booklist and Shelf Awareness, and the audiobook edition recently won the AudioFile Earphones Award. Michael's nonfiction writing has appeared in The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, and other publications. He has been a member of the National Book Critics Circle since 2005. An attorney by profession, he clerked for Judge Ann Claire Williams of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and now practices law in Chicago. He earned his bachelor's degree with distinction from Indiana University in 2001 and his law degree magna cum laude from Boston College in 2004.

A recent Seventh Circuit decision is a game changer, both providing a new analysis of whether and under what circumstances an employer must accommodate an employee's commuting restrictions, and harmonizing what has been held as a conflict among other circuit courts that have decided this issue. Jackson Lewis Disability, Leave and Health Management practice co-chairs Joe Lynett and Katharine Weber explain where the rubber hits the road.

Josh discusses the looming possibility of World War III on President Biden's shameful watch, the media's nonstop distortions of the Israel-Hamas war, and the Supreme Court's awful decision not to take up a recent Seventh Circuit case that held the Second Amendment does not protect so-called "assault weapons."See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

    Slam the Gavel welcomes back Brian Vukadinovich to the podcast. he is the author of Motion for Justice: I Rest My Case and Rogues in Black Robes. Brian was last on the podcast Season 4, Episodes 69, 99 and 119 and Season 5, Episodes 13 and 37.      On our show today and he will discuss his pending federal court lawsuit against a very famous judge, Richard A. Posner, formerly of the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago where he was on the bench for almost 36 years before he retired in 2017 over disagreements with the other judges about how PRO SE'S were being TREATED in the Seventh Circuit.  He read about how Brian represented himself in a five day federal civil rights jury trial in 2016 and how Brian beat a team of corporation lawyers at the five day jury trial where he was awarded more than $200,000 by the jury for the school corporation's violation of his due process rights. When they terminated his employment as a teacher, and in 2018 Posner asked Brian to come work for him in his newly created company "Posner Center for Pro Se's" to help unrepresented litigants and agreed to pay Brian $120,000 a year to serve as the executive director of the Posner Center and to also provide advisory services to Posner in Posner's personal capacity.  But Posner REFUSED TO PAY  him for his work and Brian had to take him to court for BREACH OF CONTRACT.       Brian is representing himself and is battling lawyers from 3 DIFFERENT STATES (New York, Chicago and Indiana) in the case.  Recently, there was a hearing in the federal court and Brian tried to get the judge to take JUDICIAL NOTICE of a PERJURED AFFIDAVIT that the New York lawyer, Justin M. Ellis, signed under penalty of perjury.  When Brian tried to submit into evidence a CRUCIAL DOCUMENT that proved that the lawyer committed perjury on his affidavit, the magistrate judge, Joshua Kolar, initially didn't want to allow the document into evidence and abruptly adjourned the hearing.  EVERYONE was almost on their way out of the courthouse and to the door. Out of nowhere, a U.S. MARSHALL approached him and told him that the judge wanted everybody back in the courtroom.  The judge, after rethinking things over DECIDED TO ADMIT THE DOCUMENT into the record, and that's when it hit the fan: when the New York Lawyer started to WHINE and BACKPEDAL, trying to cover the perjury.       HOWEVER, magistrate judge, Joshua Kolar, has been NOMINATED to be a federal court of appeals judge at the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago, the SAME COURT that Posner was at.  Brian gave us some thoughts about what he thinks about the nomination of Kolar for the U.S. Court of Appeals and gave information about the process involved with federal judge nominations and what takes place before they can be seated on the federal judiciary. What the PUBLIC NEEDS TO BE AWARE of when judges are nominated for judicial positions is VERY IMPORTANT at TAXPAYER EXPENSE.     To Reach Brian Vukadinovich: motionforjustice@yahoo.com,  www.brianvukadinovich.com and Twitter: @motion4justice   This episode of Slam the Gavel is sponsored by CPSprotect Consulting Services. A Child Protective Services case is one of the most frightening experiences for any parent. Don't face it alone. Face it with confidence! With UrgentAssist by CPSprotect, you can have access to former CPS investigators to make sure you preserve your rights and protect your family. If you're facing CPS involvement and aren't sure where to turn, their child welfare consultants can help you.  Visit cpsprotect.com/subscribe and enter the coupon codeSupport the showSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/

    Slam the Gavel welcomes back Brian Vukadinovich to the podcast. he is the author of Motion for Justice: I Rest My Case and Rogues in Black Robes. Brian was last on the podcast Season 4, Episodes 69, 99 and 119 and Season 5, Episodes 13 and 37.      On our show today and he will discuss his pending federal court lawsuit against a very famous judge, Richard A. Posner, formerly of the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago where he was on the bench for almost 36 years before he retired in 2017 over disagreements with the other judges about how PRO SE'S were being TREATED in the Seventh Circuit.  He read about how Brian represented himself in a five day federal civil rights jury trial in 2016 and how Brian beat a team of corporation lawyers at the five day jury trial where he was awarded more than $200,000 by the jury for the school corporation's violation of his due process rights. When they terminated his employment as a teacher, and in 2018 Posner asked Brian to come work for him in his newly created company "Posner Center for Pro Se's" to help unrepresented litigants and agreed to pay Brian $120,000 a year to serve as the executive director of the Posner Center and to also provide advisory services to Posner in Posner's personal capacity.  But Posner REFUSED TO PAY  him for his work and Brian had to take him to court for BREACH OF CONTRACT.       Brian is representing himself and is battling lawyers from 3 DIFFERENT STATES (New York, Chicago and Indiana) in the case.  Recently, there was a hearing in the federal court and Brian tried to get the judge to take JUDICIAL NOTICE of a PERJURED AFFIDAVIT that the New York lawyer, Justin M. Ellis, signed under penalty of perjury.  When Brian tried to submit into evidence a CRUCIAL DOCUMENT that proved that the lawyer committed perjury on his affidavit, the magistrate judge, Joshua Kolar, initially didn't want to allow the document into evidence and abruptly adjourned the hearing.  EVERYONE was almost on their way out of the courthouse and to the door. Out of nowhere, a U.S. MARSHALL approached him and told him that the judge wanted everybody back in the courtroom.  The judge, after rethinking things over DECIDED TO ADMIT THE DOCUMENT into the record, and that's when it hit the fan: when the New York Lawyer started to WHINE and BACKPEDAL, trying to cover the perjury.       HOWEVER, magistrate judge, Joshua Kolar, has been NOMINATED to be a federal court of appeals judge at the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago, the SAME COURT that Posner was at.  Brian gave us some thoughts about what he thinks about the nomination of Kolar for the U.S. Court of Appeals and gave information about the process involved with federal judge nominations and what takes place before they can be seated on the federal judiciary. What the PUBLIC NEEDS TO BE AWARE of when judges are nominated for judicial positions is VERY IMPORTANT at TAXPAYER EXPENSE.     To Reach Brian Vukadinovich: motionforjustice@yahoo.com,  www.brianvukadinovich.com and Twitter: @motion4justice   This episode of Slam the Gavel is sponsored by CPSprotect Consulting Services. A Child Protective Services case is one of the most frightening experiences for any parent. Don't face it alone. Face it with confidence! With UrgentAssist by CPSprotect, you can have access to former CPS investigators to make sure you preserve your rights and protect your family. If you're facing CPS involvement and aren't sure where to turn, their child welfare consultants can help you.  Visit cpsprotect.com/subscribe and enter the coupon code Supportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/ Support the show --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/maryann-petri/support

Are you an athlete, parent, coach or athlete advocate seeking to monetize, protect, and leverage your Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL)? Did you miss the 2nd Annual NILCOMBINE? If so, get access right now at bit.ly/ALL-ACCESSPASS. Want to discover how to navigate brand deals? Join the NIL Contract Breakdown at https://bit.ly/NILBREAKDOWN Sivonnia DeBarros - Protector of Athletes™ - is a first-generation lawyer and law business owner, woman in business and a former track and field Division-I College athlete. DeBarros graduated from Chicago-Kent College of Law with her J.D. in 2013, received a M.S. in Criminal Justice from Everest University in 2010, and her B.S. in Political Science from University of South Florida in 2008. DeBarros has represented pro athletes from the NFL, MLS, NBA-G League, and Pro-Table Tennis sports; 7- figure National Brands and NY Times Best-Selling Authors by helping them to properly set up businesses, put proper agreements in place and create legacies that will pay dividends in the future. DeBarros has been featured on CBS, ABC, WGN, Shoutout LA, and a host of podcasts such as A Frugal Athlete, Influential Entrepreneurs, Tackle What's Next, and Maximum Lawyer to name a few. DeBarros is passionate about helping athletes, women, and first-generation business owners because she understands the peculiar struggle many have faced by not having the necessary support and guidance to be successful. Additionally, DeBarros is a public speaker, entrepreneur, and bestselling published author of ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠What Are You Sporting About?⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. DeBarros is also the creator of the proprietary program “Have Your S.A.E.™” which was designed with collegiate athletes in mind and the author of the book, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Athletes Making Moves⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠©, released July 31, 2021. DeBarros previously authored ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act: the Roadblocks to Recovery⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ law article, published in Chicago-Kent College Of Law's Seventh Circuit's Review Law Journal, and published the new Children's Books, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠JoJo Learns About Credibility⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠JoJo Learns About Voting⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, which are the first two books of her new Children Series, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠JoJo's Legal Adventures⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. To learn more about Attorney DeBarros, her firm or her publications, please visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.sldebarros.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or buy her book on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Amazon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Learn more about her legal services at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.sldebarros.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Listen to her podcast, get updates on sports legal issues and more at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.prosportlawyer.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and order Athletes Making Moves© at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.athletesmakingmoves.com⁠⁠. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/waysa/support

Are you an athlete, parent, coach or athlete advocate seeking to monetize, protect, and leverage your Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL)? Did you miss the 2nd Annual NILCOMBINE? If so, get access right now at bit.ly/ALL-ACCESSPASS. Want to discover how to navigate brand deals? Join the NIL Contract Breakdown at https://bit.ly/NILBREAKDOWN Sivonnia DeBarros - Protector of Athletes™ - is a first-generation lawyer and law business owner, woman in business and a former track and field Division-I College athlete. DeBarros graduated from Chicago-Kent College of Law with her J.D. in 2013, received a M.S. in Criminal Justice from Everest University in 2010, and her B.S. in Political Science from University of South Florida in 2008. DeBarros has represented pro athletes from the NFL, MLS, NBA-G League, and Pro-Table Tennis sports; 7- figure National Brands and NY Times Best-Selling Authors by helping them to properly set up businesses, put proper agreements in place and create legacies that will pay dividends in the future. DeBarros has been featured on CBS, ABC, WGN, Shoutout LA, and a host of podcasts such as A Frugal Athlete, Influential Entrepreneurs, Tackle What's Next, and Maximum Lawyer to name a few. DeBarros is passionate about helping athletes, women, and first-generation business owners because she understands the peculiar struggle many have faced by not having the necessary support and guidance to be successful. Additionally, DeBarros is a public speaker, entrepreneur, and bestselling published author of ⁠⁠⁠⁠What Are You Sporting About?⁠⁠⁠⁠. DeBarros is also the creator of the proprietary program “Have Your S.A.E.™” which was designed with collegiate athletes in mind and the author of the book, ⁠⁠⁠⁠Athletes Making Moves⁠⁠⁠⁠©, released July 31, 2021. DeBarros previously authored ⁠⁠⁠⁠The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act: the Roadblocks to Recovery⁠⁠⁠⁠ law article, published in Chicago-Kent College Of Law's Seventh Circuit's Review Law Journal, and published the new Children's Books, ⁠⁠⁠⁠JoJo Learns About Credibility⁠⁠⁠⁠ and ⁠⁠⁠⁠JoJo Learns About Voting⁠⁠⁠⁠, which are the first two books of her new Children Series, ⁠⁠⁠⁠JoJo's Legal Adventures⁠⁠⁠⁠. To learn more about Attorney DeBarros, her firm or her publications, please visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠www.sldebarros.com⁠⁠⁠⁠ or buy her book on ⁠⁠⁠⁠Amazon⁠⁠⁠⁠. Learn more about her legal services at ⁠⁠⁠⁠www.sldebarros.com⁠⁠⁠⁠. Listen to her podcast, get updates on sports legal issues and more at ⁠⁠⁠⁠www.prosportlawyer.com⁠⁠⁠⁠ and order Athletes Making Moves© at ⁠⁠⁠⁠www.athletesmakingmoves.com⁠. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/waysa/support

Are you an athlete, parent, coach or athlete advocate seeking to monetize, protect, and leverage your Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL)? Did you miss the 2nd Annual NILCOMBINE? If so, get access right now at bit.ly/ALL-ACCESSPASS. Want to discover how to navigate brand deals? Join the NIL Contract Breakdown at https://bit.ly/NILBREAKDOWN Sivonnia DeBarros - Protector of Athletes™ - is a first-generation lawyer and law business owner, woman in business and a former track and field Division-I College athlete. DeBarros graduated from Chicago-Kent College of Law with her J.D. in 2013, received a M.S. in Criminal Justice from Everest University in 2010, and her B.S. in Political Science from University of South Florida in 2008. DeBarros has represented pro athletes from the NFL, MLS, NBA-G League, and Pro-Table Tennis sports; 7- figure National Brands and NY Times Best-Selling Authors by helping them to properly set up businesses, put proper agreements in place and create legacies that will pay dividends in the future. DeBarros has been featured on CBS, ABC, WGN, Shoutout LA, and a host of podcasts such as A Frugal Athlete, Influential Entrepreneurs, Tackle What's Next, and Maximum Lawyer to name a few. DeBarros is passionate about helping athletes, women, and first-generation business owners because she understands the peculiar struggle many have faced by not having the necessary support and guidance to be successful. Additionally, DeBarros is a public speaker, entrepreneur, and bestselling published author of ⁠⁠⁠What Are You Sporting About?⁠⁠⁠. DeBarros is also the creator of the proprietary program “Have Your S.A.E.™” which was designed with collegiate athletes in mind and the author of the book, ⁠⁠⁠Athletes Making Moves⁠⁠⁠©, released July 31, 2021. DeBarros previously authored ⁠⁠⁠The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act: the Roadblocks to Recovery⁠⁠⁠ law article, published in Chicago-Kent College Of Law's Seventh Circuit's Review Law Journal, and published the new Children's Books, ⁠⁠⁠JoJo Learns About Credibility⁠⁠⁠ and ⁠⁠⁠JoJo Learns About Voting⁠⁠⁠, which are the first two books of her new Children Series, ⁠⁠⁠JoJo's Legal Adventures⁠⁠⁠. To learn more about Attorney DeBarros, her firm or her publications, please visit ⁠⁠⁠www.sldebarros.com⁠⁠⁠ or buy her book on ⁠⁠⁠Amazon⁠⁠⁠. Learn more about her legal services at ⁠⁠⁠www.sldebarros.com⁠⁠⁠. Listen to her podcast, get updates on sports legal issues and more at ⁠⁠⁠www.prosportlawyer.com⁠⁠⁠ and order Athletes Making Moves© at ⁠⁠⁠www.athletesmakingmoves.com⁠ --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/waysa/support

Are you an athlete, parent, coach or athlete advocate seeking to monetize, protect, and leverage your Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL)? Did you miss the 2nd Annual NILCOMBINE? If so, get access right now at bit.ly/ALL-ACCESSPASS. Want to discover how to navigate brand deals? Join the NIL Contract Breakdown at https://bit.ly/NILBREAKDOWN Sivonnia DeBarros - Protector of Athletes™ - is a first-generation lawyer and law business owner, woman in business and a former track and field Division-I College athlete. DeBarros graduated from Chicago-Kent College of Law with her J.D. in 2013, received a M.S. in Criminal Justice from Everest University in 2010, and her B.S. in Political Science from University of South Florida in 2008. DeBarros has represented pro athletes from the NFL, MLS, NBA-G League, and Pro-Table Tennis sports; 7- figure National Brands and NY Times Best-Selling Authors by helping them to properly set up businesses, put proper agreements in place and create legacies that will pay dividends in the future. DeBarros has been featured on CBS, ABC, WGN, Shoutout LA, and a host of podcasts such as A Frugal Athlete, Influential Entrepreneurs, Tackle What's Next, and Maximum Lawyer to name a few. DeBarros is passionate about helping athletes, women, and first-generation business owners because she understands the peculiar struggle many have faced by not having the necessary support and guidance to be successful. Additionally, DeBarros is a public speaker, entrepreneur, and bestselling published author of ⁠⁠What Are You Sporting About?⁠⁠. DeBarros is also the creator of the proprietary program “Have Your S.A.E.™” which was designed with collegiate athletes in mind and the author of the book, ⁠⁠Athletes Making Moves⁠⁠©, released July 31, 2021. DeBarros previously authored ⁠⁠The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act: the Roadblocks to Recovery⁠⁠ law article, published in Chicago-Kent College Of Law's Seventh Circuit's Review Law Journal, and published the new Children's Books, ⁠⁠JoJo Learns About Credibility⁠⁠ and ⁠⁠JoJo Learns About Voting⁠⁠, which are the first two books of her new Children Series, ⁠⁠JoJo's Legal Adventures⁠⁠. To learn more about Attorney DeBarros, her firm or her publications, please visit ⁠⁠www.sldebarros.com⁠⁠ or buy her book on ⁠⁠Amazon⁠⁠. Learn more about her legal services at ⁠⁠www.sldebarros.com⁠⁠. Listen to her podcast, get updates on sports legal issues and more at ⁠⁠www.prosportlawyer.com⁠⁠ and order Athletes Making Moves© at ⁠⁠www.athletesmakingmoves.com⁠⁠ --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/waysa/support

Are you an athlete, parent, coach or athlete advocate seeking to monetize, protect, and leverage your Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL)? Did you miss the 2nd Annual NILCOMBINE? If so, get access right now at bit.ly/ALL-ACCESSPASS. Want to discover how to navigate brand deals? Join the NIL Contract Breakdown at https://bit.ly/NILBREAKDOWN Sivonnia DeBarros - Protector of Athletes™ - is a first-generation lawyer and law business owner, woman in business and a former track and field Division-I College athlete. DeBarros graduated from Chicago-Kent College of Law with her J.D. in 2013, received a M.S. in Criminal Justice from Everest University in 2010, and her B.S. in Political Science from University of South Florida in 2008. DeBarros has represented pro athletes from the NFL, MLS, NBA-G League, and Pro-Table Tennis sports; 7- figure National Brands and NY Times Best-Selling Authors by helping them to properly set up businesses, put proper agreements in place and create legacies that will pay dividends in the future. DeBarros has been featured on CBS, ABC, WGN, Shoutout LA, and a host of podcasts such as A Frugal Athlete, Influential Entrepreneurs, Tackle What's Next, and Maximum Lawyer to name a few. DeBarros is passionate about helping athletes, women, and first-generation business owners because she understands the peculiar struggle many have faced by not having the necessary support and guidance to be successful. Additionally, DeBarros is a public speaker, entrepreneur, and bestselling published author of ⁠What Are You Sporting About?⁠. DeBarros is also the creator of the proprietary program “Have Your S.A.E.™” which was designed with collegiate athletes in mind and the author of the book, ⁠Athletes Making Moves⁠©, released July 31, 2021. DeBarros previously authored ⁠The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act: the Roadblocks to Recovery⁠ law article, published in Chicago-Kent College Of Law's Seventh Circuit's Review Law Journal, and published the new Children's Books, ⁠JoJo Learns About Credibility⁠ and ⁠JoJo Learns About Voting⁠, which are the first two books of her new Children Series, ⁠JoJo's Legal Adventures⁠. To learn more about Attorney DeBarros, her firm or her publications, please visit ⁠www.sldebarros.com⁠ or buy her book on ⁠Amazon⁠. Learn more about her legal services at ⁠www.sldebarros.com⁠. Listen to her podcast, get updates on sports legal issues and more at ⁠www.prosportlawyer.com⁠ and order Athletes Making Moves© at ⁠www.athletesmakingmoves.com⁠ --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/waysa/support

Are you an athlete, parent, coach or athlete advocate seeking to monetize, protect, and leverage your Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL)? Did you miss the 2nd Annual NILCOMBINE? If so, get access right now at bit.ly/ALL-ACCESSPASS. Sivonnia DeBarros - Protector of Athletes™ - is a first-generation lawyer and law business owner, woman in business and a former track and field Division-I College athlete. DeBarros graduated from Chicago-Kent College of Law with her J.D. in 2013, received a M.S. in Criminal Justice from Everest University in 2010, and her B.S. in Political Science from University of South Florida in 2008. DeBarros has represented pro athletes from the NFL, MLS, NBA-G League, and Pro-Table Tennis sports; 7- figure National Brands and NY Times Best-Selling Authors by helping them to properly set up businesses, put proper agreements in place and create legacies that will pay dividends in the future. DeBarros has been featured on CBS, ABC, WGN, Shoutout LA, and a host of podcasts such as A Frugal Athlete, Influential Entrepreneurs, Tackle What's Next, and Maximum Lawyer to name a few. DeBarros is passionate about helping athletes, women, and first-generation business owners because she understands the peculiar struggle many have faced by not having the necessary support and guidance to be successful. Additionally, DeBarros is a public speaker, entrepreneur, and bestselling published author of ⁠What Are You Sporting About?⁠. DeBarros is also the creator of the proprietary program “Have Your S.A.E.™” which was designed with collegiate athletes in mind and the author of the book, ⁠Athletes Making Moves⁠©, released July 31, 2021. DeBarros previously authored ⁠The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act: the Roadblocks to Recovery⁠ law article, published in Chicago-Kent College Of Law's Seventh Circuit's Review Law Journal, and published the new Children's Books, ⁠JoJo Learns About Credibility⁠ and ⁠JoJo Learns About Voting⁠, which are the first two books of her new Children Series, ⁠JoJo's Legal Adventures⁠. To learn more about Attorney DeBarros, her firm or her publications, please visit ⁠www.sldebarros.com⁠ or buy her book on ⁠Amazon⁠. Learn more about her legal services at ⁠www.sldebarros.com⁠. Listen to her podcast, get updates on sports legal issues and more at ⁠www.prosportlawyer.com⁠ and order Athletes Making Moves© at ⁠www.athletesmakingmoves.com⁠ --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/waysa/support

Are you an athlete, parent, coach or athlete advocate seeking to monetize, protect, and leverage your Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL)? Did you miss the 2nd Annual NILCOMBINE? If so, get access right now at bit.ly/ALL-ACCESSPASS. Sivonnia DeBarros - Protector of Athletes™ - is a first-generation lawyer and law business owner, woman in business and a former track and field Division-I College athlete. DeBarros graduated from Chicago-Kent College of Law with her J.D. in 2013, received a M.S. in Criminal Justice from Everest University in 2010, and her B.S. in Political Science from University of South Florida in 2008. DeBarros has represented pro athletes from the NFL, MLS, NBA-G League, and Pro-Table Tennis sports; 7- figure National Brands and NY Times Best-Selling Authors by helping them to properly set up businesses, put proper agreements in place and create legacies that will pay dividends in the future. DeBarros has been featured on CBS, ABC, WGN, Shoutout LA, and a host of podcasts such as A Frugal Athlete, Influential Entrepreneurs, Tackle What's Next, and Maximum Lawyer to name a few. DeBarros is passionate about helping athletes, women, and first-generation business owners because she understands the peculiar struggle many have faced by not having the necessary support and guidance to be successful. Additionally, DeBarros is a public speaker, entrepreneur, and bestselling published author of ⁠What Are You Sporting About?⁠. DeBarros is also the creator of the proprietary program “Have Your S.A.E.™” which was designed with collegiate athletes in mind and the author of the book, ⁠Athletes Making Moves⁠©, released July 31, 2021. DeBarros previously authored ⁠The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act: the Roadblocks to Recovery⁠ law article, published in Chicago-Kent College Of Law's Seventh Circuit's Review Law Journal, and published the new Children's Books, ⁠JoJo Learns About Credibility⁠ and ⁠JoJo Learns About Voting⁠, which are the first two books of her new Children Series, ⁠JoJo's Legal Adventures⁠. To learn more about Attorney DeBarros, her firm or her publications, please visit ⁠www.sldebarros.com⁠ or buy her book on ⁠Amazon⁠. Learn more about her legal services at ⁠www.sldebarros.com⁠. Listen to her podcast, get updates on sports legal issues and more at ⁠www.prosportlawyer.com⁠ and order Athletes Making Moves© at ⁠www.athletesmakingmoves.com⁠. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/waysa/support

Are you an athlete, parent, coach or athlete advocate seeking to monetize, protect, and leverage your Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL)? Did you miss the 2nd Annual NILCOMBINE? If so, get access right now at bit.ly/ALL-ACCESSPASS. Sivonnia DeBarros - Protector of Athletes™ - is a first-generation lawyer and law business owner, woman in business and a former track and field Division-I College athlete. DeBarros graduated from Chicago-Kent College of Law with her J.D. in 2013, received a M.S. in Criminal Justice from Everest University in 2010, and her B.S. in Political Science from University of South Florida in 2008. DeBarros has represented pro athletes from the NFL, MLS, NBA-G League, and Pro-Table Tennis sports; 7- figure National Brands and NY Times Best-Selling Authors by helping them to properly set up businesses, put proper agreements in place and create legacies that will pay dividends in the future. DeBarros has been featured on CBS, ABC, WGN, Shoutout LA, and a host of podcasts such as A Frugal Athlete, Influential Entrepreneurs, Tackle What's Next, and Maximum Lawyer to name a few. DeBarros is passionate about helping athletes, women, and first-generation business owners because she understands the peculiar struggle many have faced by not having the necessary support and guidance to be successful. Additionally, DeBarros is a public speaker, entrepreneur, and bestselling published author of ⁠What Are You Sporting About?⁠. DeBarros is also the creator of the proprietary program “Have Your S.A.E.™” which was designed with collegiate athletes in mind and the author of the book, ⁠Athletes Making Moves⁠©, released July 31, 2021. DeBarros previously authored ⁠The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act: the Roadblocks to Recovery⁠ law article, published in Chicago-Kent College Of Law's Seventh Circuit's Review Law Journal, and published the new Children's Books, ⁠JoJo Learns About Credibility⁠ and ⁠JoJo Learns About Voting⁠, which are the first two books of her new Children Series, ⁠JoJo's Legal Adventures⁠. To learn more about Attorney DeBarros, her firm or her publications, please visit ⁠www.sldebarros.com⁠ or buy her book on ⁠Amazon⁠. Learn more about her legal services at ⁠www.sldebarros.com⁠. Listen to her podcast, get updates on sports legal issues and more at ⁠www.prosportlawyer.com⁠ and order Athletes Making Moves© at ⁠www.athletesmakingmoves.com⁠. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/waysa/support

Ralph welcomes Toby Heaps, co-founder and editor-in-chief of the Canadian magazine “Corporate Knights,” which ranks the world's 100 most sustainable corporations. And we welcome back Dr. Bandy Lee, psychiatrist and editor of “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump” to discuss Donald Trump's continuing hold on 30% of the American population.Toby Heaps is the CEO and co-founder of Corporate Knights, and Editor-in-Chief of Corporate Knights magazine. He spearheaded the first global ranking of the world's 100 most sustainable corporations in 2005, and in 2007 coined the term “clean capitalism.” Toby has been published in the Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, and the Globe and Mail, and is a regular guest speaker on CBC.You see these stories happening all over the world, whether it's from the oil companies or the electric power companies, fossil power companies, or food companies, or real estate companies. And the ones who are going all in, investing big in the green economy and the more sustainable economy are, more often than not, the ones who are hitting the biggest numbers financially.Toby Heaps, Corporate KnightsWe don't want to just be doing a beauty contest or be subject to the latest headline. We're trying to do something that's reasonably rooted in evidence, and it can be defensible, and it can be considered fair. And we recognize that none of the big companies that we rank are perfect— they all have major issues, which is kind of the nature of the human condition.Toby Heaps, Corporate KnightsDr. Bandy Lee is a medical doctor, a forensic psychiatrist, and a world expert on violence who taught at Yale School of Medicine and Yale Law School for 17 years before transferring recently to Columbia and Harvard. She is currently president of the World Mental Health Coalition, an educational organization that assembles mental health experts to collaborate with other disciplines for the betterment of public mental health and public safety. She is the editor of The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 37 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President and Profile of a Nation: Trump's Mind, America's Soul.Essentially, [Trump] did not have the capacity to have ideologies or policies. He can't think at that level. What he can do is to manipulate psychologically those who are vulnerably predisposed and those who have formed emotional bonds with him.Dr. Bandy LeeThese are the kinds of effects that we expect from having a person with severe mental symptoms holding an influential position and having lots of public exposure. We do have a propagation of symptoms. I've been calling this the “Trump Contagion” but what it really is is shared psychosis, which is a psychosocial phenomenon that's been researched and described since around the mid-19th century.Dr. Bandy Lee[Trump voters] are still with him. But they would never support a friend or a neighbor who lied all the time, who had power over them, who described things that weren't real about what was going on around them or what he did in the past, or who cheated his workers.Ralph NaderIn Case You Haven't Heard with Francesco DeSantis1. The United Autoworkers Union is on strike against the big three automakers. Just before the strike began, the Lever reported that General Motors claimed the union's demands “would threaten our ability to do what's right for the long-term benefit of the team.” Yet, for all their crying poverty, the Big Three “have reported $21 billion in profits in just the first six months of 2023,” and “have authorized $5 billion in stock buybacks.” The union's strategy is also worth touching on, as it is novel for this industry. Instead of all workers going on strike at once, the union plans on “targeting a trio of strategic factories while keeping 90 percent of its members working under expired contracts,” per Axios. However, this story notes the ways industry plans to strike back, notably by utilizing quasi-lockouts at active plants.2. In a nigh-unprecedented shot across the bow, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has issued a “‘writ of body attachment', directing the United States Marshals Service to take two corporate officials of Haven Salon + Spa in Muskego, Wisconsin into custody [after they] repeatedly failed and refused to comply with an enforced [National Labor Relations] Board order.” This followed years of opportunities for the corporate officials to settle this dispute and represents the strongest signal so far that the re-energized NLRB will use every weapon in its legal arsenal to protect workers. The Board's full statement is available at NLRB.gov.3. The Washington Post reports that since retaking power in Afghanistan, the Taliban has “all but extinguished al-Qaeda.” Yet buried within this story is a much more intriguing tidbit. According to this piece, “The CIA shares counterterrorism information with the Taliban,” per a senior Biden administration official. This official emphasized that this does not include “targeting data or ‘actionable intelligence,'” raising the question of what information exactly the CIA is passing along to the Taliban. 4. In Maine, voters are set to decide on a proposal to “turn the state's two big private electric companies—Central Maine Power and Versant—into Pine Tree Power, a nonprofit, publicly run utility,” per Bill McKibben in the Nation. McKibben points out that the private utility companies “sent $187 million in profits out of Maine last year—much of it to shareholders in such far-flung places as Qatar, Norway, and Canada.” Moreover, this move could lower rates by “an average of $367 per household per year.” Bernie Sanders has endorsed this effort, declaring “Power belongs in the hands of the people, not greedy corporations.”5. In an effort to combat food deserts, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson has announced the city will explore the possibility of opening a municipally-owned grocery store. The announcement highlighted that “Historic disinvestment has led to inequitable access to food retail across Chicago, [which] have been exacerbated as at least six grocery stores closed on the South and West sides over the past two years.” This project would seek to provide healthy food for South and West side residents, as well as an economic anchor in these communities.6. From Variety: The California Senate has passed a bill to “grant unemployment benefits to workers who are on strike,” in a major win for the Writers Guild, SAG-AFTRA, and organized labor more generally. If signed, this will go into effect January 1st, 2024. Currently, only New York and New Jersey offer this safety net to striking workers.7. A story in LA Public Press traces the disturbing rise of so-called “Tenant relocators.” According to the story, “Lawmakers, tenants and tenant groups say that, across Los Angeles, landlords are buying rent-controlled buildings predominantly occupied by immigrants and using illegal tenant harassment to force people out so they can re-rent their units at market rate.” Further, “Organizers...say tenant harassment is so profitable that it has become an industry in its own right, and that the industry has spawned a profession: the tenant relocator, who cajoles or threatens tenants into leaving while their building falls to pieces around them.” This is yet another case showing the stunning lengths the rich will go to in order to acquire yet more wealth.8. In Atlanta, over 115,000 signatures have been collected and submitted calling for a referendum on the “Cop City,” project. Yet, when these signatures were submitted, the Clerk's Office refused to accept them, citing obscure deadline rules. Now, Georgia Senator Raphael Warnock is weighing in with a letter to Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens urging the City to “err on the side of giving people the ability to express their views,” the Atlanta Voice reports. This contentious project will likely continue to be a political flash-point going forward.9. Arundhati Roy, the world-famous Indian dissident writer, received a major European essay prize on September 12th. She used this opportunity to deliver an explosive speech warning of the danger posed to the world by “the dismantling of democracy in India.” Roy is explicit in naming “India's descent…into first majoritarianism and then full-blown fascism,” and goes into gut-churning detail concerning the plight of religious minorities in what used to be called the world's largest democracy. The full speech is available on YouTube.10. Finally, Yahoo News reports that back in 2015, “Elon Musk Stormed Into the Tesla Office Furious That Autopilot Tried to Kill Him.” Taken from the new blockbuster biography of the tech magnate, the story goes on to say that the Tesla autopilot, “thrown off by the road's faded lane lines,” steered into and almost hit oncoming traffic. This, the book argues, was due to Musk's insistence on removing light detection and ranging technology – better known as LiDAR – from his vehicles in an attempt to cut costs. Ultimately, the autopilot was not actually fixed; instead, Musk's chief of staff Sam Teller got the faded lane lines repainted. That may be a functional solution for the world's richest man, but personally, I wouldn't take my chances. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

On this day in legal history, September 15, 1935, the Nuremberg Laws of Nazi Germany went into effect, reorienting German citizenship around the exclusion of Jewish residents and laying the groundwork for what was to come.  As we've tried to make clear in previous “this day in legal history” segments where we've focused on Germany in the 1930s, the lesson to be learned from a legal perspective derives from the Third Reich's focus on using the rule of law to give a color of civility and process to their gross violations of human rights and atrocities. As much as genocide can come in the form of a general, festooned in medals, pressing a state's military across the countryside leaving death in its wake, the law can be coopted to make the entire affair seem civil and considered. There might be an applicable lesson to be learned and applied to the modern day here.In the fall of 1935, the Nuremberg Laws were enacted in Germany, fundamentally altering the citizenship status of Jews and imposing strict racial classifications. These laws were first announced at a Nazi Party rally in Nuremberg, comprising the Reich Citizenship Law and the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor. The former stripped Jews of their German citizenship, allowing only "full" Germans to enjoy the full protection of the law, while the latter prohibited marriage or relations between Jews and non-Jewish Germans.These regulations were visually represented through a chart that helped Germans understand the classifications, including designations for "Aryan" Germans, Jews, and individuals of mixed race. The laws had severe repercussions, as illustrated by personal narratives and vast documentation from that time. For instance, Edward Adler faced arrest and deportation for his relationship with a non-Jewish woman, and many others experienced similar fates, including forced labor, imprisonment, and eventual deportation to concentration camps. These laws marked a grim step in the Nazis' efforts to isolate and persecute the Jewish community, as well as test the waters to see how far they could take their crimes, based on their false and discriminatory racial theories.A tell for how concerned the Nazis were with how their policies would be received was the fact that they weren't enforced until after the 1936 Summer Olympics which were held in Berlin. Thereafter, anyone found violating the laws would be imprisoned and, following release from their completion of their sentence, re-arrested and sent to a concentration camp. Note the performative release and re-arresting, and consider their aforementioned focus on the rule of law and marshaling it for their evil ends. The initial process was about separating the Jewish community from the rest of the German citizenry under the auspices of protecting Germans and immiserating the former in ways smaller than what would eventually come to pass. A grim day in history, to be sure, but one we should endeavor to learn from.The Nuremberg Race Laws | Holocaust EncyclopediaSenator Kyrsten Sinema has expressed serious concerns about the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) impending alteration to the joint-employer standard, hinting at a potential vote to overturn it through a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution. The proposed rule, which is set to finalize by October 12, seeks to expand the criteria for determining joint-employer status, including considering indirect and unexercised control over another company's employees. This marks a departure from the current legal test established in 2020, which focuses on direct and immediate control.Sinema voiced her opposition at an event organized by the International Franchise Association, a body lobbying against the NLRB's proposal. The senator indicated that the rule faces significant opposition in Congress, with concerns about its potential impact on franchises like McDonald's Corp. A bipartisan coalition, including Senators Joe Manchin, Angus King, Susan Collins, James Lankford, and Mike Braun, is already collaborating to address this issue, emphasizing the bureaucratic nature of the proposed changes.The CRA resolution, which requires the support of 51 senators to pass, could potentially bypass Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's authority to block it. Votes from Sinema, Manchin, and King will be pivotal, especially if all Republican members in both the House and Senate choose to reject the rule. However, even if the resolution passes in Congress, President Joe Biden retains the power to veto it, as seen in a previous instance in May concerning a rule from the US Labor Department.Sinema Pushes Back on Labor Board's Planned Joint Employer RuleThe first cases from the January 6 Capitol riot have reached the US Supreme Court. Edward Lang and Garrett Miller, who allegedly participated in the riot, are urging the court to dismiss the obstruction charges against them. These cases are part of over 200 instances where the government is utilizing a statute from the Enron era to penalize the rioters. The central issue is the applicability of a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to the rioters who disrupted congressional activities.Lang's attorney, Norman Pattis, emphasized the growing concern over the overcriminalization of federal law and the potential misuse of prosecutorial discretion. However, Columbia law professor Daniel Richman finds it unlikely for the Supreme Court to intervene at this stage, especially given the absence of a split among federal courts of appeal, a typical precursor to Supreme Court involvement. The law under scrutiny, which punishes obstruction of official proceedings, is being challenged for its broad interpretation by the government, a stance that has seen support from judges Florence Pan and Justin R. Walker but faced dissent from Judge Gregory Katsas. The case brings up significant issues regarding the interpretation of the law, with a deadline for the federal government's response set for October 2.First Cases From Jan. 6 Capitol Riot Reach US Supreme CourtU.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith has rejected Donald Trump's plea to recuse Judge Tanya Chutkan from a federal case that accuses the former president of attempting to overturn the 2020 election results. Trump had filed a legal motion claiming that Chutkan's previous remarks in court indicated a lack of impartiality, potentially affecting the fairness of the trial. These remarks were made during the sentencing of individuals involved in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, hinting at Trump's influence on the rioters. Despite Trump's criticisms of Chutkan on social media, Smith asserted that there was no valid reason for her recusal. The judge, appointed by former President Barack Obama, has been known for her stern stance against the Capitol attack, often imposing harsher sentences than those recommended by prosecutors. The decision on whether Chutkan will recuse herself from the case, one of four criminal cases Trump is currently facing, rests with her. Trump, who is eyeing the 2024 presidential nomination, has denied all charges and labeled the prosecution's efforts as politically motivated.US opposes Trump request to remove judge in federal election case | ReutersThe proprietors of Haven Salon Spa in Wisconsin, Timothy and Carley Dillet, have assured a federal judge that they will adhere to a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) directive, following their arrest for non-compliance. In 2021, the NLRB mandated the Dilletts to reinstate a staff member who was wrongfully terminated for scrutinizing the firm's COVID-19 protocols, along with other reparations including back pay and expunging the dismissal from the employee's record. Despite the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirming the NLRB's decision, the Dilletts consistently resisted full compliance, accruing over $30,000 in fines and legal fees. NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo warned employers of severe repercussions for flouting the law. The Dilletts and their legal representative have yet to comment on the matter.Spa Owners Vow to Comply After Arrest for Flouting Labor BoardThe impeachment trial of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is nearing its conclusion, with closing arguments scheduled for Friday. Paxton, a staunch conservative and ally of former President Donald Trump, faces 16 charges in the trial, including allegations of corruption and abuse of power, primarily concerning actions purportedly taken to shield a rich political donor under federal scrutiny and to conceal an extramarital affair. The trial has revealed deep divisions within the Texas Republican Party, with some members accusing Paxton of tarnishing the party and the state's reputation. The Senate, which is predominantly Republican, will decide Paxton's fate, requiring a two-thirds majority to convict him on any charge, which would result in his permanent removal from office.Paxton, who has been temporarily relieved of his duties pending the trial outcome, has denounced the proceedings as a political witch hunt. He has faced corruption allegations since his initial election in 2014, but managed to secure re-election last November. His defense team has portrayed the accusing former aides as rebellious political moderates, while the prosecution has presented them as credible conservative witnesses who reported their concerns to the FBI in 2020. The impeachment process was initiated after Paxton sought approval for a $3.3 million settlement with ex-employees who had accused him of office abuse, a request that was not granted by state legislators.Impeachment trial of Texas AG Paxton nears end, could see him removed | ReutersIn an unprecedented move, the United Auto Workers (UAW) union has initiated strikes against the three major American automakers: General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis. This is the first time in history that the union has simultaneously targeted all three companies, with workers walking out of plants in Missouri, Michigan, and Ohio. The UAW has termed this strategy as a "Stand Up Strike", a flexible approach allowing them to escalate their efforts progressively to secure fair contracts at each automaker. Initially, less than 13,000 of the 145,000 UAW members have participated in the strike, affecting a selection of plants that would significantly impact suppliers and dealers while minimizing the number of workers on strike pay.The strike follows the automakers' rejection of the union's demands for higher wages, enhanced benefits, and increased job protections, despite the companies enjoying record or near-record profits. The automakers had proposed substantial pay increases, but these did not meet the expectations of the union negotiators. The UAW aims to recover many benefits relinquished over a decade ago when the companies were nearing bankruptcy. The union is also advocating for the reinstatement of traditional pension plans and retiree health coverage for workers hired post-2007, and an end to forced overtime and the utilization of temporary workers. Moreover, the UAW expresses concerns over potential job losses and plant closures as the industry shifts towards electric vehicles, which require less labor for assembly compared to traditional vehicles.UAW workers launch unprecedented strike against all Big Three automakers Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Ms. Truesdale served as a law clerk for the Honorable Diane S. Sykes of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Prior to joining the firm, Ms. Truesdale represented companies in complex commercial litigation at Eimer Stahl LLP. Ms. Truesdale graduated magna cum laude and Order of the Coif from the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, where she served as the Senior Notes Editor on the Northwestern University Law Review, participated in the Bluhm Legal Clinic's Center on Wrongful Convictions, and founded the first law school chapter of the Collaboration for Justice, a systemic justice reform group. During law school, Ms. Truesdale interned at the Federal Defender Program in Chicago, and worked as a research assistant, supervising the translation of academic articles on juries from English to Spanish. Prior to law school, Ms. Truesdale taught Spanish immersion first grade in Phoenix, Arizona as a Teach for America core member and provided English instruction to public school children in Madrid, Spain. Ms. Truesdale is a member of the bar in Illinois. Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/margaret-truesdale-79a09322/ Hughes Socol Piers Resnick DYM: https://hsplegal.com/ Learn more about EmotionTrac and our AI-driven Emotional Intelligence Platform: https://emotiontrac.com/calendly/

  On today's Coffee with Rich, we will be joined by Charles Haywood. Charles Haywood writes at The Worthy House. He was born in Indiana, where he now lives with his Australian wife and five children. His father taught Russian history at Purdue University. His mother was born in Hungary, and Charles has spent quite a bit of time in Hungary and maintains a keen interest in Hungarian affairs. After getting a degree in history from Indiana University, Haywood moved to Chicago, to obtain a law degree from the University of Chicago Law School. He graduated in 1994 and clerked for a year for the late Hon. Michael S. Kanne, on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and then practiced as a big-firm lawyer in Chicago in the late 1990s and early 2000s, primarily mergers-and-acquisitions and securities law. However, Charles tired of law and wanted to be rich. So he gave more of his money to the University of Chicago, to get an MBA at the Booth School of Business. Then he moved back to Indiana and started a business that developed and manufactured hair care products (after first briefly operating a woodworking and cabinetry business). He grew the business to 150 employees and sold it in 2020. Now, other than The Worthy House, Charles involves himself in various political and cultural matters, but also devotes considerable time to trying to be a gentleman farmer. He and his family raise bees, chickens, and a wide variety of plants, and he hopes to expand these endeavors.   Charles Haywood's (Worthy House): https://theworthyhouse.com/ Coffee with Rich Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/rhodieusmc/videos American Warrior Show: https://americanwarriorshow.com/index.html SWAG: https://shop.americanwarriorsociety.com/ American Warrior Society please visit: https://americanwarriorsociety.com/

“One of the stats we're most proud of and aligned with our mission as an organization is that our clients have given over 200 million dollars back to charity. It's great evidence of how generous and charitable entrepreneurs are, and I don't know that they get enough credit for that… ”In this episode, although we mainly talk about dealmaking, investment banking, exit planning, and wealth management, we also touch on a topic that not often gets discussed - empowering entrepreneurs.This week's guest shares his unique take on the topic by integrating personal and business planning, and taking a holistic view of the entrepreneur's journey...ABOUT OUR GUESTChris Younger co-founded Class VI in 2005 with a mission to Empower the Entrepreneurial Spirit. Sharing a passion for what entrepreneurs mean to our community, Chris felt Class VI could do a better job for business owners by integrating personal and business planning, and by taking a holistic view of their journey.Prior to Class VI, Chris spent more than 20 years gaining experience in executive management, marketing, sales, law, and mergers and acquisitions. He is the co-author of Harvest: The Definitive Guide to Selling Your Company.Chris was a co-founder and President of Expanets, the nation's largest provider of converged communications solutions. During his tenure with Expanets, Chris led the acquisition and integration of 27 companies, ranging in size from $2 million to over $1 billion in annual revenues, ultimately leading to its acquisition by Avaya in late 2003.Prior to Expanets, Chris was an associate with the law firm of Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich and Rosati, and clerked for the Honorable Jesse Eschbach of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.Chris is a graduate of Miami University and Harvard Law School and has also studied at The London School of Economics. While at Harvard, he was the Managing Editor of the Harvard Law Review.You can learn more about Chris and his work here:https://www.linkedin.com/in/chris-younger/https://www.classvipartners.com/ABOUT OUR HOSTKen Eslick is an Entrepreneur, Author, Podcaster, Tony Robbins Trainer, Life Coach, Husband of 35+ Years, and Grandfather. Ken currently spends his time as the President & Founder of The Leaders Lab where he and his team focus on Senior Leadership Acquisition. They get founders the next level C-Suite Leaders they need to go from being an Inc. Magazine 5000 fastest growing company to $100,000,000 + in revenue.  You can learn more about Ken and his team attheleaderslab.coListen to more episodes on Mission Matters:https://missionmatters.com/author/ken-eslick/

Second Amendment: May Illinois ban assault weapons? - Argued: Fri, 28 Jul 2023 9:6:13 EDT

This week we look at: Fourth Circuit does not agree with view expressed by Seventh Circuit in Menard, Inc. that C corporation reasonable compensation only depends on a reasonable return to investors Eleventh Circuit holds that “hobby loss” expenses under §183 are miscellaneous itemized deductions Elderly attorney had reasonable cause for failure to file payroll tax returns and timely pay payroll tax liabilities

https://vimeo.com/833146017 https://www.currentfederaltaxdevelopments.com/podcasts/2023/6/4/2023-06-05-hobby-losses-expenses-effectively-nondeductible   This week we look at: Fourth Circuit does not agree with view expressed by Seventh Circuit in Menard, Inc. that C corporation reasonable compensation only depends on a reasonable return to investors Eleventh Circuit holds that “hobby loss” expenses under §183 are miscellaneous itemized deductions Elderly attorney had reasonable cause for failure to file payroll tax returns and timely pay payroll tax liabilities

Colette Holt represents public agencies and private firms on issues related to civil rights, public contracting, and affirmative action. She has broad experience in conducting defensible disparity studies, expert witness consulting and testimony, drafting legislation and policies, designing programs, managing initiatives, defending affirmative action programs, and counseling private firms on compliance with diversity requirements. Ms. Holt serves as General Counsel to the American Contract Compliance Association and is an author and frequent media commentator on these issues. Ms. Holt received her B.A. in Philosophy from Yale University and her J.D. from the University of Chicago Law School. She was a Law Clerk to the former Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Prior to developing her own practice, she was associated with a large law firm, Assistant Corporation Counsel for the City of Chicago, and Chief Operating Officer of the Chicago Park District. She is a former Adjunct Professor at Loyola University School of Law and the John Marshall Law School. Learn more about Colette Holt & Associates and the work they do: http://www.mwbelaw.com/ --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/governmentcoins/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/governmentcoins/support

On this day in legal history, Italy turned from a monarchy into a republic following a public referendum.  On June 2, 1946, Italy underwent a momentous transformation as it transitioned from a monarchy to a republic, marking a significant milestone in its history. This pivotal event was the result of a nationwide referendum held following the fall of Fascism and the end of World War II. The choice before the Italian people was clear: they had to decide between retaining King Umberto II as their monarch or establishing a republic. The Italian people, weary of the autocratic rule that had characterized the monarchy and the role the country played in the Second World War, cast their votes to determine the country's future. With an overwhelming majority, they chose to abolish the monarchy and establish a republic, cementing their commitment to democratic principles. This decision led to the creation of the Italian Republic, where sovereignty now rested with the people. Italy had been ruled by the House of Savoy, a royal family that held power since the unification of the country in the late 19th century. As a result of the referendum, King Umberto II, the last monarch of Italy and the House of Savoy, abdicated his throne on June 18, 1946. The monarchy was formally abolished, and the Italian Republic was proclaimed. The head of state would now be a president, elected by the Parliament.This transition also sparked a wave of reforms, including land reform, labor rights, and the expansion of social welfare programs. Italy embarked on a path of modernization and reconstruction, focusing on economic development, infrastructure, and education. The republican system allowed for greater political participation and representation, empowering the Italian people to shape their own destiny.Starbucks, the world's largest coffee chain, has been found to be violating federal labor law in numerous administrative law decisions, indicating a deliberate effort to impede unionization and disregard the authority of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Over the past eight months, Starbucks has lost 16 out of 17 cases decided by NLRB administrative law judges, facing charges such as worker intimidation, discriminatory rules, and unlawful termination of union organizers. The company has also been accused of interfering with NLRB processes, reflecting a corporate strategy that treats labor law violations as a mere cost of doing business. The rulings, although representing a fraction of the NLRB complaints against Starbucks, could strengthen allegations in other cases and potentially lead to court injunctions. The NLRB has filed nearly 100 complaints against Starbucks based on union-filed charges, while Starbucks has reciprocated with charges against Starbucks Workers United, the union representing its employees. Critics argue that Starbucks seems to undermine the NLRB's authority, believing it will be vindicated by the courts or that the board's remedies are insufficient to change its behavior. These labor law violations shed light on Starbucks' alleged anti-union campaign, which the company denies, emphasizing its commitment to policies that prohibit retaliation against organizers and its dedication to engaging in collective bargaining. The ALJ decisions have revealed a pattern of violations, including illegal statements made by managers and promises of benefits to dissuade unionization efforts. Such previous misconduct can serve as evidence in future cases, demonstrating anti-union motives. As Starbucks continues to face legal challenges, labor law experts suggest that the company is prepared to fight these allegations extensively, reinforcing the need for a comprehensive cease-and-desist order to curtail its nationwide strategy.Starbucks Is Racking Up Labor Law Violations as Rulings Roll inThe US Supreme Court has ruled in an 8-1 decision that federal labor law does not prevent a ready-mix concrete company from suing a union in state court for alleged intentional destruction of property during a strike. The ruling allows costly lawsuits against striking unions based on the economic consequences of their protests and may lead to state legislation curbing strike conduct. However, the decision is specific to the case and does not reshape the law on strike protections. The case involved Glacier Northwest Inc., a concrete supplier, accusing an International Brotherhood of Teamsters affiliate of coordinating with truck drivers to time their strike in a way that would result in wasted concrete. The Supreme Court overturned a Washington state high court decision and clarified the boundaries of state and local efforts to regulate conduct in relation to the National Labor Relations Act. The majority opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, emphasized the duty of the Teamsters affiliate to protect Glacier's property and stated that the union's conduct went beyond the protections of the NLRA. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch indicated their willingness to reconsider the broad preemption doctrine of the NLRA. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, suggesting that labor disputes of this nature should be resolved by the National Labor Relations Board. The ruling was seen by Glacier's attorney and the National Federation of Independent Business as upholding the balance of power between labor unions and employers, while the Teamsters criticized it for favoring corporations over workers. The Service Employees International Union expressed satisfaction that the right to strike was not rolled back. The Teamsters affiliate's attorney noted that the ruling left options open for the union to seek preemption in state court based on new evidence. Overall, the decision is not expected to limit union workers' ability to strike.For further reading, check out coverage here and discussion of same here.Justices Allow Company to Sue Union for Strike Destruction (2)Supreme Court ruling could chill labor strikes | ReutersAirbnb has filed a lawsuit against New York City over a new law that the company claims will act as a "de facto ban" on short-term rentals. The law, set to take effect in July, will impose stricter regulations on hosts, requiring them to register with the city and comply with various complex regulations. Airbnb argues that these regulations will make it more difficult for hosts to do business. The company is seeking a court order to block the enforcement of the law. In response, the Mayor's office stated that it will review the lawsuit while emphasizing its commitment to protecting safety and community livability.Airbnb sues New York City over short-term rental restrictions | ReutersThe Gambian government has hired a U.S. law firm to explore potential legal action following an investigation that found contaminated medicines from India were likely responsible for the deaths of children in the country. At least 70 children, mostly under the age of 5, died from acute kidney injury between June and October. Local doctors suspected Indian-imported cough syrups, and tests by the World Health Organization confirmed the presence of lethal toxins. Gambian Justice Minister Dawda Jallow stated that legal action was being considered, but did not specify the target or name the law firm involved. The medicines linked to the deaths were manufactured by Indian drugmaker Maiden Pharmaceuticals, which denied wrongdoing. A report by a panel of international experts indicated that 22 of the analyzed cases were "very likely" caused by poisoning from the toxins found in Maiden products. The causality assessment and the justice ministry's recommendations will be made public within six months. Gambia plans to establish a testing facility for imported drugs with support from the World Bank.Read coverage by here. Exclusive: Gambia hires US law firm to consider action on toxic Indian cough syrup, minister says | ReutersThe US Supreme Court has revived two False Claims Act (FCA) suits against SuperValu Inc. and Safeway Inc. that were filed by whistleblowers alleging overcharging the government for prescription drugs. The suits were initially rejected by the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for lack of "scienter," (SAI-UHN-TER) which refers to a defendant's knowledge and subjective beliefs. The Supreme Court stated that the appeals court failed to consider evidence of subjective intent and that the scienter element should focus on the defendant's actual mental state, not an objectively reasonable interpretation. The companies are accused of falsely reporting reimbursement prices to Medicaid and Medicare, claiming they were their "usual and customary" prices while charging retail customers less. Whistleblowers can establish scienter by demonstrating that the companies knew their reported prices were inaccurate, were aware of the risk but intentionally avoided verifying accuracy, or submitted claims despite being aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk. The ruling is expected to make it more challenging for defendants to seek early dismissal based on lack of scienter, potentially leading to increased discovery costs and more FCA cases being brought forward.Supreme Court Reopens Fraud Suits Against SuperValu, Safeway (1) Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Colette Holt represents public agencies and private firms on issues related to civil rights, public contracting, and affirmative action. She has broad experience in conducting defensible disparity studies, expert witness consulting and testimony, drafting legislation and policies, designing programs, managing initiatives, defending affirmative action programs, and counseling private firms on compliance with diversity requirements. Ms. Holt serves as General Counsel to the American Contract Compliance Association and is an author and frequent media commentator on these issues. Ms. Holt received her B.A. in Philosophy from Yale University and her J.D. from the University of Chicago Law School. She was a Law Clerk to the former Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Prior to developing her own practice, she was associated with a large law firm, Assistant Corporation Counsel for the City of Chicago, and Chief Operating Officer of the Chicago Park District. She is a former Adjunct Professor at Loyola University School of Law and the John Marshall Law School. Learn more about Colette Holt & Associates and the work they do: http://www.mwbelaw.com/ --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/governmentcoins/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/governmentcoins/support

Ethics: Is Wisconsin entitled to sanctions against Sidney Powell for bringing frivolous voter fraud suits after Donald Trump lost the 2020 elections? - Argued: Wed, 31 May 2023 8:54:45 EDT

The Supreme Court is back in the spotlight because it showed a sign it might soon act on so-called assault weapons bans. But the sign comes in the form of a complex legal maneuver that needs some explaining. That's why we have author and pro-gun lawyer Mark W. Smith on the show to suss out exactly what's going on and what it means. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who oversees the Seventh Circuit, asked Naperville, Illinois, to defend its ban on AR-15s and similar firearms against an emergency request to block the law. Smith said that means she, and probably other members of the Court, may take the rare step of entering an emergency injunction. However, he said that likely depends on what happens with a sister case against Illinois' statewide ban. Smith argued the common defenses of the bans are lacking. He said the Heller standard that guns in "common use for lawful purposes" can't be banned is the proper way to judge these cases. And he said it is clear AR-15s and the other firearms targetted by assault weapons bans are popular enough to be considered in "common use." We also talk about Smith's new book Disarmed: What the Ukraine War Teaches Americans About the Right to Bear Arms. He explains why he thinks Ukraine made significant missteps in the lead-up to the Russian invasion by not arming civilians at large until just before hostilities broke out. But he argues Ukraine's newly-armed populous has helped repel the invaders, just as America's did several centuries ago. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the effects of Colorado's decade-long push to tighten its gun laws. Special Guest: Mark W. Smith.

In RJR Nabisco, this Court, applying the presumption against extraterritoriality, held that a civil RICO plaintiff states a cognizable claim under RICO's private right of action only if it alleges a "domestic"-not foreign-injury. 579 U.S. 325, 354 (2016). The Court left unresolved, however, what legal test determines whether an injury is foreign or domestic. Id. ("[D]isputes may arise as to whether a particular alleged in- jury is 'foreign' or 'domestic.' But we need not concern ourselves with that question in this case."). Since RJR Nabisco, the Courts of Appeals have divided three ways as to the proper legal test for assessing whether a foreign plaintiff suffers a "domestic" injury to intangible property-such as court judgments, arbitration awards, contract rights, patents, and business reputation or goodwill. The question presented is: Does a foreign plaintiff state a cognizable civil RICO claim when it suffers an injury to intangible property, and if so, under what circumstances. In RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community, 579 U.S. 325 (2016), this Court held that a plaintiff proceeding under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., must plead and prove a "domestic" injury to maintain a claim in U.S. court. Following RJR Nabisco, the courts of appeals have split on the issue of where a foreign plaintiff suffers its injury to its intangible property for purposes of the domestic-injury inquiry. On one hand, the Seventh Circuit correctly holds that the foreign plaintiff suffers its injury abroad. On the other, the court below and Third Circuit have adopted an open-ended balancing test to determine the location of the plaintiff's injury. Incorrectly applying that standardless test in reference to defendants' conduct, the Ninth Circuit held below that the plaintiff had suffered a domestic injury, even though he is a foreign resident with no alleged connection to the U.S. The question presented therefore is: Whether a foreign plaintiff with no alleged connection to the United States may nevertheless allege a "domestic" injury under RJR Nabisco sufficient to maintain a RICO action based only on injury to intangible property.

  On today's Coffee with Rich, we will be joined by Charles Haywood. Charles Haywood writes at The Worthy House. He was born in Indiana, where he now lives with his Australian wife and five children. His father taught Russian history at Purdue University. His mother was born in Hungary, and Charles has spent quite a bit of time in Hungary and maintains a keen interest in Hungarian affairs. After getting a degree in history from Indiana University, Haywood moved to Chicago, to obtain a law degree from the University of Chicago Law School. He graduated in 1994 and clerked for a year for the late Hon. Michael S. Kanne, on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and then practiced as a big-firm lawyer in Chicago in the late 1990s and early 2000s, primarily mergers-and-acquisitions and securities law. However, Charles tired of law and wanted to be rich. So he gave more of his money to the University of Chicago, to get an MBA at the Booth School of Business. Then he moved back to Indiana and started a business that developed and manufactured hair care products (after first briefly operating a woodworking and cabinetry business). He grew the business to 150 employees and sold it in 2020. Now, other than The Worthy House, Charles involves himself in various political and cultural matters, but also devotes considerable time to trying to be a gentleman farmer. He and his family raise bees, chickens, and a wide variety of plants, and he hopes to expand these endeavors. Charles Haywood's (Worthy House): https://theworthyhouse.com/ Coffee with Rich Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/rhodieusmc/videos American Warrior Show: https://americanwarriorshow.com/index.html SWAG: https://shop.americanwarriorsociety.com/ American Warrior Society please visit: https://americanwarriorsociety.com/

The Internal Revenue Code generally requires the IRS, when it serves a summons on a third-party recordkeeper for records pertaining to a person "identified in the summons," to give that identified person notice of the summons. I.R.C. § 7609(a)(l). If the IRS issues a summons directing a bank to produce an accountholder's records, for example, it must generally notify that accountholder of the summons. Section 7609 then provides that "any person who is entitled to notice of a summons under subsection (a) shall have the right to begin a proceeding to quash" that summons in district court. Id. § 7609(b)(2); see id. § 7609(h) (l). In other words, only a person entitled to notice of a summons can seek judicial review of that summons. There are a few exceptions to the notice requirement. As relevant here, the IRS need not provide notice of "any summons ... issued in aid of the collection of (i) an assessment made or judgment rendered against the person with respect to whose liability the summons is issued; or (ii) the liability at law or in equity of any transferee or fiduciary of any person referred to in clause (i)." Id. § 7609(c)(2)(D). The question presented is whether the § 7609(c)(2)(D)(i) exception applies only when the delinquent taxpayer owns or has a legal interest in the summonsed records (as the Ninth Circuit holds), or whether the exception applies to a summons for anyone's records whenever the IRS thinks that person's records might somehow help it collect a delinquent taxpayer's liability (as the Sixth Circuit, joining the Seventh Circuit, held below). https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1599.html

Technology: Did Salesforce.com violate the federal sex trafficking statutes by maintaining a business relationship with Backpage.com? - Argued: Wed, 22 Feb 2023 15:57:49 EDT

A Finnish company is hoping to give U.S. home buyers something they've been craving! Real estate software company CubiCasa just launched a product in the U.S. that produces a FREE floor plan that sellers can put into for-sale listings. According to the National Association of Realtors, it's something that just 10 to 15% of U.S. listings include right now, but it's third on a list of desirable listing features!Hi, I'm Kathy Fettke and this is Real Estate News for Investors. If you like our podcast, please subscribe and leave us a review.Clear Capital purchased CubiCasa last September, so it's now a subsidiary of Clear Capital, but it operates independently. CubiCasa says on its website that it's the market leader for this kind of software in its home country, and is already being used in more than 170 countries around the world. With its introduction into the U.S., it says it's one of the major players here and will help revolutionize the home-buying experience. (1) Market Properties More Effectively with Floor PlansThe president of CubiCasa, Jeff Allen, says: “By offering a free version of our mobile scanning technology in the U.S., we're helping potential buyers make more informed decisions, while empowering agents and sellers to market their properties more effectively.” He also says: “It's time the U.S. caught up” with the rest of the world. (2)CubiCasa says it has already provided more than one million floor plans to homeowners and sellers internationally. It operates with the use of an app on your smartphone. After putting in your location, you point the camera towards the lower part of the walls where they intersect with the floor, and record the layout as you walk around the home.There are specific instructions for doing it properly, such as how you hold the camera, what part of the interior you should be recording, and how you should walk in and out of spaces. After you are done collecting all the visual information, the sketching technology takes about 24 hours to produce a finished floor plan.You can also pay a small amount to have additional features incorporated into the floor plan, such as kitchen cabinets, bathroom features, furniture and appliances. If you want your floor plan produced more quickly, it costs an extra $10 to get it within six hours.Do Floor Plans Violate an Architect's Copyright?CubiCasa says the app will accurately calculate the square footage of a home, and that this will improve the quality of property data and inspection reports. Although floor plans are quite common in real estate markets around the world, they've been more of a niche market here. And there has been some question about potential copyright violations.In Missouri, the architects at Designworks Homes sued Columbia House of Brokers Realty over the use of floor plans in listings. The case evolved from the listing of a home in 2010 and a floor plan produced by the sellers. When the architects discovered the use of the floor plan, they sued for copyright infringement.Last year, they won their case in a lower court, but the Realty appealed to the Supreme Court. NAR also filed an amicus brief in support of the Realty, arguing that the ruling misrepresents federal law, puts decades of a legal precedent at risk, eliminates a long-standing practice in the real estate market, and makes many homeowners vulnerable to lawsuits if they have used floor plans to sell their homes in the past. (3)Supreme Court Rejects Floor Plan CaseThe Supreme Court declined to review the case however, saying the two sides have not presented compelling reasons to do so. But more recently, the Seventh Circuit ruled against the same architectural company in another lawsuit. It affirmed a lower court's ruling against the plaintiff saying that a floor plan must be “virtually identical” to the architect's drawing to be considered a violation of the copyright.NAR says that “many homebuyers rely on floor plans in real estate to decide whether to purchase a residence, and their ability to secure financing for that transaction is often contingent on an appraisal that requires the reaction of a floor plan.” (4) Homeowners also make floor plans to help them decide on where they want furniture or how they want to renovate a home. Plus, many jurisdictions also want to see a floor plan before they approve a renovation project.The legal dust-up has apparently settled enough so that CubiCasa feels confident about launching in the U.S. If you want to check it out, you'll find links in the show notes at newsforinvestors.com.And please remember to hit the subscribe button, and leave a review!Thanks for listening. I'm Kathy Fettke.Links: 1 -https://www.cubi.casa/about/2 -https://www.housingwire.com/articles/this-app-lets-homeowners-generate-floor-plans-of-their-homes-for-free/3 -https://www.nar.realtor/newsroom/nar-asks-supreme-court-to-protect-consumers-from-lawsuits-when-making-floor-plans-of-their-homes4 -https://www.nar.realtor/newsroom/nar-asks-supreme-court-to-protect-consumers-from-lawsuits-when-making-floor-plans-of-their-homes