Podcasts about seventh circuit court

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in a challenge to the Illinois ban on lawful carry on public transit on Wednesday, with the state of Illinois boldly (and erroneously) claiming that governments can prohibit the right to carry in almost every public place where lots of people may be present.

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about a ruling out of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that found short-barreled rifles aren't "arms" as considered by the Second Amendment. We also talk about a pair of state court rulings, one out of Oregon upholding the state's purchase permit requirements and magazine ban, and another out Massachusetts that upheld the state's requirement that out-of-state visitors get a special permit before bringing their guns into the state. Plus, I talk with Idaho Senator Mike Crapo (R.) about the Hearing Protection Act and his views on the GOP's plans for gun policy in Congress. Get a 30-day free trial for a subscription to The Dispatch here: https://thedispatch.com/join-offer-reload/?utmsource=thereload&utmmedium=partnerships-podcast&utm_campaign=0125

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.

In this episode, Cole Preston sits down with Chicago Tribune reporter Jeremy Gorner for an in-depth discussion on Illinois' firearm ban, its legal challenges, and the latest developments from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Jeremy provides a detailed breakdown of the case's journey through the courts, the implications of recent rulings, and what might come next. We also touch on federal and state courtroom transparency and the broader legislative landscape. Watch video version and read full show notes here: https://thecolememo.com/2024/12/06/e150/

This week, I talk to Lael Weinberger about the doctrine of church autonomy—what it is and, more importantly, where it came from. Lael has written an excellent paper on the origins of church autonomy (here), as well as put to practice his musings in a recent amicus brief he filed in the D.C. Circuit in the case of O'Connell v. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (here). After we spent some time digging into Lael's past, we got to business discussing his paper and brief. Some of the topics we discussed included the definition and scope of church autonomy, the jurisdictional nature of this topic as it relates to the state and the church, the history of its development in the 19th century, and much more. Lael Weinberger is an attorney and legal scholar. He currently works of Gibson Dunn in Washington, D.C. (bio), and serves as a nonresident fellow at Stanford Law (bio). In the past, he clerked for Justice Neil Gorsuch on the United States Supreme Court, Judge Frank Easterbrook on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and Chief Justice Daniel Eismann on the Idaho Supreme Court. He earned a law degree with high honors from the University of Chicago Law School. He also holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, with a focus on American legal history. Cross & Gavel is a production of CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY. The episode was produced by Josh Deng, with music from Vexento.

Emerging technologies simplify many aspects of life, but they also make it increasingly challenging to safeguard privacy in both personal and professional settings. As a lawyer, it is essential for you to stay informed about how to protect privacy by utilizing the appropriate tools and equipment. Paul Secunda joined us today to talk about protecting your privacy, building open communication between employer and employee, tech tips to focus on your work, and more. Paul Secunda is a partner at Walcheske Luzi LLC. He leads the ERISA litigation unit, which focuses on retirement, medical, and disability class action litigation. He also serves as a consultant, testifying expert, and mediator in the fields of employee benefits and workplace law. Paul is a former labor and employment law professor with 18 years of experience at two law schools, focusing on employment law and employee benefits. Throughout his career, Paul has been engaged in litigating, teaching, and writing about workplace law, handling tasks from reviewing employee handbooks to managing complex class action lawsuits and submitting amicus briefs to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. Paul's expertise spans employee rights and the practical application of technology in both professional and personal contexts. Join Paul and me as we talk about the following three questions and more! What are the top three tech tips you would advise any lawyer to maintain a separation from work and personal time? What are the top three tech rights an employee has when it comes to utilizing a personal tech device for a BYOD firm? What are your top three tech tips to ensure focus at work, to help prevent necessary work during personal time? In our conversation, we cover: [01.28] Tech Setup - Paul's current tech setup. [09.00] The Balance – Balancing technology as a small law firm. [10.00] Tech tips – Paul shares some tech tips for separating personal and professional life. [11.40] Clients - How to work with overbearing clients? [13.26] Superiors – Paul explains how you can handle your superiors. [16.38] Open Communication – The importance of open communication between employer and employee. [20.06] Tech Rights – Paul explains how employee privacy rights differ significantly between public and private workplaces. [25.44] Tracking Software – Paul explains why he would advise against letting your employer put tracking software in your computer. [29.52] Focusing on work – Paul shares three tech tips you can use to focus on your work and prevent working on your personal time. Resources: Connect with Paul LinkedIn - linkedin.com/in/paul-secunda-a17228/ Website - walcheskeluzi.com/ Equipment Mentioned in the Podcast Fujitsu Scanners - thescannershop.com/fujitsu-scanners/ HP Printers - hp.com/us-en/shop/mdp/printers/laserjet-pro iPhone 15 Pro - apple.com/iphone-15-pro/ MacBook Air - apple.com/macbook-air/ Software & Services Mentioned in the Podcast Adobe Acrobat Reader - get.adobe.com/reader/ Clio - clio.com/ Sanebox - sanebox.com/ TurboScan - play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.piksoft.turboscan WordPerfect - wordperfect.com/en/ Transcript 00:00:00] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Episode 90, Balancing Your Use of Technology Between Your Work and Home with Labor and Employment Lawyer, Paul Secunda. [00:00:19] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Paul is a former Labor and Employment Law professor with 18 years of experience at two different law schools specializing in ERISA and Employee Benefits Law. He is now an attorney with Woltersky Luzzi, LLC. Paul's legal career has been devoted to litigating, teaching, and writing about workplace law issues, handling all aspects of the employment relationship, from reviewing employee handbooks and summary plan descriptions, to litigating complex class action cases, and submitting amicus briefs to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. [00:00:46] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Paul caught my attention with his law journal article, The Employee Right to Disconnect, after I come across California's recent Employee Right to Disconnect bill. This bill would require employers to create a written policy guaranteeing California employees the right to disconnect from work communications during non working hours. [00:01:01] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Join Paul and me as we discuss how employees, including lawyers, have rights and practical uses of technology in both their workplace and their private lives. Enjoy! [00:01:09] #Add Read #1: Consider giving us a five star review on Apple podcasts or wherever you get your podcast feeds. [00:01:09] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Have you been enjoying the techsavvylore. page podcast? Consider giving us a five star review on Apple podcasts or wherever you get your podcast feeds. [00:01:21] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Paul, welcome to the podcast. [00:01:23] Paul Secunda: Thank you for having me. [00:01:24] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: I appreciate you being here and to get things started, [00:01:26] Our Guest's Current Tech Setup! [00:01:26] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: please tell us what your current tech setup is. [00:01:28] Paul Secunda: Well, currently I'm working on a MacBook Air, about 11 inch screen and being assisted by the new iPhone 15 pro. [00:01:37] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Nice. And is your MacBook Air, is it an M1 chip or an M2, M3, or are we looking at an Intel processor? [00:01:43] Paul Secunda: This is from 2023, and I believe it's an M2 chip. [00:01:48] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Very nice. How do you like the speed? [00:01:50] Paul Secunda: The speed is much better than my previous iteration from 2019, which was a much slower processor, so I very much appreciate it. [00:01:59] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: So, I'm guessing that was an Intel chip? That is correct. So you should really notice like a boost. [00:02:04] Paul Secunda: And when you're working and jamming away at five different things at the same time, it really does make a difference as far as getting stuff done on a timely basis. [00:02:12] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: How has the battery been on that? [00:02:14] Paul Secunda: The battery's been okay. I would say I could go about three or four hours. But I'm on a high light and I am meaning I'm, I have a high brightness, I should say, and that seems to drain the battery, but I need that just to see things better, but I'm mostly plugged in most of the day. [00:02:31] Paul Secunda: So I don't really go without the plug, whether I'm at a deposition or whether even if I'm in the courtroom, I usually find a plug to plug in. So I haven't really had to test it that much. Do [00:02:43] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: you carry a backup battery with you? [00:02:44] Paul Secunda: I do not. [00:02:45] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: But I want to check out the anchor. Product line, they come up some really good backup batteries that are usually fairly light will fit in your suitcase or your briefcase. [00:02:52] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: I should say, [00:02:53] Paul Secunda: okay, well, I'm ready right now, [00:02:55] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: just sort of as an emergency. And if you go like on Amazon or something similar, I'm sure you'll find a deal at some point anchors had like 20 percent off. Here and there, and there's some good options. There's also of course other brands, but I would go with a reliable brand to make sure that the battery is made well, gonna last a while, and also doesn't cause some sort of like back feed, some sort of back charge by accident. [00:03:17] Paul Secunda: No, that's, that's really much appreciated because needless to say, that can be a lifesaver. [00:03:21] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: And any other tech that you use? [00:03:23] Paul Secunda: Well, I, I did mention the phone, but really I'm a fairly lean and mean operator, I guess. [00:03:29] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: So I have to ask, do you have a printer and do you use it a lot? [00:03:32] Paul Secunda: I tried to avoid printing out copies. [00:03:35] Paul Secunda: Can I use an app called TurboScan? In other words, I did take whatever I get in the mail or from others and put it in PDF form almost immediately. I digitize. And thereafter, whether I'm dealing with, let's say, a deposition, a court reporter, or various chambers, I try to stick mostly with PDF files. This is also true with dealing with opposing counsel. [00:04:01] Paul Secunda: We tend not to send things to each other by snail mail anymore. I send documents in discovery through servers and or digital files. [00:04:11] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Do you have a PDF reader of preference? [00:04:13] Paul Secunda: Adobe Acrobat. [00:04:14] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Okay. [00:04:15] Paul Secunda: Yeah, I use Word, Microsoft Word for my word process. [00:04:18] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: And you don't use Pages? Apple Pages? [00:04:21] Paul Secunda: Well, only when it, sometimes I get documents in Pages form. [00:04:26] Paul Secunda: Really? And so what I'll do, unusual, unusual, but what I'll do is I'll redo the format into Microsoft Word. It's what I'm comfortable operating in. [00:04:34] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: So I have to ask, the app that you use, when you get a lot of, Documents. I mean, isn't that a little time consuming to have to take a picture page by page by page? [00:04:43] Paul Secunda: Yeah. If I were to get a lot of documents, like a bundle, we'd feed it to the printer we do have in our office. Okay. And I would put it onto a thumb drive and then put it on my server that way. But if you're dealing with anything, let's say less than 25 pages, which is a lot of my documents, It's very handy. [00:05:01] Paul Secunda: It's very easy to use and the, the pages that are generated are very accurate and look good. [00:05:06] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Yeah. I use the Fujitsu scan snap, which is considered like a staple of any cell loan, small practitioners. It's an ADF on a document feeder that. Takes 50 pages at a time and could really move through a lot of documents. [00:05:20] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: When I started practice way back when I was dealing with a lot of large VA files, Department of Veterans Affairs files for my clients. And that could be like a thousand, two or three thousand pages. And that would just taking, of course, also back then the iPhones and other smartphones, PDF capture was not as good as it is today. [00:05:38] Paul Secunda: That is true. And so I guess I should say in talking about PACs, since you've brought up the printer, I am using a Let's see if I can find it here. An HP laser jet pro. You eight zero. Wow. Yeah. So [00:05:53] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: how many pages can you fit into the scanner of that printer? [00:05:56] Paul Secunda: I think the feeder is up to 50 pages. [00:05:58] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Cool. And you know about inkjet superstore, right? [00:06:01] Paul Secunda: I do, because we all know that inkjet could drive you into bank. [00:06:04] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Although I haven't had to order for them in like a couple of years, because since COVID, everything's really gone, really, really gone digital. [00:06:12] Paul Secunda: Yeah. And that's what I was trying to say, which is I really don't do unless it's sent to me. I am not one to send other people things by hard copy. [00:06:22] Paul Secunda: I really do try to avoid it, not just because it's inconvenient, but all that sustainability stuff as well. [00:06:27] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Gotcha. Gotcha. I'm with you on that. So you have an HP printer and what you have an all Apple. [00:06:34] Paul Secunda: No, this is very interesting. I'm the only person in my office who uses Apple, all the other partners that I have, of which there are four other partners on a HP slash Lenovo type of platform. [00:06:47] Paul Secunda: And so the way we handle that is we use a Clio, which is just a management software interacting with a Google business server, this kind of application. [00:06:58] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: So you have a Google business account, correct? And why don't you use. Google Docs versus Microsoft Word. [00:07:04] Paul Secunda: I just am a dinosaur, I guess. I've been in practice for 27 years and I just feel more comfortable. [00:07:11] Paul Secunda: It's not that I don't use Google Docs. I do. And in fact, some clients prefer to use Google Docs and I've I've certainly I have that capability, especially when we're working on documents together. It can be very, but if I'm writing a brief or if I'm writing other types of documents, I tend to feel just more comfortable in the Microsoft world when we're talking about something like that. [00:07:35] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Fair enough. Fair enough. So wait, you're not using WordPerfect. [00:07:37] Paul Secunda: I'm not using it. It's funny. I started my life using WordPerfect. When I was in college and law school, I was a WordPerfect guy, and somewhere in the late 90s, early 2000s, maybe when I became a law professor, which was in 2002, I started using Microsoft Word and never went back. [00:07:53] Paul Secunda: So at this point, it's been over two decades I've been on Microsoft Word. [00:07:57] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Do you believe that they still make WordPerfect and that some lawyers actually still use WordPerfect because of whatever little, the macros that they made, that they're afraid to start over again, which is amazing. [00:08:07] Paul Secunda: I have co counsel who use WordPerfect and Needless to say, we've come up with a way of interacting that doesn't get all sorts of codes and other problematic things in our documents. [00:08:17] Paul Secunda: But yes, there are a few people still out there. They're diehards, I would say. [00:08:20] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: How well does the conversion work between a WordPerfect document and a Microsoft Word document going back and forth with the file itself? [00:08:28] Paul Secunda: I would compare it to, have you ever used the converter on like an Adobe and gone to a Microsoft Word document? [00:08:34] Paul Secunda: Yes. So there are problems, right? You have to go through that document and take out codes and other types of information that is either wrong, or like, for instance, it messes up the footnotes, but you have to then remember the footnotes. So I would say it's very similar. I would say that you run into a lot of the same types of problems between Word Perfect and Word that you see between like Adobe and Word. [00:08:55] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: I commend you for you guys being able to work through that. [00:08:58] Paul Secunda: We are a. As a sole practitioner, you will understand that as a very small office, we do a lot of things on our own. We have no secretaries, no administrative assistants, no paralegals. We do our own work, and so when we do it, we try to do it in a way that is most comfortable for us individually. [00:09:17] Paul Secunda: But also we need to interact as a firm. So we're trying to have a tech balance there. If you will. [00:09:23] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Yeah. I used to use open office, but I had a paralegal law clerk who had been with me for a while. And it just became too much for her that ultimately ended up getting Microsoft office just because I wanted to sort of keep the peace. [00:09:35] Paul Secunda: But people have a lot of, this comes up also in the PowerPoint world. When you're used the Google version or with the spreadsheets, people are very comfortable with Excel. So fine. There's a comfort there for a lot of people, including myself. Yeah. Well, let's get into the questions. Yeah. Okay. Please. [00:09:53] Q?#1: What are the top three tech tips you would advise any lawyer to maintain a separation from work and personal time? [00:09:53] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: What are the top three tech tips you would advise any lawyer to maintain a separation from work and personal time? [00:09:59] Paul Secunda: Well, the first thing is to put down your darn phone, right? I mean, no one can contact you if you're not constantly getting push notifications by text or by email or by some chat feature. Put down your phone, turn it off. It's good for your mental health and it will be very hard for people to reach you. [00:10:17] Paul Secunda: Now, needless to say, a lot of people are not going to do that because they feel at least in emergency situations that they need to be contacted. Intactable. So if you're going to keep your phone on, which gets into number two, I would tell you to really evaluate what's being asked. And when I say evaluate, I mean, consider the duration of how long it will take to do what's being asked. [00:10:40] Paul Secunda: If it's something that will take you a minute or two, okay, no big deal. And if you're helping someone out, go do it. But if you're talking about hours and interrupting your sleep, then really, I think you, you need to write back to the person who is writing you and ask them. them the priority and what's involved that requires you to do this kind of after the whistle blows. [00:11:00] Paul Secunda: And the third thing I would say to you is talk honestly and openly during the work day with your colleagues, whether they be. Your superiors, your people who are at the same level, people who are your subordinates. Have an honest conversation about electronic communications after the day's over. Because I think a lot of people fail to do that, and sometimes there's just a misunderstanding that can be dealt with if done proactively. [00:11:28] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Well, how would you handle, say, an overbearing client? I think in the news, we're aware of at least one potential client like that, who expects to have his calls answered. at any time of the day. [00:11:38] Paul Secunda: Well, I think my same advice holds up. I think even with overbearing or maybe even anxiety laden people, because that's sometimes what you're talking about people who are just nervous and therefore overbearing, having an open, honest conversation at the beginning of that representation. [00:11:56] Paul Secunda: If you're Ernie or whatever business you're in and you have a client, set expectations. I think expectation setting is something that unfortunately doesn't happen because people are not having these basic conversations maybe the way they were 20, 30 years ago before the dawning of the age of social media. [00:12:12] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: What's interesting somewhat on the flip side, my day job, I represent veterans before the Department of Veterans Affairs. And one of my former clients called me on a Sunday, and I wasn't very, I wasn't necessarily happy about that. And I let it go to voicemail and I checked the voicemail if I recall this correctly, I believe I checked the voicemail. [00:12:29] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: I think he left me a voicemail and he was professing suicidal ideation, like eminent suicidal ideation. [00:12:35] Paul Secunda: And of course, you're not a mental health counselor. So I guess when you should have probably, I mean, I guess you did have to respond and try to get him to the appropriate person. [00:12:43] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: And that's what I spent a couple hours that night doing. [00:12:46] Paul Secunda: Well, that's obviously worth it. No one will tell you, you didn't do the right thing. But that's what I was saying in the beginning, if your phone's on, or if you're listening to your voicemail, evaluate it, I mean, needless to say there, there's nothing to evaluate. It's a life and death situation. It's easy. [00:13:00] Paul Secunda: You have to do what you had to do. But it's also needless to say that most employers who contact. Employees after hours don't do so in life and death situations. It's a matter of just feeling entitled to have your time and your attention even after the workday is over. [00:13:17] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: So I think you've kind of talked about how attorneys should handle clients. [00:13:21] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: How about handling their superiors? [00:13:23] Paul Secunda: Well, delicately, right? I mean, the problem is you have a power imbalance, right? Right. And one of the reasons in the article that I wrote back in 2018, 2019, the right to disconnect that I ended up focusing on occupational safety and health as opposed to wage and hours or autonomy or other bases, which you could make these kind of distinctions is because to me, workplace safety and health is a universal So. [00:13:51] Paul Secunda: Right and therefore a human right and therefore the idea is that power imbalances between different people in the workplace between bosses and subordinates should matter less or even if the boss doesn't realize then the subordinate has recourse either through Bringing up a regulation if it exists within your state, occupational and safety agency, or federally. [00:14:13] Paul Secunda: But at least it can be placed within a framework which your boss is hopefully going to at least acknowledge and discuss with you. [00:14:21] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: So the right to disconnect law that we're That kind of brought you to my attention. The one that came out in California or is coming out in California. I don't think it's passed yet. [00:14:30] Paul Secunda: No, it's just been introduced recently. [00:14:32] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: So are there any states that have this law? And what I'm kind of curious to know is if those that do, has any employer or say former employer been sued for violating that law? [00:14:42] Paul Secunda: So it did come up in New York a year or two ago. I'm not sure that really anywhere. I am not aware of any lawsuits over the right to disconnect. [00:14:51] Paul Secunda: One of the issues. And you see this with the California law, which has just been introduced by a democratic assemblyman out in California, is that they're trying to figure out how to implement it. Like, so for instance, California has a very stringent labor code that goes well on many states in the country. [00:15:08] Paul Secunda: And this is, this would be a state based law. But one of the things that relies upon is this wage and hour distinction, where if you're going to work Your work, you should get overtime. If you're going to put the hours in, you should get paid. No one should But the problem with that, of course, is not all workers are created equally under wage and hour law. [00:15:27] Paul Secunda: You have exempt workers and you have non exempt workers. And the exempt workers we usually refer to as salaried workers and the non exempt workers, you know, are hourly workers. So if you're an hourly worker, great, you work an additional two or three hours, you get an additional two or three hours of pay. [00:15:42] Paul Secunda: But if you're a salaried worker, and you're being paid a certain amount of year, no matter how many hours you work, and then you're putting over six hours a night extra, well, that can really add up. So I personally am not a fan of the California approach that is being considered right now, which, again, is based on this wage an hour idea, because I think out a number of workers. [00:16:04] Paul Secunda: I think it makes more sense if you want a universal right to go to the occupational safety and health route. [00:16:10] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Oh, interesting. [00:16:11] Paul Secunda: Yeah. [00:16:13] Ad Read #2: Consider Supporting the Show by Buying Us a Cup of Coffee or Two! [00:16:13] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Pardon the interruption. I hope you're enjoying the techsavvylary. page podcast as much as I enjoy making them. Consider buying us a cup of coffee or two to help defray some of the production costs. [00:16:21] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Thanks and enjoy. [00:16:23] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Well, let's go back to the question, though, because I think you've given us, I think, two answers. One, of course, is turn off your phone or don't have it with you. The second is better screening. [00:16:33] Paul Secunda: What would be their third? Well, I think the third is honest and open communication. I think if you are, again, it goes back to what we might call the third is expectation setting. [00:16:43] Paul Secunda: If you never talk to your employer about how you feel about them contacting you at 11pm at night, and then you start doing work at that time for them, don't be surprised when they ask you again a week or two later. Like, you've set that expectation. But on the other hand. It happens in the beginning, or if you can even address it as part of your beginning work with that employer, then it's less likely that the expectations would be misunderstood. [00:17:09] Paul Secunda: Look, I understand that American workers are suffering a huge power imbalance in the workplace. In this country, More than almost any other country in the world because we adhere to this employment at will flexibility for employers where you can be fired for a good reason, bad reason, no reason at all. [00:17:27] Paul Secunda: But on the other hand, I also understand that that's why we have laws and that's why if we can get something on the books that deals with the right to disconnect in a universal manner that applies to all employees. Hopefully employers will come over time to respect that kind of right that employees have to that time to themselves [00:17:47] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: what you don't pulling it back just a little bit more toward tech. [00:17:51] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: The one thing I'm surprised you haven't mentioned being an Apple user yourself is the focus modes that the Mac OS. IOS provide you, do you use that? [00:18:00] Paul Secunda: I have tried them in the past. You have purple mode, you have a sleep mode, you have a drive mode or just universal, do not disturb. I'm looking at it right now. [00:18:09] Paul Secunda: As you can also create your own focus modes. [00:18:12] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Oh, you can do a custom one too. [00:18:13] Paul Secunda: You can set up any custom mode you want. I found it distracting to be honest. I even in the car and the driving mode had been turning on automatically. I have a hands free. Voice only way of responding to, uh, text messages. And I enjoy that. [00:18:29] Paul Secunda: So I guess what I'm saying is, and maybe we should take a step back. I am not saying that there should be a blanket prohibition against people working after work. There are some people who, maybe like me and maybe like you, are workaholics and enjoy working after work. And they shouldn't be prevented. I don't want to become paternalistic here. [00:18:48] Paul Secunda: I'm not saying, even if you want to, I know better what you need and therefore you shouldn't do it. What I'm trying to say is, in a world of an imbalanced workplace between the power the employer has and the less power that employees have, there should be some kind of legal intervention, regulatory intervention that provides employees who want to have the right to be left alone when they go home at night. [00:19:13] Paul Secunda: So for me, and this goes to the Apple's various kind of focuses, I just found it distracting because I do want to interact with people at different times of the day. And even during sleep, I tried that, but then I found that there were people who, like my family, who needed to contact me and, It would have been nice to know if I had gotten up during the middle of the night, that there was something going on. [00:19:34] Paul Secunda: So I've turned them all off, to be honest. I, I did not enjoy them personally, but I could see how for others, the focus mode would make sense. [00:19:42] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Well, the focus mode definitely comes in handy when I'm recording. [00:19:45] Paul Secunda: Yeah, I can understand. [00:19:47] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Last thing I need is dings, alarms, bells and whistles and the phone going off in the middle of a recording. [00:19:53] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: But let's move on to question number two. Go ahead. [00:19:55] Q?#2: What Are the Top Three Tech Rights an Employee Has Qhen It Comes to Utilizing a Personal Tech Device for a BYOD Firm? [00:19:55] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: what are the top three tech rights an employee has when it comes to utilizing a personal tech device for a BYOD firm? [00:20:01] Paul Secunda: Yeah, I'm going to sound a little bit redundant here, but it's about expectations that in the privacy world. So in employee privacy, first of all, I have to separate the world into two different areas. [00:20:12] Paul Secunda: One is the public employment world, right? The other. Private employment world. In the public employment world, believe it or not, because the government is your employer, you have constitutional rights. They're not vibrant constitutional rights, but you do have the right under the Fourth Amendment, uh, which is the privacy amendment under the Constitution, and even under the First Amendment, uh, to a certain amount of autonomy and privacy in the public workplace. [00:20:36] Paul Secunda: Uh, and then you're saying, well, don't I have that in the private workplace? And the answer is, you don't. Definitively, no, you do not. And the problem is there is no state action in the private workplace and therefore under our state action based Constitution, you don't have a right to privacy just because of the constitution to the extent that you have privacy rights in the private workplace They're either granted to you statutorily or by the common law. [00:20:59] Paul Secunda: So statutorily, there are Now, in a number of states, somewhere between 10 and 15, what we call off duty conduct statutes, and basically off duty conduct statutes say is as long as you're engaged in legal, lawful, recreational activity outside the workplace, your employer has no business seeing you. Now, obviously, this becomes a little gray when you get into certain types of contact. [00:21:26] Paul Secunda: Maybe using marijuana on your own time, or engaging in certain, let us say, avant garde sexual types of proclivities. So, those have been litigated, and to be honest, the cases are all over the place. In the common law, there is, under the tort restatement, a right to be free from an invasion of privacy. And the invasion of privacy right comes in a lot of different flavors. [00:21:51] Paul Secunda: It can be akin to a defamation right, where people can't put you in a false light. Or it can be just a matter of autonomy. That your autonomy is sacred and People shouldn't interfere with what you consider your own private affairs. So in that situation, it goes back to what is your legitimate expectation of privacy? [00:22:10] Paul Secunda: If you're at your employer's brick and mortar business and you're in the bathroom, you have a fairly significant right to privacy, right? There's going to be very little reason that an employer should be spying on you on your bathroom breaks. On the other hand, if you're in your office and you're on your computer and they want to make sure that you're not engaging in Amazon shopping or other inappropriate activities, they can do a basic keystroke surveillance and that is considered acceptable if it's business based. [00:22:40] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: I want to pause you on that one specifically. So since we are more at a work from home right now and say the employee Perhaps a lawyer is working from home on their computer and they have to be button seat from like 8am to 5pm and they're working on whatever. Does the employer have a right to watch those same keystrokes and or more so put like certain monitoring software in the person's own personal computer? [00:23:09] Paul Secunda: I would say it depends on the expectations and the workplace policies that are in place. I mean, If you and your employee handbook have an electronic communications policy that says we will be keeping track of what you're doing during the day, we expect that you will only focus on our business during the workday, then that's a re, then, then an employee says, well, I didn't realize they were doing that when they signed an acknowledgement form saying I realized they were doing that. [00:23:37] Paul Secunda: That's problematic for the employee. A lot of employers, it goes without saying, including law firms, don't have electronic communication policies. Or if they do, they're much more narrow. Don't, don't surf porn. Don't, won't shop. But how about the in between when your kids call you or have to deal with something that's come up during the day that's almost akin to an errand? [00:23:58] Paul Secunda: That's less clear. And so, What I would say is, in my, I've been an employment lawyer for over 27 years now, and I would tell you, and mostly on the employee side, and I would tell you that, generally speaking, most employers do not have such restrictive workplace policies. If anything, as the employee becomes more sophisticated, has more discretion during the workday, like most attorneys, this isn't a huge issue. [00:24:25] Paul Secunda: It's more in. Kind of the warehouses, the blue collar workplace where employees are being monitored much more diligently. Take for instance, the Amazon drivers or even people who deliver packages for UPS or Federal Express. Right being very closely, not only because they want to keep track of where the packages are, but they want to make sure that you're not stopping off and getting a beer when you should be delivering the package to Mr and Mrs Jones. [00:24:53] Paul Secunda: So I really don't think there's a an answer I can give you. I mean, you could see how I kind of. Very lawyerly kind of divided the workplace. And then I said, well, even in the private, you have statutory protections and common law protections. And then even then it depends on what's in your workplace policies and what kind of expectations you've established with your workers, [00:25:14] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: but would you generally speaking without giving legal advice, would you advise someone who's like, all right, I don't want to specify lawyers, but you advise a lawyer. [00:25:25] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Who has a work from home policy to allow their boss to put on their personal computer, some sort of tracking software sites that they look at typing times logged in, et cetera. [00:25:39] Paul Secunda: Absolutely not. I would push back very hard against that. An unnecessary violation of my privacy and autonomy. And that's because I believe what lawyers do is not so necessarily only within the time bounds of the day. [00:25:52] Paul Secunda: I think lawyers, because of the discretion and the creativity they bring to their work, tend to do their work at various times of the day. So perhaps the right to disconnect means something different in our industry than it might mean Let's say in a blue collar industry, but I would advise if an employer said to an attorney, a young attorney, Hey, I understand you're going to be working remotely. [00:26:16] Paul Secunda: Please know that we're tracking you. I would say I'm going to look somewhere else. I don't know many firms that do that, to be honest, [00:26:23] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: but there was some articles. I remember a couple of years ago during COVID that they were employers were actively tracking some of their employees. And I'm talking about lawyers. [00:26:33] Paul Secunda: Yeah. I mean, There's an exception to every rule. I think it's, I think first of all, it leads to very low morale and less productivity. So I think it's foolhardy. I think if you're going to have professionals working for you, giving them independence and discretion is part of saying you trust and believe in them, but I'm not the employer and therefore people do all sorts of different things for different reasons. [00:26:54] Paul Secunda: I'm saying personally, and it's not legal advice. If someone came to me and said, Hey, I'm going to track you. I'd say, okay, well, I'm not working for you because to me, personal privacy and autonomy are important intangibles in my life. [00:27:09] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: So from the obvious of not looking at porn, not shopping, not looking at information to overthrow the government. [00:27:16] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Are there any other tech tips you might give employees when it comes to things they should obviously not do with devices that are BYOD or even if it's the employer's device? [00:27:28] Paul Secunda: Yeah, there are a lot of employees and actually this was very relevant because last week the Federal Trade Commission came out with a new proposed rule about getting rid of all covenants not to compete. [00:27:40] Paul Secunda: Needless to say, that will be tied up in litigation for the next two to three years. So any such rule will probably be enjoined until it's worked out by the courts. But needless to say, there are employers who have employees who have sensitive information which they have protect, whether it be through confidentiality provisions. [00:27:58] Paul Secunda: They can do it through non solicitation clauses or non competition clauses. And so what I would say to employees is again, make sure you understand what information you have that is protectable by your boss. I mean, in the law area, we're not allowed to have covenants, not to compete under our professional rules of conduct, but nevertheless, you are under an obligation under attorney, uh, client privilege and other privileges to keep things. [00:28:26] Paul Secunda: Confidential under also the model rules of professional conduct. So maybe law is kind of a little unique, but in, in other parts of the workplace, you have to understand that depending on the types of information you have, if you're dealing with pricing information or customer databases or trade secrets, then yeah, you don't want to be kind of dealing with that type of information without Providing some protection. [00:28:50] Paul Secunda: Let me give you an example in the legal. When I exchange Discovery as a litigator with other law firms, either the other law firm or I don't just send that information attached to an email, almost never. We always use a server which has dual authentication. So we make sure the person getting it is only getting it because they have a user ID and a password. [00:29:12] Paul Secunda: Plus they didn't have to authenticate. They are who they say they are. So that is the reality of whether you're using Dropbox or a lot of these large law firms these days have their own servers with the capability of sending out large swaths of documents. So. There's an example of where you just don't want to deal with sensitive documents in a way that they can be intercepted or used inappropriately. [00:29:38] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Let's move on to our last question. Sure. [00:29:40] Q?#3: What are Your Top Three Tech Tips to Ensure Focus at Work to Help Prevent Necessary Work During Personal Time? [00:29:40] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: What are your top three tech tips to ensure focus at work to help prevent necessary work during personal time? [00:29:46] Paul Secunda: Yeah, well, one we've already discussed, and this is a harder one, which is you can't turn necessarily your phone off, but what you can do is eliminate a lot of those push notifications. [00:29:56] Paul Secunda: This is from personal experience. Used to have every newspaper and every person possible able to kind of get through my screen and kind of tell me they're looking for me or want to sell me something, tell me about a new news tip. And what I would tell you is go to your notifications, whether you're on an app or another phone and really only limit them to the things that you really need. [00:30:19] Paul Secunda: And even with. And your text, you can set up VIP lists so that only those people who are most important in your family, your children, your spouse, whatever, can get in contact with you. I've done that increasingly. So that's number one. Number two, it's a matter of, Learning how to screen your text, emails and other information that you're looking at in a efficient manner. [00:30:44] Paul Secunda: I have, I use an Apple mail, right? And it has kind of a preview where within probably 5 to 10 seconds, I can tell from just when it comes up whether I need to deal with it now. An hour from now, tomorrow, a week from now, and then I categorize stuff that way using that technology. So that's number two. And then number three, I would say it's just a matter of focus, which is kind of funny to say. [00:31:10] Paul Secunda: I don't mean focus like the Apple tech focus, but you have all this technology coming at you through computers and phones and don't people use the telephones I'm told, but you have to focus. I mean, we are a society of attention. Deficit disorder. And I, I don't mean that cavalierly or in a flip way. I mean that honestly, as a society, we have trouble paying attention. [00:31:34] Paul Secunda: We're being pulled in a hundred different direction. And so this is where it's very unique to each person's individual circumstance. What allows you to focus for me? I can't have music on. I can't have other like talk radio or talk, whatever, because it's too, I need complete silence, but someone else Might be able to put on their air pods and put on some soft music in the background and that's the way they kind of tune other things out. [00:31:58] Paul Secunda: So my point is use tech to allow you to focus. That would be my third point. [00:32:03] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Well, I'm going to go back and pull a little bit on your last two answers. Your second answer, this is something I want to share. I use a service called SaneBox and it sort of adds onto your email. Are you familiar with it? I'm not. [00:32:17] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: So SaneBox is a monthly subscription. It's like 10 bucks a month. I think you'd have to double check. And what it does is it allows you to set special rules into your email. And quite frankly, like it works with all, like almost all different email server types, whether it's Gmail, whether it's personal, whether it's this or that or whatever. [00:32:35] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: And it works in the background, not on your computer, but on a server. And if you put, say, an email, like, a constant solicitation. Right. If you put it in the same black hole box, you'll never see that again. In other words, if they send you another one, you'll never see it again. So, I'm just Throw it in there just to help kind of declutter. [00:32:53] Paul Secunda: As opposed to unsubscribing from every unwanted piece of spam you get. [00:32:57] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Well, the problem with unsubscribing is you're telling them there's a warm body there. [00:33:02] Paul Secunda: Yeah, and then that gives them more incentive to try to get in contact with you. [00:33:06] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Whether it's through that in particular email or perhaps like a different service they may be working with as well. [00:33:12] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: So it opens you up to more spam email. But it also has some neat tricks to it like saying. Tomorrow, say next week, so that it doesn't stay in your inbox right now, but it goes, disappears for a day or a week or three hours or until 5 p. m. and then it repopulates to help manage. And like, it also, there's some other functions I'm probably not remembering, but I encourage you to take a look at it. [00:33:36] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Somewhat of a godsend for me because Lord knows I'm getting more and more. Spam and I no longer answer my own phone because half the calls are not business. Right. Yeah. The other thing I do, you know, you talk about focusing at work and as a small and solo practitioner, you're sort of like the, you wear many hats. [00:33:55] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: And when I have to focus on writing a brief, what I'll do sometimes. Or often is I will take my laptop and I'll go to a Starbucks or coffee shop and just plant myself there for like an hour and a half or two hours and I can usually pop out some solid writing and I'm not constantly being interrupted by everything else that's going on around here. [00:34:15] Paul Secunda: That makes a lot of sense too. [00:34:16] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: And if it's too noisy in there, I just pop in my Apple AirPod Pro Mac to the headphones, and I can drown out most of the noise, but I'm usually pretty good about drowning out noise around. [00:34:27] Paul Secunda: Yeah, well, that's a good, that's a good skill to have, I have to say. [00:34:31] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Yeah, the only thing I can't deal with is screaming children and crashes. [00:34:36] Paul Secunda: Yeah. [00:34:37] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: No offense to parents out there. [00:34:39] Paul Secunda: Yeah, I can't help you with that one, but yeah, I understand. [00:34:42] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Excellent. Paul, I wanna thank you for being here. [00:34:44] Where You Can Find Our Guest! [00:34:44] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Please tell us where people can find you. [00:34:46] Paul Secunda: They can find me online at kunda E-S-E-C-U-N-D-A. Mm-Hmm at zeke luzi.com. It's a difficult Wisconsin name, so I'm gonna spell it. [00:34:55] Paul Secunda: W-A-L-C-H-E-S-K-E-L-U-Z i.com. That is the name of the law firm I'm at in the Milwaukee, Wisconsin area. And my email and contact information is there. And if you'd like to hear more about the right to disconnect or any other employment law topics, feel free to give me a ring. [00:35:13] Paul Secunda: I will be sure to have all that in the show notes. [00:35:15] Paul Secunda: And if there's anything else you'd like to share, please feel free to send it to me before we publish. But again, Paul, I want to thank you for being here. [00:35:21] Paul Secunda: It's a pleasure, Michael. So nice to talk to you today. Likewise. [00:35:24] Thank You for Listening and Join Us in Two Weeks for a New Episode! [00:35:24] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Thank you for joining me on this episode of the techsavvylawyer. page podcast. Our next episode will be posted in about two weeks. [00:35:30] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: If you have any ideas about a future episode, please contact me at michaeldj at the techsavvylawyer. page. Have a great day and happy lawyering.

In this episode, we delve into a mix of intriguing legal and travel-related issues. First, we explore the implications of renouncing U.S. citizenship and the subsequent requirements for registry when visiting as an EU citizen. We then dissect a pivotal Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision, which impacts parental contact during supervised release, shedding light […]

The Department of Justice has weighed into the Line 5 pipeline dispute, saying Enbridge Energy has been trespassing for more than 10 years. The 70-page brief filed in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals says about 12 miles of Line 5 crosses the Reservation of the Bad River Band in northern Wisconsin. The 645-mile pipeline stretching from Superior, Wisconsin to Sarnia, Canada, pumps about 540,000 gallons of hydrocarbons daily across the lakebed of Lake Michigan. Full story: https://www.thecentersquare.com/michigan/article_da16e7e2-f75c-11ee-9dd5-47e3ff66e257.html --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/michigan-in-focus/support

Today we welcome back Adam Barber with Martin Heller Potempa & Sheppard here in Nashville, Tennessee. Adam was born and raised in the suburbs of Detroit, MI. and received his undergraduate degrees in Finance and Economics from Grand Valley State University in 2009, his Juris Doctorate and his Master's in Environmental Law and Policy from Vermont Law School in 2012. In 2015, Adam was appointed as the Probate Master for Nashville and Davidson County under Judge Randy Kennedy. During his tenure as the Probate Master, Adam presided over the financial aspects of conservatorships, estates, trusts, and other matters in the Seventh Circuit Court for Nashville and Davidson County. During his tenure as probate master, Adam helped recover hundreds of thousands of misappropriated funds in estates, conservatorships, guardianships, and trusts. In 2019, Adam joined the team at Martin Heller Potempa & Sheppard with a primary focus on probate administration and litigation. Adam's path as the probate master has provided him with unique knowledge for his clients as he monitored the thousands of cases filed each year in the Seventh Circuit Court of Nashville and Davidson County. Adam has had the privilege to speak at several Continued Learning Education programs as a member of the judiciary and as a private sector attorney. Thank you Adam for joining us!    Adam Barber: abarber@mhpslaw.com Learn more about Martin, Heller, Potempa, Sheppherd, PLLC: https://www.mhpslaw.com If you have any questions please email us at podcast@wilsongrouprealestate.com. We look to answer these requests in future episodes! Let's Connect: Instagram: instagram.com/movinguppodcast/ Facebook: facebook.com/TheWilsonGroupRealEstate Learn about Studio Bank: studiobank.com Learn about ATA Certified Public Accountants & Business Advisors: atacpa.net David Hart, dhart@atacpa.net

Bishop reviews the latest filing in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals challenge to Illinois' gun and magazine ban. Read more here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/15MAAQ0WrZ8AhAlh-t2t9UU4BqpBBwC8c/view?usp=sharing

Bishop reviews the latest filing in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals challenge to Illinois' gun and magazine ban. Read more here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/15MAAQ0WrZ8AhAlh-t2t9UU4BqpBBwC8c/view?usp=sharing --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/bishoponair/support

Bishop reviews the latest in the legal challenge of Illinois gun and magazine ban with the U.S. Supreme Court denying an emergency injunction with several cases consolidated in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/bishoponair/support

Bishop reviews the latest in the legal challenge of Illinois gun and magazine ban with the U.S. Supreme Court denying an emergency injunction with several cases consolidated in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) and the Minnesota-Wisconsin Baptist Convention (MWBC) signed onto a friend-of-the-court brief filed Monday (May 8) that urged the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago to rule parents have legal standing to contest the guidance of the Eau Claire (Wis.) Area School District; Lifeway Christian Resources and B&H Español were named Publisher of the Year by the Spanish Evangelical Publishers Association (SEPA) at its annual awards ceremony held April 20, 2023, in Miami, Florida; For the second straight year, baptisms and giving increased among Southern Baptist congregations.

Bishop gets the latest out in the filings responding the stay put on an injunction of Illinois' gun and magazine ban in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/bishoponair/support

Bishop gets the latest out in the filings responding the stay put on an injunction of Illinois' gun and magazine ban in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Bishop reviews the latest reaction to Illinois' gun and magazine ban being restored after the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay on the Southern District Court's preliminary injunction.

Bishop reviews the latest reaction to Illinois' gun and magazine ban being restored after the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay on the Southern District Court's preliminary injunction. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/bishoponair/support

On Tuesday, 12 jurors handed down a guilty verdict to the four defendants in the ComEd bribery trial. Though a big win for the prosecutors, the fight is long from over as the case will likely head to Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Reset hears the latest from a WBEZ political reporter, Dave McKinney, and what's next for the defendants and former House Speaker Michael Maddigan, who is set to begin his trial on April 1, 2024.

The US Department of Justice is being ordered by a federal judge to propose redactions to the affidavit used to get a search warrant on former President Donald Trump's home in Florida. The DOJ has one week to black out the parts of the document that the government says will compromise its investigation and expose witness identities. As the DOJ fights release of the affidavit, anonymous leakers from inside the agency are attempting to craft a narrative. While the leaks have helped paint a picture, it might not be the one that officials want the public to see. The Federalist's senior legal correspondent, Margot Cleveland is an attorney, former permanent law clerk for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and professor. She pieces together the timeline of the raid and argues it shows a partisan "witch hunt" against the former President. She says the intent was to use a dispute over document possession to induce a grand jury investigation - which could allow the government to find criminal charges unrelated to the actual documents.    Get exclusive content here!: https://thepetekalinershow.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In a groundbreaking 8-3 decision, the full Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation violates federal civil rights law. This came after Lambda Legal urged the Court to reverse a lower court ruling and allow Kimberly Hively to present her case alleging that Ivy Tech Community College, where she worked as an instructor for 14 years, denied her full time employment and promotions and eventually terminated her employment because she is a lesbian. Listen in as Senior Counsel Greg Nevins and Former Chief Strategy Officer and Legal Director Sharon McGowan discuss the years long process to get to this case. Link to read the full episode transcript, here. For more information on Making the Case and to access our resource hub on each episode and case, please visit: https://www.lambdalegal.org/makingthecase Making the Case with Lambda Legal is a short form interview series featuring Lambda Legal attorneys discussing impactful cases and policy work. Lambda Legal has a rich history of successfully litigating some of the most consequential lawsuits impacting LGBTQ+ and HIV civil rights over its nearly 50-year existence. Through the interviews, listeners will learn about the creative strategies, unique challenges, and passion necessary to win. Listeners will walk away with a clear understanding of each cases legacy and impact as well as how those cases left a mark on the law and on hearts and minds. Check out more resources for episode three, here. This podcast is intended to serve as general information; it is not legal advice nor intended as legal advice. For individual legal advice, please contact an attorney. If you need information and resources relating to discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, and HIV status please visit our help desk at: https://www.lambdalegal.org/helpdesk Producer: Erika Kramer (@goforkramer) Host: Alex Berg (@itsalexberg) Sound Recording and Mixing: Erik Monical of Mouth Media Network Logo Design: Michelle Holme Music: Meghan Rose (@meghanrose) See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week's Guest is Rob Henneke, Executive Director at the Texas Public Policy Foundation (www.texaspolicy.com) plus Best of Liberty & Justice with guests Jack Whitver, Iowa Senate Majority Leader (whitverforiowa.com) , David Urban (@davidjurban on Twitter), Doug Collins (https://salempodcastnetwork.com/podcasts/the-doug-collins-podcast) and Kevin Hassett (https://www.hoover.org/profiles/kevin-hassett).This week's show sponsor: SAVE MISSOURI VALUES PACThe Honorable Robert Henneke is the Executive Director and General Counsel at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.Before joining the Foundation, Robert served as the twice-elected Kerr County Attorney where he brought conservative values to county government. Robert began his legal career serving as an Assistant Attorney General in the General Litigation division under the leadership of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. Robert has appeared on national news shows, such as Fox News, Fox Business, MSNBC, and others. His commentaries have been published in USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Fox News, Forbes, The Washington Examiner, The Hill, and other national publications.He is a member of the State Bar of Texas and is admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Federal District Courts in the Eastern, Western, Northern and Southern Districts of Texas, and the Eastern District of Michigan.Robert received his law degree from the University of Texas School of Law. He earned his undergraduate degree in English Literature from Georgetown University. Robert graduated from Tivy High School in Kerrville, Texas. He lives in Austin with his wife Lesley and their two sons and is an Eagle Scout. Robert was a 2019 Texas Lawyer Attorney of the Year Finalist.This week's show sponsor: SAVE MISSOURI VALUES PACMatthew G. Whitaker was acting Attorney General of the United States (2018-2019).  Prior to becoming acting Attorney General, Mr. Whitaker served as Chief of Staff to the Attorney General. He was appointed as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa by President George W. Bush, serving from 2004-2009. Whitaker was the managing partner of Des Moines based law firm, Whitaker Hagenow & Gustoff LLP from 2009 until rejoining DOJ in 2017. He was also the Executive Director for FACT, The Foundation for Accountability & Civic Trust, an ethics and accountability watchdog, between 2014 and 2017.   Mr. Whitaker is Author of the book--Above the Law, The Inside Story of How the Justice Department Tried to Subvert President Trump.Mr. Whitaker graduated with a Master of Business Administration, Juris Doctor, and Bachelor of Arts from the University of Iowa.  While at Iowa, Mr. Whitaker was a three-year letterman on the football team where he received the prestigious Big Ten Medal of Honor.Mr. Whitaker is now a Co-Chair of the Center for Law and Justice at America First Policy Institute and  a Senior Fellow at the American Conservative Union Foundation. Matt is on the Board of Directors for America First Legal Foundation and is a Senior Advisor to IronGate Capital Advisors. He is also Of Counsel with the Graves Garrett law firm.  Whitaker appears regularly to discuss legal and political issues on Fox News, Newsmax and other news outlets.  He splits his time between Iowa, Florida and Washington, D.C.

Charlie Wysong is a partner with Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd. He counsels and represents clients on a wide range of legal issues, with a focus on civil rights, labor and employment litigation, whistleblower and qui tam claims, education law, and complex business litigation. He actively litigates in state and federal court, including appeals before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and Illinois Appellate Court. He also represents clients before administrative agencies such as the Illinois State Board of Education, Illinois Department of Human Rights, and National Labor Relations Board. Learn more: https://www.hsplegal.com

Charlie Wysong is a partner with Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd. He counsels and represents clients on a wide range of legal issues, with a focus on civil rights, labor and employment litigation, whistleblower and qui tam claims, education law, and complex business litigation. He actively litigates in state and federal court, including appeals before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and Illinois Appellate Court. He also represents clients before administrative agencies such as the Illinois State Board of Education, Illinois Department of Human Rights, and National Labor Relations Board. Learn more: hsplegal.com

Today we discuss probates, trusts, and estates with attorney, Adam Barber with Martin Heller Potempa & Sheppard here in Nashville, Tennessee. Attorney Adam Barber was born and raised in the suburbs of Detroit, MI. Adam received his undergraduate degrees in Finance and Economics from Grand Valley State University in 2009, his Juris Doctorate and his Master's in Environmental Law and Policy from Vermont Law School in 2012. In 2015, Adam was appointed as the Probate Master for Nashville and Davidson County under Judge Randy Kennedy. During his tenure as the Probate Master, Adam presided over the financial aspects of conservatorships, estates, trusts, and other matters in the Seventh Circuit Court for Nashville and Davidson County. During his tenure as probate master, Adam helped recover hundreds of thousands of misappropriated funds in estates, conservatorships, guardianships, and trusts. In 2019, Adam joined the team at Martin Heller Potempa & Sheppard with a primary focus on probate administration and litigation. Adam's path as the probate master has provided him with unique knowledge for his clients as he monitored the thousands of cases filed each year in the Seventh Circuit Court of Nashville and Davidson County. Adam has had the privilege to speak at several Continued Learning Education programs as a member of the judiciary and as a private sector attorney.   Let's Connect: Instagram: instagram.com/movinguppodcast/ Facebook: facebook.com/TheWilsonGroupRealEstate podcast@wilsongrouprealestate.com Learn about Studio Bank: studiobank.com Adam Barber: abarber@mhpslaw.com Learn more about Martin, Heller, Potempa, Sheppherd, PLLC: https://www.mhpslaw.com  

Tonight we are taking the train back to true-crimeville. Unsolved as per the usual, the case, or cases if you will, also has a crazy connection to one of our own here in the midnight train family. First we are going to talk about the Springfield 3. The Springfield 3 is an unsolved missing persons case that began on June 7, 1992, when friends Suzanne "Suzie" Streeter and Stacy McCall, and Streeter's mother, Sherrill Levitt, went missing from Levitt's home in Springfield, Missouri. Then we are going to roll into a talk about a giant hunk of shit named Larry Dewayne Hall. And in our discussion of Mr. Hall we shall get to the personal connection to us at the train! So without further ado… Let's get into today's episode!   29 years ago Suzie Streeter, 19, her mother Sherill Levitt, 47, and her friend Stacy McCall, 18 disappeared without a trace from their central Springfield home. Authorities have gathered many theories to explain what could have happened. Some people have even gone as far as blaming alien abduction and the rapture. Can't we go a single unsolved true crime episode without an alien abduction theory?    Anyways, the day before the three went missing, the two girls were celebrating. They had graduated from highschool that day and were planning on going to a friend's house for a party later that day. The two initially intended to head to their friend Janelle Kirby's house, but it was too crowded, and instead, they went back to the home Streeter shared with her mother, Sherrill Levitt. The next day the girls were supposed to meet up with Kirby and her boyfriend to go to a water park. They did not show up at Kirby's house so Kirby and her boyfriend went to the girl's house to see what was going on. They assumed the girls had just overslept.  When they got to the house the girls were not there and there was no sign of the mother either. When they arrived at the home, Kirby found the front door unlocked and entered the house to find it empty despite the women's cars still being outside. The family dog, however, was present and was described as agitated. Kirby also noticed that the porch light was smashed and there was glass everywhere. She decided to go ahead and clean up and unfortunately, not realizing it, may have destroyed some evidence while cleaning the mess. Kirby and her boyfriend started to look around the house and the phone rang. Kirby answered the phone call and said that the call was full of "sexual innuendo". She hung up and then another call came through and it was basically the same as the first. A few hours later, McCall's mother arrived at the property after she failed to reach her daughter on the phone. She noted Suzie's clothes, purse and cigarettes were still in the house and decided to call the police. While doing so, she noticed there was a message on the answering machine. Listening to it, she later described it as "strange" but inadvertently deleted it. Police believe the message may have contained evidence and it was unconnected to the sexual calls made when Kirby was present, which are largely dismissed as a prank.    It was now 16 hours since the two girls had been confirmed to have been seen. The mother had been last heard from at 11:15 the night before when she had called a friend of hers. When Kirby first accessed the property at 9 a.m., more and more friends and relatives came looking for their loved ones, with up to 20 people walking through the house. The crime scene became utterly compromised, and, needing a warrant, police were unable to enter until June 8. By June 9, they had called the FBI.    "The only thing unusual about this house was that three women were missing from it," retired Springfield Police Capt. Tony Glenn told News-Leader in 2006. "You had this feeling as you looked around that something was missing, that something had to be missing. But there wasn't. Just them."   Regardless, there was very little evidence at the property, with no signs of a struggle or blood present. All three women owned a car, and all three vehicles were still present; Levitt's blue Corsica was in the carport, Streeter's red Ford Escort and McCall's Toyota Corolla were in the circle drive. The keys were all in the house. Their purses were at the bottom of the stairs, and an inviting graduation cake was waiting in the fridge.   Meanwhile, Levitt's bed had been slept in, and her book was even turned over on the nightstand, ready to be resumed. The two young women had also certainly gotten prepared for bed, washing their make-up off and leaving their jewelry by the basin. McCall left her shorts and placed them by Streeter's waterbed, and given that no other clothing appeared to be missing, she is likely to have vanished in just a t-shirt and underpants. The only sign of any disturbance at all was the shattered porch light. The possibility exists that the light was deliberately broken to draw Levitt, Streeter and McCall out of the house just after the two young women arrived home, or another deception was used to the same effect, yet that can only be speculation.   Thousands of posters went up throughout Springfield. Police logged 5,200 tips in the case and gave polygraphs to numerous people. They searched woods and fields throughout the Ozark area and made inquiries in 21 states. All to little avail.   One potential piece of evidence was a letter left at a News-Leader rack at Smitty's. The letter had a drawing of the Bolivar Road Apartments with the phrase "use Ruse of Gas Man checking for Leak" written on. What it may have meant is unknown.   An image of a transient man in the area was distributed, as was a photo of a retouched dodge van seen by the home on June 7. The van is seemingly crucial to the case as an eyewitness claims to have seen Streeter driving a green Dodge later in the day on June 7 and, apparently under duress, a male voice telling her not to do anything stupid. Another witness reported seeing the van with a blonde female driver at a local grocery store and was suspicious enough to write down the license plate on a newspaper. Unfortunately, he threw the newspaper away before contacting authorities.   The hunt for the three women was relentless, with police logging 1,632 hours of overtime on the case over ten days, theorizing the transient might have been involved or the answer lay in the background of Sherrill Levitt.   A new lead appeared on June 24 when a waitress came forward to say the three missing women had been at George's Steakhouse between 1 a.m., and 3 a.m., with earlier evidence on the timing of the younger women's movements suggesting this is likely to have been near the end of that window. The witness said Streeter appeared to be drunk, and her mother tried to calm her. The sighting has never been confirmed.   Going nowhere, the investigation was featured on the Dec. 31 edition of "America's Most Wanted" and produced 29 calls. One stood out above the others when a caller claimed he had information about the three disappearances. However, attempts to link the caller with investigators failed, as he became spooked and hung up. Police appealed for him to get in touch again, but he never did, and his identity remains a mystery.   Another program, "48 Hours," shadowed police for weeks as they investigated the case, showing pictures from the search and officers sifting through the many leads. Nothing led to a workable angle, and the case went cold. Five years later, Springfield police announced it could no longer justify the money spent on the matter, officially shutting the case down.   Ok so that's fucking odd… Three women just disappeared. No signs of a struggle… No robbery… No blood.. everything left in place. Maybe it was aliens!   No you may be asking yourself...but guys… There's gotta be a suspect or something, well we found a couple.   Here's what we found:   Gerald Carnahan: A businessman, he was convicted in the 1985 killing of Jackie Johns 25 years after it happened. He has ties to Springfield and a long history of legal troubles including: Jan. 13, 1994, second-degree burglary of a business, two-year prison sentence;   -- Jan. 13, 1994, stealing from that business, four-year prison sentence;   -- Jan. 13, 1994, arson at that business, three-year prison sentence;   -- Jan. 10, 1994, attempted kidnapping of a girl in Springfield in 1993;   -- June 1, 1994, assault of a law enforcement officer, 11 months in county jail;   -- June 1, 1994, unlawful use of a weapon, one-year prison sentence; and   -- other prison sentences for attempted kidnapping and tampering with evidence. So, he's an all around, grade A butthole   Then there's Dustin Recla, Michael Clay and Joseph Riedel: Recla is the ex-boyfriend of Streeter who told police he wanted her dead because she gave officers a statement about the men, who were charged with the felony institutional vandalism of a cemetery in February 1992. Which seems a bit excessive to want to kill someone over. Riedel is accused of breaking into a mausoleum at Springfield's Maple Park Cemetery on Feb. 21 1992 and stealing a skull and some bones. Police have said Dustin Recla sold 26 grams of gold teeth fillings from the skull at a Springfield pawn shop for $30. So, these jerks were working together, breaking into graves and stealing their gold fillings. In the early 90s.    Steven Garrison:   Garrison told police a friend had confessed to killing the three women during a drunken party. He told police information unknown to the public that led investigators to serve three search warrants at two sites in western Webster County; that info was that they would find the women's bodies and clues about their abduction and deaths. He also said a moss green van believed used to take the women would be found about 12 miles away, south of Fordland.   The property searched was the same site where in 1990 LE searched for two of three missing Springfieldians. Property owner Francis Lee Robb Sr. pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree murder in a case authorities said at the time they believed involve a drug deal gone awry.   Garrison was believed enough that a gag order concerning the three search warrants was issued by a judge.“…certain aspects of the information we received fit with other (private) aspects of the case,” Springfield Police Capt. Todd Whitson said. Whitson said the gag order was rare, but he could not say why it was issued,“other than to say there is such an order, and it governs the operation and everything related to the operation out here.” Added Webster County Sheriff C.E. Wells:“We can't tell you anything about it until the order's lifted.”   Garrison is serving 40 years in prison for raping, sodomizing and terrorizing a female Springfield college student in the summer of 1993.   After tracking him and several associates almost exclusively for more than a year, police have since backed off Garrison. But not all the way off. They last approached him last summer. Six months ago, investigators looked to Colorado for information on Garrison, who is in a Missouri prison.   "They've never let up on me," Garrison says.   But even with all these buttholes on the list, there is one main suspect that the police and many others like in this case, Robert Craig Cox. It's always about Cox on this fucking show…   In 1995, Cox was arrested for holding a gun on a 12-year-old girl in Decatur, Texas. He is presently serving a life sentence for that robbery and a consecutive 15-year federal sentence.    Robert Craig Cox was convicted of killing a 19-year-old Florida woman who was somehow intercepted while driving home from work at Disney World one night in 1978. Cox - who lived in Springfield the summer of 1992 - walked away from death row in 1989 after the Florida Supreme Court said the jury didn't have enough evidence to convict him.   Through the years, Cox has toyed with Springfield police - saying he knows the women are dead and that they're buried near the city. Having discovered that Cox lied about his alibi on the morning of June 7, 1992, officials are skeptical about his claims. Cox declined to be interviewed by the News-Leader, but in recent letters to the newspaper, he acknowledges police consider him a suspect and that years ago he worked as a utility locator in south-central Springfield. Get that? Remember the “gas ruse” note??   Robert Craig Cox was convicted in 1988, of first degree murder, in the 1978 beating death of Sharon Zellers, 19, an employee of Walt Disney World.  The case was weak, and Cox was not charged until eight years after the murder. Cox and his family were staying at a motel in Orlando where the victim's body was found. He had a cut on his tongue, and hair and blood samples found near the victim were compatible with his. Cox testified he bit through his tongue during a fight.   The Florida Supreme Court reversed Cox's conviction, ruling that, at best, the evidence created “only a suspicion” of guilt. The court ordered his acquittal and release from death row in1990    He was immediately taken into custody to complete a prison sentence in California for an unrelated 1985 kidnapping. Then he returned to his boyhood home of Springfield, Mo., where he came under suspicion — but was never charged — in the 1992 disappearance of the three females. Texas police also questioned him about an abduction in Plano. In 1995, Cox was arrested for holding a gun on a 12-year-old girl during a robbery in Decatur, Texas. He is serving a life sentence for that robbery and is not eligible for parole until 2025.  A couple years After being sent to prison in 1995, Cox claimed he knew what happened to the three women. Cox claimed all three had been murdered and buried, taunting that their bodies would never be found. Cox was living in Springfield at the time of the murders and didn't claim to be the killer, saying he was in church that morning as corroborated by his girlfriend.   However, that would not discount his involvement earlier in the morning, and in any case, the girlfriend later recanted her statement and said Cox asked her to lie for him. Cox said he was at his parents' home when asked where he was earlier, which was again corroborated.   Police remain uncertain as to Cox's involvement with the crimes, observing that he only ever tells them enough for them to believe he knows something but never enough to incriminate himself. Some believe Cox is merely seeking infamy through a false confession. For his part, Cox said he will reveal the truth once his mother dies, but the bodies are buried somewhere around Springfield. wow what a stand up fella. Someone kill that old lady! I'm kidding… Can we at least fake her death??   Also one more interesting tidbit. In 2007, investigators revealed they'd received a tip that the bodies were buried in the foundations of the Cox Hospital parking lot. (yay more Cox) That same year, crime reporter Kathee Baird had a corner of the parking lot scanned with ground-penetrating radar and found three anomalies. However, it remains doubtful that the site is the burial location as construction didn't begin there until September 1993, over a year after the disappearances. Equally, the tip came not from anyone connected with a burial but somebody professing psychic abilities. So there's that…   While the claims of Cox possibly have merit, there is no evidence to say for sure. Despite 50,000 tips from the public, the case remains unsolved, and with nearly 30 years having now passed, the case of the Springfield Three may never actually be resolved.   Ok so by now you may have forgotten that there is a personal connection to this case. You're kind of getting a twofer today.    Let's talk about another fine upstanding citizen, scratch that, a huge giant hunk of shit, Larry DeWayne Hall. Larry DeWayne Hall was born on December 11th 1962 in Wabash, Indiana, US. He was born 2nd of 2 children and raised by both parents. He was raised as a youngest child and had one older (by a few seconds) twin brother, Gary Hall. His father, Robert Hall, was an abusive alcoholic. His mother, a homemaker. His father abused alcohol and/or drugs. He had a speech defect. During his education he had academic, social or discipline problems, including being teased or picked on. Larry DeWayne Hall was physically and psychologically abused at some point of his life. Sound like the makings of a serial killer, what say ye passengers!   Police believe that Hall, 54, may have killed 30 to 40 women. He's confessed to rapes, murders and abductions of women all over the Midwest to reporters, book authors and police investigators. He was convicted in federal court of abducting and raping a 15-year-old Illinois girl.   But he's never been convicted of murder.   Hall is serving a life sentence in federal prison in North Carolina for the 1993 kidnapping of school girl Jessica Roach, whose ravaged body was found in a cornfield. She had been out riding her bicycle. In Hall's confession, which was read to the jury, he admitted that he raped Jessica and strangled her with a belt, the ends of which he held from behind a tree where the child was forced to sit so he wouldn't have to see her face. He was not tried for murder because the teenager's remains were mangled by a farmer's combine to the extent that a cause of death could not be determined. HOLY HELL!! That's a new and extremely disturbing one on this show, folks.  Without a cause of death, the case was transferred to federal court and Hall was charged with bringing a minor across state lines for purposes of sex.   However, in 1996, the federal Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago ruled that Hall should be given a new trial because the trial judge erred by not allowing the testimony of a psychologist that Hall's mental condition led him to falsely confess, to please police. He was convicted again at a second trial and sentenced to life without parole.   Hall also confessed to police to killing 20-year-old Laurie Depies after abducting her in Menasha in northern Wisconsin. But he was never charged in connection with her 1992 disappearance, even though he said he killed her and scraps of paper were found in his van on which he had written “Lori” and “Fox River Mall,” where Depies worked. Authorities said they could not corroborate his confession, a legal requirement to bring murder charges.   The strange, 30-year odyssey of Larry Hall, a twin who once lived in an Indiana cemetery and wandered the Midwest in a van, involved occasionally attending Civil War re-enactments dressed as a Union soldier, and toying with police despite a low IQ of 85, according to a police report. Hall sent a letter to author Christopher H. Martin, who is from Hall's hometown of Wabash, Indiana. Martin wrote a book about Hall's alleged murderous sprees titled, “Urges: A Chronicle of Serial Killer Larry Hall.”   On page 39 of the book, Paulette Webster, 19, is listed as a victim. She was walking to a local bowling alley to meet a friend when she disappeared. Hall's letter to Martin was taunting, noting that, “If I did it, I would have put her in a river or in a field.”   Eulalia “Lolly” Chavez was found in a field near Summerfield.   Paulette's mother, Mary Webster, 68, said she and her husband William first learned about Hall when Martin visited them, around 2010. Martin had the letter from Hall, but Mary Webster declined to look at it.   Hall also confessed to a television reporter that he killed and sexually mutilated Chavez, who was known for years as the Summerfield Jane Doe until her exhumation in 2008 led to her identification. He later recanted.   St. Clair County Sheriff Rick Watson recently revived an investigation involving Hall and the murder of Chavez, which happened 31 years ago.   So where are we going with this? Well well tell you.    Larry was also a suspect in the Springfield 3 disappearances after his twin brother, who people claim looked exactly like Larry, said his brother claimed to have murdered the three women. They were in the area for a civil war reenactment at the time of the disappearances. Twin brothers that traveled around the country doing Civil War Reenactments, known serial killers. Larry claims his brother Gary was stalking one of the teens that night. There are many that believe both men were involved as it would have been hard for one man to subdue and kidnap and murder three women at once. The disappearances fit Larry's mo. And he's a giant piece of shit that's definitely capable. So that brings us full circle to the disappearance of Tricia Reitler. The following details of her disappearance we're taken from the Charley project. Org website:    Reitler was a freshman psychology major at Indiana Wesleyan University in Marion, Indiana in 1993. She was a good student with a high grade point average. She was last seen at approximately 8:00 p.m. on March 29, 1993.   Reitler was writing a term paper that evening, and decided to take a break. She walked to Marsh Supermarket, which was approximately half a mile from the university's campus. She purchased a soda and a magazine and left the store, intent on returning to her dormitory in Bowman Hall.   She never made it there and has never been seen or heard from again. Reitler's bloodstained jeans, shirt and shoes were discovered in a field near Seybold Pool and Center Elementary School, which is located between Marsh's Supermarket and the campus.   Investigators said six or seven unidentified people were playing basketball in the Center School playground adjacent to the pool at the time Reitler disappeared, but none of the possible witnesses have come forward with information regarding her case. Authorities believe that Reitler was taken against her will while walking back to campus. Foul play is suspected in her disappearance.   Donald W. Grenier was considered a possible suspect in Reitler's case at one time. Grenier was arrested in 1999 and charged with the abduction and molestation of a young girl from the Marion area. His home was searched for evidence connecting him to Reitler's case and the 1987 Indiana disappearance of Wendy Felton, which seemed to share common traits.   Nothing was discovered in the search and Grenier has since been cleared of involvement in both Reitler and Felton's cases. Grenier has always maintained his innocence in both cases.   Tony R. Searcy, a habitual criminal offender, has also long been considered a possible suspect in Reitler's case. He has denied all involvement and authorities have never arrested Searcy in connection with Reitler's disappearance.   Another possible suspect emerged when authorities discovered materials related to Reitler's case in a van owned by Larry DeWayne Hall several months after her 1993 disappearance. Hall resided with his parents in the 300 block of Grant Street in Wabash, Indiana at the time.   Investigators found maps, ether, photos and newspaper articles concerning Reitler inside Hall's vehicle. A photograph of him is posted with this case summary. He was arrested in December 1994 and charged with abducting Jessica Roach, a teenager whose remains were discovered in an Indiana cornfield in 1993.   Hall signed a statement confessing to Reitler's kidnapping and murder, but he later recanted and was never charged in connection with her disappearance due to a lack of evidence. Investigators searched an area of Grant County, Indiana near the Mississinewa Reservoir for Reitler's body. Hall led them to the scene, saying he'd buried her body there, but no evidence was located.   Hall is presently incarcerated in a psychiatric prison in North Carolina, serving a life sentence for Roach's kidnapping. He is still considered a suspect in Reitler's presumed abduction. He confessed to the murder of Laurie Depies, who disappeared from Wisconsin in 1988, and implied he was involved in the 1988 disappearance of Paulette Webster from Illinois. Police believe he may have killed thirty to forty women, but he hasn't been charged in any cases besides Roach's.   Reitler's case remains open and unsolved. She has never been located. Her family lived in Olmsted Township, Ohio, southwest of Cleveland, at the time she disappeared. She is the oldest of four children in a conservative Christian family. Her parents believe she is deceased.    Now you may say to yourself… Olmsted falls? That sounds awfully familiar.. Well friends that's because that's where the train station is located and where both I and Logan live. And now the crazy connection to the case and today's episode? Tricia was Grace, my wife's, babysitter! (Jon take over and give more back story) Movies:   Horror movies involving planes… Cus why not   https://www.ranker.com/list/best-horror-movies-about-airplanes/ranker-film

We have a very complicated case that’s been meandering around the courts for about five plus years now. It has been a victory; followed by a victory; followed by defeat. It’s going to take some time to unpack that case out of Indiana from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. And also some listener questions...

On the most exciting episode of Registry Matters, ever: We’re going to be discussing how the AWA defines a tier three registrant; Then we’re gonna come back to this case from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals from Indiana; Then I have a funny point to add about the case from Montana that we talked...

Today we're traveling back to 1960s/70s Chicago with 2021 Oscar winner Judas and the Black Messiah! Join us for a discussion of the Black Panther Party's breakfast program, the role played by women, the real organization that inspired "The Crowns", William O'Neal, and more! Sources: William O'Neal: "Eyes on the Prize: Interview With William O'Neal," American Archive of Public Broadcasting. Available at https://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-151-x34mk66290 Transcripts of Eyes on the Prize Interviews available at http://digital.wustl.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=eop;cc=eop;rgn=main;view=text;idno=one5427.1047.125 600 F.2d 600, Iberia Hampton et al v. Edward V. Hanrahan et al, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Available at https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/600/600.F2d.600.77-1370.77-1210.77-1698.html Robert Blau, "Jan 18th 1990: Panther Informant William O'Neal's Death Ruled a Suicide," Chicago Tribune, available at https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1990-01-18-9001050412-story.html The Free Breakfast Program: Joshua Bloom and Waldo E Martin Jr, Black Against Empire: The History and Politics of the Black Panther Party (Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2016). PBS Independent Lens https://www.pbs.org/video/independent-lens-free-breakfast-program/ Erin Blakemore, "How the Black Panthers’ Breakfast Program Both Inspired and Threatened the Government" History https://www.history.com/news/free-school-breakfast-black-panther-party "Nik Heynen, ""Bending the Bars of Empire from Every Ghetto for Survival: The Black Panther Party's Radical Antihunger Politics of Social Reproduction and Scale"" Pages 406-422 | Received 01 Oct 2005, Accepted 01 Jul 2008, Published online: 01 May 2009 https://doi.org/10.1080/00045600802683767 " The Crowns: Natalie Y. Moore and Lance Williams, The Almighty Black P. Stone Nation: The Rise, Fall, and Resurgence of an American Gang (Chicago Review Press: 2011). Joshua Bloom and Waldo E Martin Jr, Black Against Empire: The History and Politics of the Black Panther Party (Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2016). Film Background: Rotten Tomatoes https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/judas_and_the_black_messiah NPR "Director Shaka King On 'Judas And The Black Messiah': 'I See It ... I'm In'" https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/965362196/director-shaka-kings-journey-from-newlyweeds-to-the-black-messiah https://m.imdb.com/title/tt9784798/ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/11/movies/judas-and-the-black-messiah-review.html Women in the Black Panther Party: Janelle Harris Dixon, "The Rank and File Women of the Black Panther Party and Their Influence," Smithsonian Magazine, available at https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/rank-and-file-women-black-panther-party-their-powerful-influence-180971591/ "Comrade Mama Akua Njeri: Long Live Revolution!" Available at https://youtu.be/T7Wdn2e6kqA Peniel E. Joseph, "The Black Power Movement: The State of the Field," Journal of American History 86, 3 (2009) Lisa Rofel and Jeremy Tai, "A Conversation With Ericka Huggins," Feminist Studies 42, 1 (2016) Rhonda Y. Williams, "Black Women and Black Power," OAH Magazine of History 22, 3 (2008)

In this episode Zach is first joined by Justin Eisele, a lawyer at Seddiq Law in Rockville, Maryland. He has been practicing for 15 years and is passionate about criminal justice reform, and more specifically meaningful reform for those who suffer from addiction and or mental health challenges. The two discuss how addiction and mental health are faced in the criminal justice system, and what we could change to do better in the handling of these cases. Following Justin, Zach is joined by John Tompkins, a criminal defense attorney whose tried over 100 jury trials, written more than 20 appellate briefs, and argued numerous cases in the Indiana Court of Appeals, the Indiana Supreme Court, and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. The two discuss custody in cases of addiction and challenges to re-entering society in recovery.

In today's News: Strip Clubs, yes; churches, no  A California judge ordered San Diego to reopen strip clubs even as local officials crack down on churches. San Diego Superior Court Judge Joel R. Wohlfeil ordered the state to end any actions that prevent the clubs from "being allowed to provide live adult entertainment," according to the decision. The owners of two strip clubs argued that their business is legally protected speech guaranteed by the first amendment — the same argument that churches have been making about their own services. The judge's decision is not final as that in a full hearing, which will occur at the end of the month, but it temporarily allows the strip clubs to reopen for indoor services, as other institutions close. In their legal complaint, strip-club owners argued they have complied with social distancing requirements. They also warned that another shutdown would mean financial ruin. The judge temporarily sided with them.  Arguments heard yesterday on nativity scene  Liberty Counsel presented oral argument yesterday before a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals refuting the opinion by an Indiana federal judge who ruled against the nativity scene display at the Jackson County Courthouse. Liberty Counsel represents Jackson County and also filed a motion to stay asking the court to allow the nativity scene to be displayed during the holiday season this year while the judges make a decision. In addition to the nativity scene, the annual holiday display also includes a large lighted Santa Claus, sleigh with reindeer, and a group of Christmas carolers. The courthouse grounds are also decorated with many kinds of lights and other non-religious symbols of the holiday season. Judge Tanya Pratt previously ruled in favor of a plaintiff who does not live or work in the county and does not transact any business in the Jackson County Courthouse. This building no longer hosts court proceedings as they are now conducted in the new courthouse.  The Rev. Dr. David G. Schmiel called home  The Rev. Dr. David G. Schmiel, who served as the 15th president of Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Ind., (CTSFW) from 1993 to 1996, died on Nov. 3. He was 88. In addition to serving as president of CTSFW, Schmiel was pastor of congregations In Gresham, Neb., and Onalaska, Wis.; professor at St. Paul’s College in Concordia, Mo.; professor and dean of faculty at Concordia College, St. Paul, Minn.; director of instruction at CSL; president at Concordia College, Ann Arbor, Mich.; and director of theological education for the LCMS Board for Higher Education. He authored numerous papers and served for several years on the LCMS Standing Committee on Pastoral Ministry. A funeral was held on yesterday at Crossview Lutheran Church, Edina, Minn., with burial at Lakeside Cemetery in Minneapolis. In addition to the Lcms Office of Pastoral Education, memorials may be made to CSL or a recipient of the donor’s choice. 

Hey, Friends! We have a very special returning guest (by popular demand,) my incredible bestie and roommate from freshman year, Autumn! We are more than excited about the Supreme Court nomination and the superior character and example that has been set by Judge Amy Coney Barrett who currently sits on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Want to hear more about Judge ACB, the hope for women to become humble, meek, and strong, and John Mulaney???? -------------------------------------------------------- **Special Challenge** Autumn claims that she will be counting every time she says “like” in this episode. If you can be the first to send the identical number that she submits, we will send you a free pack of CWI vinyl stickers! Good luck! -------------------------------------------------------- Pre-Order Create Worship Inspire Merch! https://createworshipinspire.com/shop/ -------------------------------------------------------- Go check out our website for all podcast and video episodes and more! https://createworshipinspire.com/ -------------------------------------------------------- If you are interested in donating, please visit https://www.patreon.com/createworshipinspire --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

In today's News: Synod adopts a new budget  In this year like no other, the setting of a budget for FY21 — was reached at last on Sept. 22 when the Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod (LCMS) Board of Directors adopted an operating expenditure resolution of $59.6 million. By contrast, the FY20 budget, after adjustments for big “one-off” events — the Triennial Synod Convention and the LCMS youth gathering — was more than 16 percent higher at $69.3 million. Such a cautious approach to expenditures in FY21 was justified in consideration of major economic uncertainties in the current forecasting environment, not the least of which has been the impact of covid-19.  Appeal for Nativity scene  Liberty Counsel filed its reply brief to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals refuting the opinion by an Indiana federal judge who ruled against the Nativity scene display at the Jackson County Courthouse. Liberty Counsel represents Jackson County and oral argument is scheduled for Nov. 12. In addition to the Nativity scene, the annual holiday display also includes a large lighted Santa Claus, sleigh with reindeer and a group of Christmas carolers. The courthouse grounds are also decorated with many kinds of lights and other non-religious symbols of the holiday season. Judge Tanya Pratt previously ruled in favor of a plaintiff who does not live or work in the county and does not transact any business in the Jackson County Courthouse. This building no longer hosts court proceedings as they are now conducted in the new courthouse. The U.S. Supreme Court and numerous federal appeals courts have recognized that government entities may recognize Christmas as a holiday and may maintain Christmas displays that include both religious and secular symbols.  Seminaries may enforce religious belief on students  In a landmark decision with nationwide impact, a federal judge ruled that a seminary has the right to train students for ministry according to its sincere religious beliefs, free from government entanglement. Wednesday, in Maxon v. Fuller Theological Seminary, the Central District of California blocked claims by two individuals who sued Fuller Theological Seminary, arguing that federal law made it illegal for the seminary to dismiss them from its school of theology for violating its religious standards. Becket Law is defending the seminary, arguing that the government cannot control how religious schools train future ministers and other religious leaders. When students apply to Fuller Theological Seminary, they agree to faithfully follow the seminary’s religious standards throughout their training for ministry and other religious service. Like all their peers, the plaintiffs made that agreement. But after the seminary learned that the plaintiffs had violated the standards, the seminary dismissed them and refunded their costs for the classes they were unable to complete. The plaintiffs then sued. The judge dismissed the plaintiffs’ lawsuit, explaining: “It is well established . . . That courts should refrain from trolling through a person’s or institutions religious beliefs.” 

On today's Bible Answer Man broadcast (10/02/20), Hank recalls the 2017 confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. During those hearings, Senator Dianne Feinstein said something about Barrett that has stuck with Hank ever since: “the dogma lives loudly within you.” But in fact, the dogma lives loudly within Senator Feinstein as well. Indeed, dogma lives loudly within the hearts of every citizen. Hank also answers the following question: In Acts 3:21, is it saying that when Christ returns all things will be restored, not that all things will be restored before Christ returns?

To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/207/29 On todays Bible Answer Man broadcast, Hank recalls the 2017 confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. During those hearings, Senator Dianne Feinstein said something about Barrett that has stuck with Hank ever since: the dogma lives loudly within you. But in fact, the dogma lives loudly within Senator Feinstein as well. Indeed, dogma lives loudly within the hearts of every citizen. Hank also answers the following question: In Acts 3:21, is it saying that when Christ returns all things will be restored, not that all things will be restored before Christ returns?

Rhonda Ezell made history in the United States of America as the lead plaintiff in a federal lawsuit against the city of Chicago to bring gun ranges to the city of Chicago for law abiding citizens. A ruling in her favor was issued by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals on July 6, 2011, overturning a lower court decision. Lock N Load is presented by; Hour 1; Franklin Armory www.franklinarmory.com   3rd Hour Aero Precision https://aeroprecisionusa.com     And by; NightHawk Custom https://www.nighthawkcustom.com      Ace Firearms http://www.acefirearms.com   CZ-USA https://cz-usa.com   DeSantis Holsters https://www.desantisholster.com   STI International https://stiguns.com   L-AV8 https://l-av8.com   Spikes Tactical https://www.spikestactical.com   Chambers Custom https://chamberscustom.com    

In March of 2011, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial. United States v. Taylor, 636 F.3d 901 (7th Cir. 2011). The retrial (minus the death penalty charge) began on May 7, 2012, before Judge Rudy Lozano. The Government presented evidence that, in the days following the robbery and homicide, defendants were eager to sell guns. Warren Barconia, the Chicago jewelry-seller, testified that Taylor and Thomas discussed with him the fact that they were going to sell guns in Chicago, and they also asked Barconia if he knew anyone who wanted to buy guns. (Tr. 7:157-58.) Taylor spoke to Folksalert from prison about how Warren Barconia took the stand for the government in his trial and retrial. SHOW CREDITS Host: Keko - twitter.com/therealkeko Guest: Styles Taylor Producer: Mac Redd Music Guest: Mouth Piece - Paperwork Background Music: Yondo Donate: cash.app/$folksalert Phone/ Email: 646-54-FOLKS / info@folksalert.com Website: www.folksalert.com

Jake sits down with Professor Spencer Waller to talk about the history of antitrust law in the United States, how U.S. antitrust law differs from competition law in other countries, and resurgence of antitrust law and breaking up monopolies as a major political issue in the 2020 election. Spencer Waller is the Faculty Director of the Institute for Consumer Antitrust Studies and the Justice John Paul Stevens Chair in Competition Law at Loyola University Chicago. He began his career as a staff law clerk for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, worked for the U.S. Department of Justice in the Foreign Commerce Section of the Antitrust Division and the Chicago Strike Force of the Criminal Division, and practiced at Freeborn & Peters. He has authored and co-authored numerous papers and books on antitrust, including Antitrust and American Business Abroad and The Fall and Rise of the Antitrust Class Action. Professor Waller taught at Brooklyn Law School for ten years, and has been teaching at Loyola since 2000 (including teaching Civil Procedure to most of the current Podvocate team).

At the heart of a pending, and one of the most significant, Supreme Court decisions since Obergefell v. Hodges is whether or not the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation and gender identity. On Tuesday, the Supremes heard oral arguments in two cases where plaintiffs claim they were fired because they were gay, and in a third case involving the termination of a biological man who identifies as a woman. They believe, and their attorneys argued, that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sex, should protect them as well. They face two significant hurdles. First, sexual orientation and gender identity are not included in the Title VII list of protected classes. Second, Congress has had fifty-five years to amend Title VII to include sexual orientation and gender. But it hasn't. Neither of these facts were disputed on Tuesday. In fact, the first question asked—by Ruth Bader Ginsburg no less—was how the plaintiffs “would answer the argument that back in 1964, this could not have been in Congress's mind because in many states male same-sex relations was a criminal offense; the American Psychiatric Association labeled homosexuality mental illness?” The plantiff's answer was pretty straightforward. The Supreme Court back 1989 ruled that Title VII prohibited discrimination “against a woman who cursed like a sailor, walked like a man, and didn't wear makeup.” In other words, treating someone differently because they don't conform to gender stereotypes is discrimination based on sex and violates Title VII.  And, according to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, same-sex attraction and transgenderism are “the ultimate case of failure to conform” to gender stereotypes.  Justice Elena Kagan proposed that the test should be whether a person would have been treated differently if they were a different sex. For example, a woman fired because she dates women would not be fired if she was a man who dates women.    Like Kagan, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch asked whether a meaningful distinction could be made between sex and sexual orientation. “In what linguistic formulation,” he asked, “would one say that sex, biological gender, has nothing to do with what happened in this case?” What's not clear is whether this question was from a position of skepticism, or was an attempt to allow the defense to make the key point that needs to be made. Gorsuch also seemed concerned about “the massive social upheaval that would be entailed” if the Court read gender identity into Title VII, for example, “something as drastic a change in this country as bathrooms in every place of employment and dress codes in every place of employment that are otherwise gender-neutral.”  Another source of mild concern for me was the ease with which the Court adopted the linguistic conventions of transgenderism. Justices were careful to say “they” instead of “he” or “she.” That may be an overreaction to what was said, but language matters, especially when it comes to how ideas are embedded into culture. Though ADF attorney John Bursch was terrific, as expected, I'd be lying if I denied that my “spidey-sense” is tingling on this one. If the Supreme Court decides that the meaning of the word “sex” in the Civil Rights Acts should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity, denying biological reality and embracing the linguistic rethinking so popular today, it's a big deal. Not only will the pressure on Christian institutions, hospitals, non-profits, schools, and colleges increase exponentially, there will be social upheaval indeed. Predicting Supreme Court decisions is about as accurate as predicting Colorado weather. So, what should our response to this be? First (and I'm saying this first and foremost to myself), let's take a deep breath and pray. And let's keep praying: early, late, and often.  Second, every one of us needs to learn to make the case for the biological basis of sex, and why men and women are both unique and necessary for the culture to function well.

Debt collectors defending against hyper-technical FDCPA lawsuits by consumer attorneys commonly ask the same question: “How could the consumer possibly have been harmed by this supposed violation of the FDCPA?”  The question is especially poignant when the purported FDCPA violation arises from a collection letter the consumer never read or from the language in the collection letter upon which the consumer never intended to rely.  Does the concept of “no harm, no foul” apply to the FDCPA? In this episode of the Debt Collection Drill podcast, Moss & Barnett attorneys John Rossman and Mike Poncin discuss the recent ruling by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the Casillas matter dismissing an alleged hyper-technical FDCPA letter violation.  They also discuss the recent ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeal regarding interest and share thoughts on the CFPB's proposed debt collection rules.

Larry Hansen, an attorney in the Chicago office of Locke Lord LLP, joins Andy and Sarah to talk about Gaylor v. Mnuchin, a case before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, regarding the constitutionality of the so-called clergy housing allowance, an Internal Revenue Code provision that allows certain religious leaders to exempt church-approved housing allowances from their taxable income. Hansen co-authored an amicus ‎brief on behalf of the Church Alliance, and talks about the case, the amicus brief, and why this case is significant for church workers. Read about the case at becketlaw.org/case/gaylor-v-mnuchin and learn more about the Church Alliance at church-alliance.org.

13 January 2019 The Baptism of the Lord Luke 3:15-16, 21-22 + Homily 18 Minutes 6 Seconds Link to the Readings http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/011319.cfm (New American Bible, Revised Edition) (from the parish bulletin)    The foundational documents of our nation were influenced by Catholic political philosophers such as Aquinas, Suárez, Báñez, Gregory of Valencia and Saint Robert Bellarmine, who wrote before theorists like Hobbes and Rousseau. This contradicts a popular impression that democracy was the invention of the Protestant Reformation. Luther and Calvin considered popular assemblies highly suspect. The concept of the Divine Right of Kings, which was a prelude to what we call “statism” and “big government,” was systematized by the Protestant counselor to King James I of England, Robert Filmer.    For all his vague Deism, Thomas Jefferson might have acknowledged those Catholic sources, if obliquely, in his eloquent phrases. The Constitution’s First Amendment guarantee of the free exercise of religion and Article VI’s prohibition of religious tests for public office were developments rooted in the Thomistic outlines of human rights and dignity declared in the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Arbraoth.    This was lost on some senators who have violated Constitutional guarantees by subjecting judicial nominees to religious tests. One senator complained to a Catholic nominee for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that “the dogma lives loudly within you.” Two other senators said that the President’s nominee for a federal district court in Nebraska was unsuitable because his membership in the Knights of Columbus committed him to “a number of extreme positions.” Members of their political party consider opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion “extreme.” This would characterize the Pope as an extremist, but at least he is not a judicial nominee.    In the Statuary Hall of our nation’s Capitol are sculptures portraying heroes who represent the best of the history and culture of each state. They include Saint Junípero Serra of California, Saint Damien de Veuster of Hawaii, Declaration of Independence signer Charles Carroll of Maryland, Father Eusebio Kino of Arizona, General James Shields of Illinois, Chief Justice Edward Douglass White of Louisiana, Father Jacques Marquette of Wisconsin, Patrick McCarran of Nevada, Dennis Chavez of New Mexico, John Burke of North Dakota, John McLoughlin of Oregon, Mother Joseph of the Sacred Heart Pariseau of Washington, and John Edward Kenna of West Virginia, all of whom were Catholic. These canonized saints, statesmen, soldiers, jurists and pioneers would be extremists unworthy of public office in the estimation of some current senators for whom subscription to natural law and obedience to the Ten Commandments are violations of what they fantasize as the norm of moral being.    The coruscating illiteracy of such senators burlesques reason. At every performance of Mozart’s Don Giovanni, audiences wait for the fifth scene of the second act, when the haunting statue of the Commendatore comes alive and knocks on the door to the sound of trombones. Would that all those statues of some of our nation’s greatest figures might come down from their pedestals and challenge the vacant minds of those inquisitorial senators to explain what constitutes extremism.

The mere thought of a 401(k) lawsuit can send shivers down the spine of even the most experienced retirement plan fiduciary.  However, when you have a grasp on why workplace retirement plans are being sued, how the economics of a lawsuit work and what you can do to make the job of a plaintiff’s attorney harder, the risk can be a little easier to manage.  For answers to these and more questions, I thought it was time to invite Jerry Schlichter, the plaintiff’s attorney who has sued numerous 401(k) and 403(b) plans around the country and even successfully argued a 401(k) case before the US Supreme Court back to the podcast to share his thoughts.  I was also able to work in several questions from our listeners into the episode.  If you missed your opportunity to submit a question be sure are one of our email subscribers, we often send announcements out about future guests and give you the opportunity to share your questions in advance.  Go to 401kfridays.com/subscribe today to take care of that.  If after listening to this episode you feel like you need a little fiduciary refresher, check out last week’s episode with Jason Roberts.  Some good points there to help you sleep better and keep the boogeyman away.   Guest Bio Jerry is founding and managing partner of the firm. He has been repeatedly elected by his peers for inclusion in "Best Lawyers in America” and “Lawyer of the Year” and is listed in the 2019 edition. Jerry has been designated legal counsel for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers for many years and is currently designated legal counsel for the United Transportation Union and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. He has represented railroad workers in trials in many states and has had record-setting jury verdicts in numerous jurisdictions. He obtained a verdict of $27 million for the widow and children of a St. Louis firefighter for a defective breathing apparatus which caused the firefighter's death. This verdict, which was increased to $40.4 million with pre and post judgment interest, was the highest jury verdict in Missouri in 2007 and one of the highest in the United States. The entire amount was collected after appeal. He has also obtained multiple precedent-setting judgments against railroads, including successfully requiring a railroad and the Federal Railroad Administration to modify rules on certification of railroad engineers; successfully obtaining a permanent injunction against the Union Pacific Railroad on behalf of all of its employees, which stopped the railroad's practice of interfering with employees' ability to pursue injury claims; and obtaining the first and only jury verdict in the United States in which a jury determined that a locomotive was not crashworthy, resulting in a jury verdict of $4.75 million, which was the highest verdict against that railroad by an injured employee in its history. Throughout his career, he has also handled major precedent-setting class action and mass tort cases on behalf of individuals. Jerry has been featured in numerous national publications, including the New York Times, Reuters, Bloomberg, USA Today, and the Wall Street Journal, for his and the firm’s success in pioneering claims of excessive fees in 401(K) plans and obtaining precedent-setting results involving claims of excessive fees against large employers, and for the reduction in fees his cases have caused throughout the 401(k) industry. He and the firm have obtained settlements in these 401(k) excessive fee cases of more than $300 million for employees and retirees, in addition to significant improvements in their 401(k) plans; in total, this relief has been valued at more than $1.5 billion. He also was lead attorney for the firm in the first and only full trial of an excessive fee case in the country, resulting in a verdict of $36 million. In recent rankings of the most influential people in the 401(k) industry by 401kWire.com, Jerry has repeatedly ranked in the top 5. According to a recent article published in Reuters, the CEO of Brightscope, an independent company which evaluates 401(k) plans, stated, speaking of Mr. Schlichter’s national impact on 401(k) plan fees, that “[h]is impact has been humongous." The New York Times has referred to Jerry as “a Lone Ranger of the 401(k)’s,” and he has been referred to by Investment News as “public enemy no. 1 for 401(k) profiteers” and by Chief Investment Officer as “the industry’s most feared attorney.” In describing the effect of his work on behalf of employees in 401(k) plans, the Wall Street Journal referred to it as being “Schlicterized”. In 2014 and 2015, Mr. Schlichter’s firm obtained the two largest 401(k) excessive fee settlements in history. The first was a settlement for $62 million against Lockheed Martin on behalf of Lockheed Martin employees, which included significant changes to the Lockheed Martin 401(k) plan. The second was a settlement for $57 million from Boeing, which likewise included significant non-monetary relief. Also in 2015, Mr. Schlichter won a unanimous 9-0 decision in the U.S. Supreme Court in Tibble v. Edison, the first U.S. Supreme Court case to consider fees in 401(k) plans. In an order in the case of Nolte v. Cigna Corporation in 2013, the U.S. District Court judge stated: “As the preeminent firm in 401(k) fee litigation, Schlichter, Bogard & Denton has achieved unparalleled results on behalf of its clients. Jerome Schlichter and Schlichter, Bogard & Denton’s work throughout this litigation stands as yet another example of the firm’s acting as a private attorney general, risking breathtaking amounts of time and money while overcoming many obstacles for the benefit of employees and retirees. . . . Mr. Schlichter and the Schlichter, Bogard & Denton firm’s actions have led to dramatic changes in the 401(k) industry, which have benefited employees and retirees throughout the country by bringing sweeping changes to fiduciary practices.” The U.S. District Court in Tussey v. ABB similarly found of “special importance . . . the significant, national contribution” made by the team led by Mr. Schlichter, which has “educated plan administrators, the Department of Labor, the courts and retirement plan participants” about the fiduciary obligations of 401(k) plan administrators. Another example of his work on behalf of individuals is his representation of a class of African-American employment applicants in the case of Mister v. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad, a case in which he obtained an extraordinary Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision in which the court stated: "One could not imagine a stronger case of discrimination short of an announcement of it." This resulted in a $10 million settlement. In the Mister case, the U.S. District Court judge described his work stating: "The Court is unaware of any comparable achievement of public good by a private lawyer in the face of such obstacles and enormous demand of resources and finances." The judge also stated: "This Court finds that Mr. Schlichter's experience, reputation, and ability are of the highest caliber." Jerry handled the nationally-recognized Times Beach dioxin case in which he represented a group of people in the community of Times Beach, Missouri who were exposed to dioxin when their streets were sprayed with the chemical. He obtained a record setting $19 million settlement on behalf of the residents against a chemical company in that case. Jerry handled a national employment discrimination class action case on behalf of all women employees of Rent-a-Center. In that case, he confronted for the first time in a national employment discrimination class action a "reverse auction" in which the defendant attempted to destroy the case by an inadequate settlement with others. Jerry successfully defeated this attempt and obtained a $47 million settlement for the class as well as a complete revamping of company policies. This is one of the largest class action settlements for women in the United States and the U.S. District Court judge stated: "In essence, it is an example of advocacy at its highest and noblest purpose, and Class Counsel accomplished a great public good." The judge further stated: "I have never seen an effort like that effort put forth by the plaintiffs' counsel' – it's beyond an extraordinary effort." Jerry is a past national President of the Academy of Rail Labor Attorneys and is a member of the Million Dollar Advocates. He has authored articles in the field of personal injury litigation and has spoken at numerous seminars on trial techniques, mass torts, class actions, and complex litigation. He has taught trial techniques as an adjunct professor at Washington University School of Law. Jerry has also been recognized for his involvement in community initiatives. He and his wife founded Mentor St. Louis, Inc., a not-for-profit organization which obtains adult mentors for disadvantaged elementary students in the St. Louis Public Schools, which has become the largest volunteer program in the St. Louis Public Schools and has been nationally recognized. He also successfully initiated and spearheaded the passage of a law, "The Missouri State Historic Tax Credit," which has been widely acknowledged for its role in revitalizing St. Louis and the State of Missouri, and which is the national model for legislation aimed at revitalizing older communities. He has also spearheaded and led the effort to pass the Missouri "Rebuilding Communities Act" designed to attract businesses to distressed communities and the "Neighborhood Preservation Act" to develop housing in distressed communities. Jerry has received numerous awards, such as the Levee Stone Award and "What's Right with the Region Award" for his contributions to revitalization of the city of St. Louis and the state of Missouri. In December 2013, Jerry was honored with the prestigious St. Louis Award, given to the person who has accomplished the most in the prior years for the development of St. Louis. Jerry spearheaded the founding and development of another St. Louis not for profit, Arch Grants, which is a global competition for startup businesses in which winning entrepreneurs come to St. Louis, receive $50,000.00 and a broad package of support services including business mentoring, discounts on office space, and free legal, accounting, and marketing services. Arch Grants has provided grants of $50,000.00 to 114 startups since its founding in 2012, and has been the subject of numerous national articles describing its building of entrepreneurial businesses in St. Louis. Education: University of Illinois, B.S., Business Administration, 1969, (in 3 years) with honors; James Scholar. University of California at Los Angeles, J.D. 1972; Associate Editor, UCLA Law Review. Admitted: California (1972); Illinois (1973); Missouri (1982). 401(k) Fridays Podcast Overview Struggling with a fiduciary issue, looking for strategies to improve employee retirement outcomes or curious about the impact of current events on your retirement plan? We've had conversations with retirement industry leaders to address these and other relevant topics! You can easily explore over one hundred prior on-demand audio interviews here. Don't forget to subscribe as we release a new episode each Friday!

Debt collectors were given clarity regarding two thorny FDCPA issues recently by decisions issued from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  In the case of Portalatin v. Blatt, the Court held that a consumer was entitled to a single recovery of an FDCPA statutory penalty rather than multiple recoveries for the same alleged violation from each Defendant.  This issue of Plaintiffs seeking to “stack” recoveries for the same alleged violations from multiple Defendant is now finally resolved in favor of the debt industry.  The Seventh Circuit also held in Dunbar v. Kohn that that sentence “This settlement may have tax consequences.” did not violate the FDCPA, thus joining the numerous other Court that held this language complies with the law.  In the latest episode of the Debt Collection Drill podcast, Moss & Barnett attorneys John Rossman and Mike Poncin discuss the Portalatin and Dunbar decisions in addition to strategies for debt collectors to avoid FDCPA on debt collection communications regarding interest and out-of-statute disclosures.  Links to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals rulings in Portalatin and Dunbar can be found below. http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D08-13/C:16-1578:J:Manion:aut:T:fnOp:N:2201521:S:0 http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D07-19/C:17-2134:J:Sykes:aut:T:fnOp:N:2189247:S:0

OOIDA has taken its fight against ELDs to the Supreme Court – hoping to review the decision handed down by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals last year. Terry Scruton finds out the latest from Jay Grimes of OOIDA’s Washington, D.C., office.

Debt collectors and consumer advocates agree that collection letters do little (if anything) to truly inform consumers about their indebtedness.  Very few consumers actually read collection letters. Further, the verbiage that debt collectors are required by law to include in each collection letter is so voluminous, confusing and often contradictory, any truly meaningful information is often obscured by the required verbiage.   The requirements for what debt collectors are required to provide in “snail mail” notices to consumers arises from a patchwork of Federal, State and local laws -- as well as case law that often varies by jurisdiction -- and many of the requirements are antiquated, dating back to the 1970s. Unfortunately, these dated and contradictory collection letter requirements continue to result in lawsuits and adverse Court decisions against debt collectors. In the most recent episode of the Debt Collection Drill audio blog, attorneys John Rossman and Mike Poncin examine two recent cases decided by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the Second Circuit Court of Appeal, both of which found that typical collection letters violated the FDCPA.  Below are links to those cases: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18024907294301294666&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13367746992286414627&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Professor Discusses Upcoming SCOTUS Case of Wellness Intl. Network v. Sharif in Wake of Stern v. Marshall The U.S. Supreme Court's surprising decision in Stern v. Marshall struck down as a violation of Article 3 the congressional statute permitting bankruptcy courts to issue final judgment as to certain state law counterclaims by the estate against creditors without the parties' consent. The decision created uncertainty throughout the bankruptcy court system as to bankruptcy courts' authority and left unanswered a key question: If the parties give their consent, can bankruptcy courts enter final judgment in matters that would otherwise require an Article 3 tribunal? The Supreme Court has agreed to take up this question by granting certiorari in a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals case, Wellness Int'l Network v. Sharif. In this podcast, Prof. Ralph Brubaker of the University of Illinois College of Law discusses the upcoming case and its possible implications for bankruptcy practice.

  Episode #066 For Thursday, November 20, 2014 “Take a Sermon Planning Retreat!” HOST: Robert Hatfield GUEST: Rusty Hills     Show Notes: Rusty Hills joins Preachers in Training again this week to discuss his sermon planning retreats and why you should take one, too! Plus, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that ministers […]

Richard A. Posner, Senior Lecturer in Law and a judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, devoted a lunchtime keynote to discussing how judges might receive and view empirical research. Richard A. Posner is a Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago Law School. Following his graduation from Harvard Law School, Judge Posner clerked for Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. From 1963 to 1965, he was assistant to Commissioner Philip Elman of the Federal Trade Commission. For the next two years, he was assistant to the solicitor general of the United States. Prior to going to Stanford Law School in 1968 as Associate Professor, Judge Posner served as general counsel of the President's Task Force on Communications Policy. He first came to the University of Chicago Law School in 1969, and was Lee and Brena Freeman Professor of Law prior to his appointment in 1981 as a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. He was the chief judge of the court from 1993 to 2000. This talk was recorded on October 23, 2014.

Richard A. Posner, Senior Lecturer in Law and a judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, devoted a lunchtime keynote to discussing how judges might receive and view empirical research. Richard A. Posner is a Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago Law School. Following his graduation from Harvard Law School, Judge Posner clerked for Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. From 1963 to 1965, he was assistant to Commissioner Philip Elman of the Federal Trade Commission. For the next two years, he was assistant to the solicitor general of the United States. Prior to going to Stanford Law School in 1968 as Associate Professor, Judge Posner served as general counsel of the President's Task Force on Communications Policy. He first came to the University of Chicago Law School in 1969, and was Lee and Brena Freeman Professor of Law prior to his appointment in 1981 as a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. He was the chief judge of the court from 1993 to 2000. This talk was recorded on October 23, 2014.

This week I look at a case involving a Northwest Airlines mechanic who was laid off and ended up using his "bumping" rights in other cities while hoping to return to his original home base.  The question of whether the taxpayer could deduct the expenses of working in the various locations is considered by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals after the Tax Court decided no deduction was allowed in the case of Wilbert v. Commissioner, 2009 TNT 12-12, CA7, affirming TC Memo 2007-152.The materials can be downloaded at http://www.edzollars.com/2009-01-25_TaxHome.pdf .The podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, located on the web at http://www.leimbergservices.com .

This PodCast involves a Northwest Airlines mechanic who was laid off and ended up using his "bumping" rights in other cities while hoping to return to his original home base. The question of whether the taxpayer could deduct the expenses of working in the various locations is considered by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals after the Tax Court decided no deduction was allowed in the case of Wilbert v. Commissioner, 2009 TNT 12-12, CA7, affirming TC Memo 2007-152. The materials can be downloaded at http://www.edzollars.com/2009-01-25_TaxHome.pdf . This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com