Podcasts about slapp

This week on Media Confidential, Alan and Lionel discuss the Murdoch family's biggest ever deal, as Lachlan Murdoch's Fox TV buys streaming service Roku. What does it suggest about the company's direction under its new CEO? And why isn't Alan a fan of Roku?They discuss an AI-generated video of Nigel Farage fist-fighting Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey in a Question Time Studio—and how the deepfake video has some people fooled.After GB News's Bev Turner denied that widespread racist violence in Belfast was a riot, the editors also analyse a clash between Turner and political commentator Matthew Stadlen, while Alan shares the tweet that made him “shudder”.It's not all bad news, though, as Mehdi Hasan launches Zeteo UK, the British equivalent of his popular independent media platform—and Dan Neidle wins a resounding victory in libel courts over an obvious SLAPP. Could it set a hopeful precedent?Plus, Alan and Lionel respond to an email from the editor of the Manchester Evening News and issue an invitation. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Anthony Moore in conversation with David Eastaugh  https://halfcatmusic.com/ British experimental music composer, performer and producer. He was a founding member of the band Slapp Happy, worked with Henry Cow and has made a number of solo albums, including Flying Doesn't Help (1979) and World Service (1981). As a lyricist, Moore has collaborated with Pink Floyd on two of their albums: A Momentary Lapse of Reason (1987) and The Division Bell (1994), and contributed music to the instrumental "Calling" from The Endless River (2014). He contributed lyrics to Richard Wright's Broken China (1996), worked with Kevin Ayers on various projects and also contributed lyrics to Trevor Rabin's Can't Look Away (1989) and Julian Lennon's Help Yourself (1991).

The Wall Street Journal asked a federal judge to dismiss Donald Trump's revised defamation lawsuit over its reporting on a sexually suggestive birthday letter allegedly sent to Jeffrey Epstein. Trump sued Dow Jones, News Corp, Rupert Murdoch, and others after the Journal reported that a 2003 birthday album compiled for Epstein included a letter bearing Trump's name. Trump denies writing it and claims the story was false and defamatory, but a federal judge already dismissed the earlier version of the lawsuit because Trump failed to plausibly show actual malice, the demanding legal standard public figures must meet in defamation cases. Trump then filed an amended complaint, arguing in part that Murdoch had told him he would “handle” the matter before publication, but the Journal says the revised lawsuit still does not fix the legal defects.The Journal's dismissal motion argues that Trump's new complaint mostly repackages claims the court already rejected and still fails to show that the outlet knowingly published false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The Journal says it accurately reported the existence of the letter, included Trump's denial, and conducted reporting steps before publication, including seeking comment. It also asks the court to dismiss the case with prejudice and seeks legal fees under Florida's anti-SLAPP law, casting the lawsuit as an attempt to punish or intimidate protected journalism. In plain terms, Trump is trying to keep the Epstein-letter defamation case alive after an earlier defeat, while the Journal is telling the court that the amended lawsuit is still legally empty and should now be thrown out for good.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Wall Street Journal Asks Judge To Toss Trump's Revised Lawsuit

The Wall Street Journal asked a federal judge to dismiss Donald Trump's revised defamation lawsuit over its reporting on a sexually suggestive birthday letter allegedly sent to Jeffrey Epstein. Trump sued Dow Jones, News Corp, Rupert Murdoch, and others after the Journal reported that a 2003 birthday album compiled for Epstein included a letter bearing Trump's name. Trump denies writing it and claims the story was false and defamatory, but a federal judge already dismissed the earlier version of the lawsuit because Trump failed to plausibly show actual malice, the demanding legal standard public figures must meet in defamation cases. Trump then filed an amended complaint, arguing in part that Murdoch had told him he would “handle” the matter before publication, but the Journal says the revised lawsuit still does not fix the legal defects.The Journal's dismissal motion argues that Trump's new complaint mostly repackages claims the court already rejected and still fails to show that the outlet knowingly published false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The Journal says it accurately reported the existence of the letter, included Trump's denial, and conducted reporting steps before publication, including seeking comment. It also asks the court to dismiss the case with prejudice and seeks legal fees under Florida's anti-SLAPP law, casting the lawsuit as an attempt to punish or intimidate protected journalism. In plain terms, Trump is trying to keep the Epstein-letter defamation case alive after an earlier defeat, while the Journal is telling the court that the amended lawsuit is still legally empty and should now be thrown out for good.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Wall Street Journal Asks Judge To Toss Trump's Revised LawsuitBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The Wall Street Journal asked a federal judge to dismiss Donald Trump's revised defamation lawsuit over its reporting on a sexually suggestive birthday letter allegedly sent to Jeffrey Epstein. Trump sued Dow Jones, News Corp, Rupert Murdoch, and others after the Journal reported that a 2003 birthday album compiled for Epstein included a letter bearing Trump's name. Trump denies writing it and claims the story was false and defamatory, but a federal judge already dismissed the earlier version of the lawsuit because Trump failed to plausibly show actual malice, the demanding legal standard public figures must meet in defamation cases. Trump then filed an amended complaint, arguing in part that Murdoch had told him he would “handle” the matter before publication, but the Journal says the revised lawsuit still does not fix the legal defects.The Journal's dismissal motion argues that Trump's new complaint mostly repackages claims the court already rejected and still fails to show that the outlet knowingly published false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The Journal says it accurately reported the existence of the letter, included Trump's denial, and conducted reporting steps before publication, including seeking comment. It also asks the court to dismiss the case with prejudice and seeks legal fees under Florida's anti-SLAPP law, casting the lawsuit as an attempt to punish or intimidate protected journalism. In plain terms, Trump is trying to keep the Epstein-letter defamation case alive after an earlier defeat, while the Journal is telling the court that the amended lawsuit is still legally empty and should now be thrown out for good.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Wall Street Journal Asks Judge To Toss Trump's Revised LawsuitBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

We have all heard the expression, "Freedom of Speech." If I'm a student, do I have free speech rights?What are the limits of free speech? What if I don't like a restaurant, or someone is scared because of what I said? Are there laws to protect ordinary people? Can I sue them for what they said?Tonight, YLR Host, Jeff Hayden, is joined by Krista Baughman, Walnut Creek, a trial lawyer with over 16 years experience in First Amendment, defamation, and anti-SLAPP matters.Questions for Jeff and his guests? Please call (415) 841-4134. If you are outside of the Bay Area, call, toll free, at (866) 798-8255.

YLR Host, Jeff Hayden, is joined by Krista Baughman, Walnut Creek, a trial lawyer with over 16 years experience in First Amendment, defamation, and anti-SLAPP matters.

YLR Host, Jeff Hayden, is joined by Krista Baughman, Walnut Creek, a trial lawyer with over 16 years experience in First Amendment, defamation, and anti-SLAPP matters.

SLAPP ist die englische Abkürzung für „Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation”, also strategische Klagen gegen Akteure in der Öffentlichkeit. Gemeint ist, dass jemand vor Gericht geht, um Kritiker einzuschüchtern. Auch der Falter ist Adressat solcher Klagen, mit denen die Meinungsfreiheit angegriffen wird. Raimund Löw im Gespräch mit der Medienanwältin Maria Windhager und Falter-Chefredakteur Florian Klenk. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

DOCKET ALERTS: Judges in Maine and Wisconsin hand DOJ two more losses as they sue to get access to state voter rolls to check for non-existent election fraud.   Associate Attorney General Stan Woodward is back with another batsh*t ballroom filing.   DOOFUS OF THE DAY:   Attorney D. Hayden Fisher, who filed a bumptious SLAPP suit against locals in Norfolk who dared to disparage a MAGA-coded brewery for perceived anti-LGBTQ+ bias.   MAIN SHOW:   We'll revisit the implosion of the Broadview 6 prosecution. Turns out, the government's main goal all along was to hide the corruption and misconduct at the heart of this case.   And Kilmar Abrego Garcia is free! Judge Waverly Crenshaw dismissed his criminal case on the basis of vindictive prosecution.   US v. Bellows [Maine Voter Rolls] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71367730/united-states-v-bellows/   US v. Wisconsin Elections Commission [Wisconsin Voter Rolls] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72055967/united-states-v-wisconsin-elections-commission   National Trust for Historic Preservation v. National Park Service [Ballroom] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72028010/national-trust-for-historic-preservation-in-the-united-states-v-national/   Armed Forces Brewing Co. v. Coplon [Doofus SLAPP suit] https://armedforcesbrewingco.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Complaint-26-5-18-Final.pdf   Broadview 6 May 21 Hearing https://cst.brightspotcdn.com/95/75/a403b7674c31b8f5bb0ecae58921/25cr693-usa-v-rabbitt-052126.pdf   US v. Rabbit [Broadview 6] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71795281/parties/united-states-v-rabbitt/   United States v. Abrego (TN criminal docket) [docket via CourtListener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70475970/united-states-v-abrego-garcia/?order_by=desc   Abrego Garcia v. Noem (MD Civil litigation) [docket via CourtListener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71191591/abrego-garcia-v-noem/?order_by=desc   United States v. Carey (DC flag burning) [docket via CourtListener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71223464/united-states-v-carey/   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod

As the nation approaches its 250th anniversary, two veteran activists are celebrating one of the country's foundational principles: the right to protest, as embodied in the Declaration of Independence. But they warn that this right is under attack.“Our ability to protest is key to moving forward on a whole range of environmental and social issues … which is why I'm so terrified at the thought of losing this democratic right,” said Annie Leonard, who spent 17 years with Greenpeace USA, serving as executive director from 2014 to 2023.She and André Carothers are co-authors of “Protest: Respect It, Defend It, Use It.” Carothers spent 13 years with Greenpeace USA and co-founded and led the Rockwood Leadership Institute.The two have direct experience of the power of the protest and the ferocity of the pushback.Anti-protest laws are spreading and becoming increasingly repressive. Nearly 400 anti-protest bills have been introduced in 45 states, according to the International Center for Not-For-Profit Law. Activists are now being charged with felonies and accused of terrorism.One of the most draconian anti-protest tools is known as a strategic lawsuit against public participation, as was filed against Greenpeace by Energy Transfers, builder of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The company accused Greenpeace of inciting violence and spreading misinformation during indigenous-led protests in 2016 and 2017 that delayed construction. Last year, a North Dakota jury awarded Energy Transfers $660 million, later reduced to a still-staggering $345 million.SLAPP lawsuits “are designed to intimidate, silence, scare, distract and bankrupt critics,” Leonard told me. “It's a kind of corporate legal bullying” intended to prevent people from protesting. Forty states, including Vermont, now have anti-SLAPP statutes.“Protest” describes creative and successful acts of resistance from around the world. Among these are the 2015 protests by “kayaktivists” in Seattle aimed at stopping Shell Oil from drilling in the Arctic. Hundreds of people in kayaks, sailboats and tribal canoes took to the water to block an oil drilling rig, Shell's Polar Pioneer, as it was being moved to Alaska. The boaters held up signs saying, “Save the Arctic,” “Oil-Free Future” and “Shell No!”After spending $7 billion on Arctic oil exploration, Shell ultimately canceled the project, citing high costs and “the challenging and unpredictable federal regulatory environment,” which protesters took credit for.Leonard said that what made the Seattle protest successful was that it was “part of a long intentional escalating campaign” that included family kayak training each weekend and free kayak rentals. “There were community meetings and art builds. It was a very inclusive and participatory set of activities for a couple of years leading up to filling the actual bay with kayaks to try to stop the Polar Pioneer from moving forward.”Carothers noted that “a lot of these protesters are not honored at the time.” Rosa Parks and her husband lost their jobs and had to leave town after her refusal to give up her seat for a white person on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama, in 1955. It took nearly 40 years before Parks was honored by President Bill Clinton with a Presidential Medal of Freedom.“There are so many ways to get involved,” said Carothers, highlighting how citizens have protested the federal immigration crackdowns in New Orleans, Los Angeles and Minneapolis. He said he counted 27 different ways that people in Minneapolis resisted U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, “from people driving their neighbors' kids to school because they didn't want to leave the house,” to lawyers offering their services in cars, to people delivering food to their immigrant neighbors, to others “who went to the detention center with a blanket and a cup of hot soup when someone was released.”Leonard and Carothers want their book to be both inspirational and practical. They are speaking at the Patagonia store in Burlington on June 5 and offering a training in nonviolent resistance the following day.“If you're feeling alone and if you're feeling isolated, don't be alone,” Carothers said. “Find a neighbor, find a mailing list that is describing what's available to you in your community … and do what it takes to support the universe of people who are perhaps more inclined to go in the street, or perhaps more inclined to be arrested because they have the social capital (or) the economic flexibility to risk arrest in a way other people don't.”“There's lots of ways to be involved,” Carothers added, emphasizing: “Protest works.”

„Vidím za tým absolútny útok na slobodu slova a na nezávislé médiá“, hovorí len hodiny pre súdnym pojednávaním Peter Bárdy, ktorého Robert Fico žaluje za obálku na knihe Fico – posadnutý mocou. „Je to zastrašujúca, takzvaná SLAPP žaloba, ktorá má odradiť ľudí od toho, aby písali o Robertovi Ficovi. Aby prestali upozorňovať na veci, ktoré on, jeho vlády a politická garnitúra v tejto krajine páchajú“, dodáva.„Ak súd rozhodne, že tam nemôže byť jeho tvár, nabudúce tam nebude môcť byť jeho meno a nebudú vôbec vznikať knihy o Robertovi Ficovi? Je to snaha obmedziť slobodu slova a názorov vo verejnom priestore, pričom knihy sú minimálne od Gutenberga priestorom na šírenie faktov a názorov“, hovorí šéfredaktor portálu Aktuality.skZačína sa ostro sledovaný súd medzi premiérom Robertom Ficom a novinárom Petrom Bárdym. Premiér žaluje šéfredaktora Aktualít a ich vydavateľa. Nie za knihu Fico – Posadnutý mocou a jej obsah. Ale za fotografiu na jej obálke. Žiada pritom státisícové odškodné.Sme svedkami sporu o jednu fotografiu premiéra – a teda verejne činnej osoby, alebo o čosi viac - o pokus zastrašiť kritických novinárov?Prípad preto môže byť dôležitým testom hraníc slobody médií, aj ochrany verejného záujmu na Slovensku.A práve o žalobe, osobnom tlaku aj o tom, čo tento spor znamená pre slovenskú žurnalistiku, sa budeme rozprávať s Petrom Bárdym, autorom napadnutej knihy.

„Vidím za tým absolútny útok na slobodu slova a na nezávislé médiá“, hovorí len hodiny pre súdnym pojednávaním Peter Bárdy, ktorého Robert Fico žaluje za obálku na knihe Fico – posadnutý mocou. „Je to zastrašujúca, takzvaná SLAPP žaloba, ktorá má odradiť ľudí od toho, aby písali o Robertovi Ficovi. Aby prestali upozorňovať na veci, ktoré on, jeho vlády a politická garnitúra v tejto krajine páchajú“, dodáva.„Ak súd rozhodne, že tam nemôže byť jeho tvár, nabudúce tam nebude môcť byť jeho meno a nebudú vôbec vznikať knihy o Robertovi Ficovi? Je to snaha obmedziť slobodu slova a názorov vo verejnom priestore, pričom knihy sú minimálne od Gutenberga priestorom na šírenie faktov a názorov“, hovorí šéfredaktor portálu Aktuality.skZačína sa ostro sledovaný súd medzi premiérom Robertom Ficom a novinárom Petrom Bárdym. Premiér žaluje šéfredaktora Aktualít a ich vydavateľa. Nie za knihu Fico – Posadnutý mocou a jej obsah. Ale za fotografiu na jej obálke. Žiada pritom státisícové odškodné.Sme svedkami sporu o jednu fotografiu premiéra – a teda verejne činnej osoby, alebo o čosi viac - o pokus zastrašiť kritických novinárov?Prípad preto môže byť dôležitým testom hraníc slobody médií, aj ochrany verejného záujmu na Slovensku.A práve o žalobe, osobnom tlaku aj o tom, čo tento spor znamená pre slovenskú žurnalistiku, sa budeme rozprávať s Petrom Bárdym, autorom napadnutej knihy.

Dag två av Inside Blågult – Sportbladets podd som följer landslaget bakom kulisserna hela VM. - Alexander Isaks tveksamma form. Bör han starta i VM? - Lagkaptenen välsignade nyfödd bebis. - Charmtrollet Elanga – men varför hånade han stackars Ken Sema? - Han imponerade mest på träningen. Medverkande: Per Bohman, Malin Wahlberg, Johan Flinck och Linn Nordström Innehåller klipp från Viaplay Ansvarig utgivare: Lotta Folcker Kontakt: podcast@aftonbladet.se

On this week's Media Confidential Alan and Lionel talk to Peter Geoghegan, journalist, broadcaster and founder of Democracy for Sale.The three discuss the problem of SLAPPs, lawsuits used by the wealthy to silence and intimidate critics. They talk about the chilling effect these lawsuits can have have on democracy, and how they discourage journalists from pursuing stories in the public interest. Why has the government made such slow progress in tackling them?They'll discuss what it is like as a small media outlet or single journalist to receive the financial and emotional weight of a SLAPP and the lobbying actions of media lawyers.The three will also discuss Democracy for Sale's investigation into Labour Together and ask about the thinktank's impact on UK politics. Read the investigation here. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

DOCKET ALERTS:Judges in Maine and Wisconsin hand DOJ two more losses as they sue to get access to state voter rolls to check for non-existent election fraud.Associate Attorney General Stan Woodward is back with another batsh*t ballroom filing.DOOFUS OF THE DAY:Attorney D. Hayden Fisher, who filed a bumptious SLAPP suit against locals in Norfolk who dared to disparage a MAGA-coded brewery for perceived anti-LGBTQ+ bias.MAIN SHOW:We'll revisit the implosion of the Broadview 6 prosecution. Turns out, the government's main goal all along was to hide the corruption and misconduct at the heart of this case.And Kilmar Abrego Garcia is free! Judge Waverly Crenshaw dismissed his criminal case on the basis of vindictive prosecution.US v. Bellows [Maine Voter Rolls]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71367730/united-states-v-bellows/US v. Wisconsin Elections Commission [Wisconsin Voter Rolls]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72055967/united-states-v-wisconsin-elections-commissionNational Trust for Historic Preservation v. National Park Service [Ballroom]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72028010/national-trust-for-historic-preservation-in-the-united-states-v-national/Armed Forces Brewing Co. v. Coplon [Doofus SLAPP suit]https://armedforcesbrewingco.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Complaint-26-5-18-Final.pdfBroadview 6 May 21 Hearinghttps://cst.brightspotcdn.com/95/75/a403b7674c31b8f5bb0ecae58921/25cr693-usa-v-rabbitt-052126.pdfUS v. Rabbit [Broadview 6]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71795281/parties/united-states-v-rabbitt/United States v. Abrego (TN criminal docket) [docket via CourtListener]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70475970/united-states-v-abrego-garcia/?order_by=descAbrego Garcia v. Noem (MD Civil litigation) [docket via CourtListener]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71191591/abrego-garcia-v-noem/?order_by=descUnited States v. Carey (DC flag burning) [docket via CourtListener]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71223464/united-states-v-carey/Show Links:https://www.lawandchaospod.com/BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPodThreads: @LawAndChaosPodTwitter: @LawAndChaosPodSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Kristján Leó Guðmundsson tölvunarfræðingur og Bjarki Sigurjónsson Thorarensen með Slapp appið Stefán Einar Stefánsson blaðamaður Morgunblaðsins og umsjónarmaður Spursmála á mbl is um meirhlutaviðræður í Reykjavík og Davíð Odddsson Símatími Tesla - sjálfkeyrandi - Björn Kristjánsson sérfræðingur hjá FÍB Pétur Óskarsson  formaður samtaka ferðaþjónustunnar Bjarni Halldórsson formaður félags íslenskra Flugumferðarstjóra. Dómur Landsréttar Steraleikarnir Guðríður Erla Torfadóttir eða Gurrý þjálfari

Guest Host Joey DeMare talks about the anti-nuclear summit at the Circle Pines nature camp. Next he interviews Stephany Seay about Yellowstone Park's "secret Environmental Impact Statement" that could open the park itself up for hunting bison. Ecological News includes nuclear power plants catching fire around the country, a dangerous new invasive species of ant that's spreading across north America, and a special report by guest host Buffi Elwazani about developments in the SLAPP lawsuit against Greenpeace.

In this episode of Media Confidential, Alan and Lionel talk to Gabriel Pogrund, newly appointed editor of Insight, the Sunday Times investigative team. After Gabriel exposed £730,000 in undeclared donations to Labour Together, he and other journalists became victims of a smear campaign. He discusses why the thinktank commissioned an investigation into him—and how he was falsely accused of having Russian ties.As the co-author of Get In: The Inside Story of Labour Under Starmer, Gabriel also discusses the prime minister's leadership.Plus, in an age of weaponised libel laws and abusive SLAPP lawsuits, the trio discuss the challenges facing investigative journalists. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The applicants, two homeowners, hired the respondent company, Benchwood, to renovate their home. Benchwood is a general contracting and construction management business, and the respondent Michael Slaven is one of its co-owners. There were several areas of disagreement between the parties during the course of the renovations. A heated discussion occurred between Mr. Slaven and one of the homeowners. Benchwood performed no further work for the homeowners following this incident.The homeowners subsequently discovered that Benchwood posted photographs of their home online to attract new customers. This angered them and prompted them to post allegedly defamatory statements about Benchwood and Mr. Slaven on social media platforms.In response to these statements, Benchwood and Mr. Slaven commenced an action seeking damages for defamation. The homeowners subsequently brought a motion pursuant to s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act for an order dismissing the action as a proceeding that limits freedom of expression on matters of public interest. The motion judge agreed with the homeowners and ordered that the action be dismissed. Benchwood and Mr. Slaven appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal and set aside the dismissal of the action. Argued Date 2026-05-15 Keywords Torts — Libel and slander — Anti-SLAPP legislation — Dissatisfied clients of company posting negative statements online about company and its owner — Company and owner suing clients for defamation — Clients bringing motion to dismiss action pursuant to anti-SLAPP legislative provision — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in overturning the motion judge's finding that the impugned expression relates to a matter of public interest — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in overturning the motion judge's finding that there are no grounds to believe that the defences are not valid — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in overturning the motion judge's finding that the harms resulting from the impugned expression do not outweigh the public interest in protecting the expression — Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 137.1 Notes (Ontario) (Civil) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

Forrige helg misbrukte Liverpool sjansen mot Chelsea, men fikk en hjelpende hånd av Aston Villa, som ikke klarte å slå Burnley. Fredag møtes de to på Villa park, i en svært avgjørende kamp for å få avgjort Champions League-plassen for Liverpool. Liverpool har fått all verdens hjelp av andre – men nå er det på tide å gjøre jobben selv!I Liverpool.no Pausepraten har Arve Vassbotten med seg Mari Lunde og Jens Bessesen. Kapitlene00:00 Intro 00:57 Hva skal til for å få Champions League nå? 01:52 En sesong der man gjør det vanskelig for seg selv 03:16 Helt avgjørende ligakamper på Anfield går sjelden bra ...05:06 Rio fra start igjen? 05:36 Keeperdiskusjon09:30 Laguttaket for fredag. Kerkez eller Robertson? Og hva med høyrebacken og angrepet? 13:19 Chiesa hadde fått nok - det burde flere også fått 16:58 Et heltent Villa Park før en stor finale19:01 Big Mc-problemer for Mari 24:44 Slapp dårlig samvittighet på 17. mai Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Conversations on Groong - May 10, 2026Hovhannes Ishkhanyan and Nare Navasardyan discuss the growing role of the EU, fact-checking networks, and counter-disinformation programs in Armenia's 2026 election environment. The conversation examines claims of foreign interference, the use of "hybrid threats" and "disinformation" labels against domestic dissent, and the political bias of Armenia's fact-checking ecosystem. The guests also share personal experiences with lawsuits, public confrontation, protest, and censorship, raising broader questions about free speech, election fairness, and the management of Armenia's information space.Topics:EU role in Armenia's electionsFact-checkers and political biasDissent labeled as disinformationLawsuits, pressure, and intimidationCensorship and social media controlGuests:Nare NavasardyanHovhannes IshkhanyanHosts:Hovik ManucharyanAsbed BedrossianEpisode 543 | Recorded: May 7, 2026SHOW NOTES: https://podcasts.groong.org/543VIDEO: https://youtu.be/wapw0tYOafg#Armenia #ArmenianElections #EU #Disinformation #FactChecking #Censorship #CivilSociety #FreeSpeechSubscribe and follow us everywhere you are: linktr.ee/groong

In addition to having more than 100 published opinions and close to 100 oral arguments to his name, Jeremy B. Rosen is the managing partner of the Horvitz & Levy LLP San Francisco office. Jeremy is also nationally recognized for his First Amendment and anti-SLAPP work. Jeremy joins Jeff and Tim on the California Appellate Law Podcast to discuss:How does Horvitz & Levy sustain a practice that produces hundreds of high-quality appellate briefs annually while maintaining a clear institutional philosophy on drafting, editing, and oral advocacy?Part of the answer: Jeremy explains the firm's two-person brief model: one lead lawyer reads the full record and does the primary drafting, while a supervising lawyer provides strategy and heavy editing.Another part of the answer: Avoid committee-style drafting, common at large firms. This often produces briefs that lack a coherent voice.Who argues the case? Jeremy shares the firm's strong preference that the lawyer who drafted the brief should argue the case—not a senior partner brought in for name recognition.How to prepare for oral argument? Jeremy shares how he prepares “modules” for each topic so he is ready for wherever the panel wants to go.Oral argument strategy: If the bench is cold and asks no questions, speak for two or three minutes and sit down.Jeremy also discusses the responsible use of AI in appellate practice, noting that he now uses it to generate oral argument questions and sharpen briefs, but warns that he has already handled two appeals involving AI-generated false citations filed by opposing counsel.How to prepare for an oral argument when you inherit someone else's brief.The responsible use of AI in editing briefs and the dangers of relying on it without verification.Why a federal anti-SLAPP statute has stalled despite bipartisan support.How do you collaborate on appellate briefs and oral argument prep in your shop?

Hør alle episodene i appen NRK Radio! :). Hør alle episodene i appen NRK Radio

Death Penalty Debate Hits a Wall A Missouri effort to end judge-imposed death sentences has stalled in the state Senate, highlighting deep divisions over how capital punishment should be handled and who should have the final say. Free Speech Protections Move Forward Lawmakers passed a bill targeting “meritless lawsuits” often used to silence critics — commonly known as SLAPP suits, which are designed to intimidate and shut down public participation. Where Is Kim Gardner Now? Former St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner, who resigned in 2023 amid controversy and criticism over her office's performance, has since stepped away from her role after years of legal and political pressure. Citizens Push Back on Data Centers Across Missouri, residents are packing local meetings and speaking out against proposed data centers — raising concerns about energy use, land impact, and transparency. The message is clear: communities want a say in what's happening in their backyard. What do YOU think? Should judges have the power to impose death sentences? Are free speech protections strong enough? And should communities have veto power over large projects like data centers?Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/missouri-liberty-report--4329356/support.

Michael Wolff and Joanna Coles dive deep into the mystery behind Melania Trump's stunning public statement and the explosive theories it has unleashed. From a high-stakes anti-SLAPP lawsuit and whispers of Epstein-era connections to a branding blitz, geopolitical intrigue, and speculation of a calculated move against her own husband, Wolff dissects the legal battles, power plays, and personal tensions driving the drama. As conspiracies swirl the episode exposes the fragile intersection of politics, marriage, and media, revealing how one unexpected speech has reignited scandal, shaken the White House narrative, and forced the world to scrutinize what may lie beneath the carefully constructed Melania mystique. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Back again! This week on the show we're loaded up with campaign energy as Jason Fleming jumps in on the District 35 race, Amber Hulse lays out her reelection case in District 30, and Wyatt DeJong joins the District 21 scrum. We get into the B-21 buildup, Ellsworth's long-term economic ripple effect, the fight over whether West River is finally getting the infrastructure and defense investment it needs, and why Rapid City's next phase of growth is becoming one of the biggest political stories in the state. Plus Amber breaks down the session's late-stage chaos, anti-SLAPP protections, property tax relief, and how the governor's race turned Pierre into a faction-on-faction psychological experiment.Plus we hit the opioid settlement tug-of-war between big-city impact and rural access, the prison rehab fight now bleeding into the governor's primary, and the latest candidate shuffle as races lock in across the map. And of course, we close the only way Dakota Town Hall can with burger rankings, campaign trail banter, and enough primary-season side chatter to remind you South Dakota politics is fully in motion.@DakotaTownHall@Jakeshoenbeck@MurdocJ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This episode explores the complex landscape of SLAPP suits against whistleblowers, including strategies for protection, legal defenses, and the evolving legal protections. Experts Clay Weier and Grace Park share insights on how whistleblowers can navigate and defend against retaliatory lawsuits. Fraud in America is made possible by the generous donation of Getnick Law, a boutique Manhattan law firm dedicated to fighting fraud and promoting business integrity. ------------------Fraud in America Social Links

With Andrea and Bella out, Scott Lewis, Jakob McWhinney, and Will Huntsberry held it down. Former County Supervisor Nathan Fletcher is re-emerging post-controversy, holding a press conference, giving speeches, and launching a Substack, "Grounded," about his life on a family ranch. The Padres' strong season and high franchise value ($3.5B+) fuel sale rumors. Potential bidders include Dan Friedkin, Jose Feliciano, Joe Lacob, and Tom Gores. SB 958 has been filed to exempt the 4,200-home Midway Rising project (including an arena) from CEQA, bypassing potential traffic-related legal challenges. City staff discovered that Chicano Park and a nearby property intended for the Boston Avenue Linear Park were incorrectly zoned for commercial use in the 2021 community plan. The errors came to light when community members questioned the potential sale of one of the sites by Caltrans to Soapy Joe’s car wash. City Council recently voted to correct the zoning to reflect the intended park use. San Diego has a water surplus and is selling it, including a deal to provide 10,000 acre-feet annually to Temecula, expected to net $100 million over five years. San Diego's One America News Network filed a restraining order against influencer Chelsea Goss (Gods) after she protested Matt Gaetz's hiring; Goss responded with an anti-SLAPP motion. 2:21 Nathan Fletcher re-ermerges6:10 #Padres Opening Day and new potential buyer announced22:09 Midway Rising files to be exempt from CEQA32:25 We can't do this without you! 33:22 Chicano Park zoning issue44:28 San Diego's selling water!59:52 OANN vs Chelsea GodsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Legal Team, we're back with an update on the Marciano vs. Demi lawsuit tied to The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives and Vanderpump Villa. In this episode, we break down Demi and the production company's official response to Marciano's defamation claims, including the legal arguments they're using to try to shut the case down. From anti-SLAPP protections to reality TV contracts and release clauses, we walk through why the defendants believe this lawsuit should be dismissed and what it could mean for the future of the case. What's on the Docket? Demi's anti-SLAPP motion and why she argues Marciano's lawsuit targets protected speech The defamation claims Marciano filed and what statements are at the center of the dispute The reality TV contracts and release agreements Marciano signed and how they could block his claims Why Demi argues the lawsuit is a publicity grab tied to reality TV drama The production company's unusual motion for summary judgment and why filing it this early is surprising Access additional content and our Patreon here: ⁠https://zez.am/thebravodocket⁠ The Bravo Docket podcast, the statements we make whether in our own media or elsewhere, and any content we post are for entertainment purposes only and do not provide legal advice. Any party consuming our information should consult a lawyer for legal advice. The podcast, our opinions, and our posts, are our own and are not associated with our employers, Bravo TV, or any other television network. Cesie is admitted to the State Bars of California and New York. Angela is admitted to the State Bars of Texas, Kansas, and Missouri. Thank you to our incredible sponsors! Ollie: Get ready for both you and your pup to be obsessed. Head to ollie.com/docket, tell them all about your dog, and use code DOCKET to get 60% off your Welcome Kit when you subscribe today! Quit with Jones: Choose a healthier relationship with nicotine, by checking out Quit with Jones. Visit quitwithjones.com/DOCKET to take the free quiz and use code DOCKET to get 15% off your personalized quitting journey. Hers: Visit forhers.com/bravodocket to get a personalized, affordable plan that gets you. Wayfair: Get organized, refreshed, and back on track this new year for WAY less. Head to Wayfair.com right now to shop all things home. Progressive: Visit Progressive.com to see if you could save on car insurance. Quince: Go to Quince.com/DOCKET for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Olive & June: Visit Oliveandjune.com/DOCKET for 20% off your first System! See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Justice Kagan has more words about the emergency docket, aka shadow docket. This one is about the 9th Circuit panel injunction of California's law requiring school officials not to share with parents when their children present as trans. The Supreme Court keeps the injunction in effect.And on the fee award front, big firms don't automatically get a lodestar boost.Plus, a debrief from oral argument in the Scientology AI sanctions case—where the court said nothing about the sanctions at all.The shadow docket is now a routine appellate strategy: Mirabelli v. Bonta saw the U.S. Supreme Court reverse a Ninth Circuit stay on an emergency application, reinstating an injunction protecting parental notification rights on substantive due process grounds—despite the majority's stated skepticism of such claims post-Dobbs. Justice Kagan's dissent warned that the Court is bypassing the normal appellate process and deciding cases before en banc review, signaling a procedural shift practitioners are already exploiting.AI cover-ups carry career-ending stakes: In Kjoller v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court ordered a referee investigation after a prosecutor fabricated eight case citations, then called it "scrivener's error." The lesson is blunt—own the mistake immediately, or face bar referrals and public sanctions modeled on U.S. v. Hayes, where notice went to every judge in the district and every state bar where the attorney held a license.Firm size doesn't cap your fees: In LA International Corp. v. Prestige Brands, the Ninth Circuit vacated a fee award that discounted rates for a four-lawyer firm, holding that "brilliance at the bar is not measured by the number of associates a lawyer commands." Skill, experience, and reputation control the lodestar—not letterhead.Oral argument silence in the Scientology AI case: Despite an Order to Show Cause for sanctions over AI-generated citations, the Second District panel never raised the issue during argument, focusing only on anti-SLAPP merits while the sanctioned attorney sat in the gallery with separate counsel at the podium.Legislative response is coming: A California Senate bill imposing heightened duties of care for AI use by attorneys is advancing with no opposition, suggesting statutory guardrails are imminent.

In this week's episode of Nonprofit Newsfeed, the hosts delve into significant challenges impacting the nonprofit sector, focusing on two major stories: the Flipcause donation platform's bankruptcy and the legal troubles faced by Greenpeace. Flipcause Bankruptcy and Nonprofit Losses The episode opens with an update on Flipcause, a donation platform that went bankrupt, leaving nonprofits in financial turmoil. The platform, unable to disperse funds made through it, owes $29 million to various parties, primarily nonprofits. Despite valuing their platform at $15 million, Flipcause's recent filings show only $70,000 in their account, highlighting severe mismanagement. The California Attorney General issued a cease and desist order, and a lawsuit from 29 organizations alleges fraud, with some nonprofits owed hundreds of thousands of dollars. A recent bidding process valued the platform at a mere $400,000—far short of its claimed worth—leaving nonprofits unlikely to recover their donations. The discussion emphasizes the importance of nonprofits maintaining control over their payment gateways to avoid similar pitfalls. Greenpeace Legal Challenges The episode also covers a $345 million verdict against Greenpeace in the Dakota Access Pipeline lawsuit, a significant legal challenge that threatens its U.S. operations. This case, seen as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), underscores the vulnerability of nonprofits involved in activism. The hosts discuss the broader implications for organizations engaged in direct action and the potential chilling effect on nonprofit advocacy.

In this week’s episode of Nonprofit Newsfeed, the hosts delve into significant challenges impacting the nonprofit sector, focusing on two major stories: the Flipcause donation platform’s bankruptcy and the legal troubles faced by Greenpeace. Flipcause Bankruptcy and Nonprofit Losses The episode opens with an update on Flipcause, a donation platform that went bankrupt, leaving nonprofits in financial turmoil. The discussion emphasizes the importance of nonprofits maintaining control over their payment gateways to avoid similar pitfalls. Greenpeace Legal Challenges The episode also covers a $345 million verdict against Greenpeace in the Dakota Access Pipeline lawsuit, highlighting the vulnerability of nonprofits involved in activism. View Episode Transcript This week on the Nonprofit News Feed, George Weiner and Nick Azulay discuss the Flipcause donation platform's bankruptcy and Greenpeace's significant legal battle. Flipcause Bankruptcy Fallout Eagle-eared listeners may recall the beleaguered Flipcause platform—a donation tool that went underwater last year. Recent bankruptcy filings reveal the company owes million to over 3,200 nonprofits. Despite a self-valuation of million, a recent bidding process valued the entire platform at just ,000. For nonprofits like the Sweet Relief Musicians Fund (owed .2 million) and the Loveland Foundation (owed ,000), the prospects of recovery looks slim. The California Attorney General has issued a cease and desist order, and 29 organizations have filed a lawsuit alleging fraud. The core takeaway: nonprofits must maintain direct control over their payment gateways (like Stripe or Braintree) to avoid having their funds held in third-party “safe” accounts that can evaporate. Greenpeace Legal Battle The sector is also watching a million verdict against Greenpeace in a North Dakota lawsuit related to the 2017 Dakota Access Pipeline protests. This case is seen as a “SLAPP” suit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation), which targets activist organizations. The hosts discuss the existential threat such litigation poses to nonprofits involved in direct action and environmental advocacy. Dolly Parton's Imagination Library On a lighter note, Dolly Parton's Imagination Library reached a massive milestone in Alabama, sending free books to over 9,600 children in Madison County alone. The program aims to increase literacy and interest in reading for children from birth to age five. Dad Joke: What did the nonprofit dog shelter call their new meditation program? A “werewolf.” -------- NonprofitNewsfeed.com Summary of hundreds of news sources.The post Flipcause Bankruptcy Fallout and Greenpeace Legal Battle (news) first appeared on Nonprofit News Feed.

Slovenija je dobila celovit pravni mehanizem za zaščito posameznikov in organizacij, ki so zaradi svojega javnega delovanja tarče očitno neutemeljenih tožbenih zahtevkov ali zlorabljenih sodnih postopkov, katerih namen ni reševanje sporov, temveč zastraševanje, utišanje in preprečevanje javne razprave. Gre za tako imenovane SLAPP tožbe. Tarče takšnih tožb so najpogosteje novinarji, medijske hiše, raziskovalci, žvižgači, aktivisti … Kaj zakon prinaša v praksi? O tem v tokratnem studiu ob 17-ih. Gostje: Luka Ivanič, sekretar na direktoratu za civilno pravo na ministrstvu za pravosodje; dr. Barbara Rajgelj, Pravna mreža za varstvo demokracije; Primož Cirman, novinar, Necenzurirano.si Avtorica oddaje Jolanda Lebar.

Send a textWhat happens when a combat paratrooper-turned-cop builds a media platform, challenges a celebrated story, and gets hit with a $25 million lawsuit? We sit down with Tyler Hoover, founder of the Anti-Hero Broadcast and Counterculture Inc., to unpack the messy collision of free speech, celebrity culture, and the legal machine designed to make critics go quiet. Tyler's journey from Baghdad to the beat to the studio reveals why so many veterans gravitate to blunt talk and dark humor—and why that candor draws fire when it targets revered narratives.We dig into the contradictions of modern conflict and public memory: how disbanded armies, proxy incentives, and political timing shaped the Iraq War he lived through, and how those lessons now inform his refusal to accept curated hero myths at face value. Tyler breaks down the policing incentives that erode community trust, the analytics that drive behavior on the street, and the moment he realized his voice fit better behind a mic than behind a badge. That voice built a “99 percent” community—service members and first responders who don't trend on thumbnails but carry stories worth hearing.Then we tackle lawfare. Tyler explains how an LLC won't shield you from defamation suits, why venue shopping matters, and how anti-SLAPP provisions can flip the pressure back when lawsuits aim to silence speech. He also shares the unglamorous reality: legal fees up front, years of motions, and the stress that tries to break creators long before any verdict. Instead of folding, he leans into transparency, analyzing public contradictions, and turning the case into lessons for anyone building an independent platform.Along the way, we wrestle with culture-war flashpoints—gender in combat arms, the trans debate's policy stakes, and the cost of enforcing orthodoxy over biology—to ask a harder question: who owns the narrative when truth collides with power, money, and fame? If you value plain speech, thick skin, and communities that argue in good faith, you'll find a lot to chew on.If this conversation resonates, follow the show, share it with a friend who loves honest talk, and leave a review with your biggest takeaway—we read every one.Support the showVisit my website: https://thehello.llc/THERESACARPENTERRead my writings on my blog: https://www.theresatapestries.com/Listen to other episodes on my podcast: https://storiesofservice.buzzsprout.comWatch episodes of my podcast:https://www.youtube.com/c/TheresaCarpenter76

In Part 2 of our conversation with Michael Shipley, Tim and Jeff dig into the real-world fallout of California's no-horizontal-stare-decisis rule — and the structural fix Shipley has been developing to address it.Shipley walks Tim and Jeff through his proposed "mini-en banc" transfer mechanism — a way for the California Supreme Court to empower a designated Court of Appeal panel to issue statewide-binding precedent on conflicting issues without consuming the Supreme Court's own docket. No constitutional amendment required. The fix is already structurally available. The question is whether anyone has the will to use it.Key points:The "lonesome judge" problem is worse than it sounds: Under Auto Equity, trial judges caught between conflicting Court of Appeal decisions must predict which rule the California Supreme Court would adopt—effectively playing temporary Supreme Court justice on procedural disputes that may never get high court attention. The result: uncertainty, inconsistent rulings, and frustrated trial judges who just want clear precedent to follow.The anti-SLAPP mixed-cause-of-action split took over a decade to resolve: Before Baral, California Courts of Appeal were hopelessly divided on whether a defendant could bring an anti-SLAPP motion targeting individual claims within a mixed cause of action. The split persisted for years.Forum shopping is a risk—but more at the trial court level: There is a theoretical opportunity to forum-shop between appellate districts, but if shopping actually happens, it's probably more at the “lonesome trial judge” level.Shipley's fix: a "mini-en banc" transfer procedure: The California Supreme Court would transfer cases back to a designated Court of Appeal panel with authority to disapprove prior conflicting decisions and issue a statewide-binding opinion. The decision would remain subject to Supreme Court review, but would resolve persistent splits on procedural issues without consuming Supreme Court resources.Constitutional constraints make true en banc review impossible: California's Constitution requires three-justice panels—no more, no less.Implementation doesn't require constitutional amendment: The Supreme Court could adopt this procedure unilaterally as a matter of prudence, though a Judicial Council rule would provide helpful procedural uniformity.Listen now to understand a concrete reform proposal that could bring much-needed certainty to California's appellate system—and learn how you can support it.

Richard lays down the facts so clearly you can taste it. There's no hedging, no softening, no dancing around it. He walks through what fair use actually is, calls out the gaslighting coming from the PBCC and their lawyers, and sets the record straight on a SLAPP suit they now appear to be backpedaling from. This isn't outrage for the sake of it — it's someone explaining exactly how it's being twisted. And the mic drop at the end? It says everything. The bigger question is this: how do we get real laws in place to stop this kind of legal abuse?

In dieser Folge von „Ganz offen gesagt“ spricht Host Stefan Lassnig mit Satiriker, Buchautor und Podcaster Florian Scheuba, warum Kriminelle und korrupte Politiker immer wieder Sympathien genießen und wie sich Korruption in den letzten Jahrzehnten verändert hat. Scheuba erklärt, warum er Donald Trump eher als Gauner denn als Entertainer sieht und wie schwer es Satire inzwischen hat, wenn die politische Realität oft absurder wirkt als jede Bühnenpointe. Anhand von Fällen wie Peter Hochegger, dem „Wo war meine Leistung?“-Satz oder dem Birnbacher-Gutachten zeigt er, wie Satire komplexe Affären auf einen einprägsamen Punkt bringen kann, den viele Menschen plötzlich verstehen. Ein zentrales Thema ist die wachsende Desinformation: autoritäre Akteure wollen weniger überzeugen, als vielmehr bewirken, dass „eh alle lügen“ und niemand mehr Wahrheit von Lüge unterscheiden kann. Scheuba kritisiert „False Balance“ in Talkshows, in denen Klimaleugner:innen wissenschaftlichen Positionen gleichgestellt werden, und betont seinen Leitsatz „Eine Lüge ist keine Meinung“. Ausführlich thematisiert er seine nicht rechtskräftige Verurteilung wegen einer Kolumne, warnt vor Einschüchterungsklagen gegen Journalist:innen und schildert, wie solche Urteile Meinungsfreiheit und Kritik an Amtsträgern massiv einschränken können. Im Gespräch geht es auch um die strukturelle „Aufrüstung“ der politischen PR gegenüber einem ökonomisch geschwächten Journalismus und um die Rolle sozialer Medien und KI bei der Aushöhlung eines gemeinsamen Wahrheitsbegriffs. Am Ende diskutieren Lassnig und Scheuba, was jede und jeder tun kann – von der Unterstützung seriöser Medien über Medienkompetenz bis zur Wertschätzung von Demokratie – und warum Humor für Scheuba eine Form von „Satire als Notwehr“ gegen Angst und Resignation ist.Links zur Folge:Interview von "profil" mit Florian ScheubaBuch "Schrödingers Ente" von Florian ScheubaPodcast "Ganz offen gesagt" über "8 Tische für die vierte Gewalt"Podcast "Die Dunkelkammer" - Auftakt zur Serie über Peter HocheggerPodcastempfehlung der Woche:Podcast "Scheuba fragt nach" (FALTER) Wir würden uns sehr freuen, wenn Du "Ganz offen gesagt" auf einem der folgenden Wege unterstützt:Werde Unterstützer:in auf SteadyKaufe ein Premium-Abo auf AppleKaufe Artikel in unserem FanshopSchalte Werbung in unserem PodcastFeedback bitte an redaktion@ganzoffengesagt.atTranskripte und Fotos zu den Folgen findest Du auf podcastradio.at

California is the largest common-law jurisdiction where appellate courts don't follow each other—and it happened by accident. In Part 1 of this two-part episode, Michael Shipley explains how Bernard Witkin's treatise reflections on case dicta became binding law, why the federal circuit model works differently, and what the rule costs practitioners and trial judges every day.Key points:The Witkin origin story: No California Supreme Court decision actually establishes the no-horizontal-stare-decisis rule. It developed through dicta, then appeared in Witkin's first edition—which courts then cited as authority.The federal contrast matters for forum strategy: In the Ninth Circuit, Miller v. Gammy binds all panels within the circuit to follow the first published decision on an issue. California trial courts, by contrast, face conflicting appellate authority and must guess which rule the Supreme Court would adopt under Auto Equity—a burden one trial judge called being "appointed to the Supreme Court for temporary purposes."Stare decisis isn't jurisdictional (probably).Unpublished opinions create tension.The pros: California's rule allows multiple perspectives on emerging issues and prevents the first Court of Appeal decision from locking in statewide law before the Supreme Court weighs in.The cons: The rule creates uncertainty, burdens trial courts, and leads to inadvertent inconsistencies on procedural issues too minor for Supreme Court attention—splits that can persist for years or even decades. (In anti-SLAPP law, it took 13 years before Baral v. Schnitt decided how to handle mixed causes of action.)Publication practices hide the problem: Many conflicts never surface because courts strategically leave decisions unpublished, masking the frequency of divergent reasoning and making the appellate landscape harder to navigate.Listen to Part 1 now for the full discussion on how California got here and what it costs practitioners—then tune in to Part 2, where Shipley covers forum shopping, the anti-SLAPP mixed-causes-of-action case study, and his proposed reform: precedential transfer.

Michael Wolff steps inside the chaos swirling around Trump World—from Wolff's bombshell federal lawsuit against Melania Trump, which he says could finally force sworn answers about the Trump–Epstein relationship, to the extraordinary legal fight over where the First Lady actually lives. As Wolff argues that anti-SLAPP laws may become a frontline weapon against what he calls the White House's assault on free speech, he and Daily Beast executive editor Hugh Dougherty dissect the implications of Melania's alleged full-time life in New York, her separate Trump Tower apartment, and the branding empire she's quietly building. The conversation then widens to what Wolff portrays as a second administration defined by loyalty over competence: election denier Kurt Olsen rising to oversee election security, Pam Bondi's combative Hill performance, and the bizarre El Paso airspace shutdown involving secret lasers, drone claims, and bureaucratic bedlam. Is this a White House tightening its grip—or a government spinning into incompetence so profound it can no longer explain itself? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Plymouth Brethren Christian Church's charitable arm, the Rapid Relief Team (RRT), has launched a legal SLAPP action against Cheryl and the Get A Life podcast. Filed in California, the lawsuit accuses Cheryl of copyright infringement over RRT's “Cookie Bird” cartoon mascot. The claim is false and dishonest — and it serves a far more serious purpose than protecting a cringeworthy cartoon kookaburra.Alan Drever, the Maple Creek PBCC elder accused of sexually abusing and trafficking Cheryl, is also an RRT volunteer. He appears publicly outside Maple Creek Town Hall representing the church and claiming to act in the name of Christian “care and compassion.” After Cheryl obtained a recorded confession from Alan, she wrote directly to PBCC leader Bruce Hales, asking the church to take responsibility for the abuse she suffered inside the cult. No response came from the “Man of God.” What came instead was a lawsuit.The action targets Cheryl personally, but it also targets the Get A Life podcast and by extension, every former PBCC member who has spoken publicly through that platform.In this episode, Cheryl and Richard walk through the full timeline, backed by documentation. This includes the recording of Alan Drever's confession, disturbing historical links involving Dean Hales and Lloyd (Merrick) Grimshaw, and guest contributions from cult expert Anke Richter and ex-PBCC member Steve Simmons, who offer their own unfiltered assessments of what is unfolding. This episode lays out how a corrupt charity responds when a survivor asks for accountability and how the legal system is abused to silence a whistleblower.Link for insiders- https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/j1u7egpyqlwgdvneg9mht/45000-160.mp4?rlkey=oysxsiryu449uoeok8pt148ey&st=agnftau0&dl=0Link to Legal documents- https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Vs70rXTmfJBscBPX1gDnIR8mFfUl2cRi/view?usp=sharingLink to Cheryl's podcast on Blackballed- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4_mcx-f4LQCanadaland article- https://www.canadaland.com/plymouth-brethren-christian-church-members-under-rcmp-investigation-for-alleged-sexual-abuse-in-saskatchewan/Link to Mick Dover Audio- https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-09-15/exclusive-brethren-plymouth-alleged-abuse-nda-four-corners/105762208Article to Michael Bachelard death threat- https://archive.ph/XMRyVTo share your story or be a guest on the show, email info.getalife@proton.meGet a Life Paypal donations -https://www.paypal.me/getalifepodcastGet a Life GoFundMe-https://gofund.me/614bcd06Olive Leaf Network- https://oliveleaf.network/Thinking of Leaving Pamphlet and resources - https://oliveleaf.network/resources/Link to Anchor/Spotify- https://open.spotify.com/show/4GhNv1hZp6tjfLyA4s6PMu?si=Gs5euyWpT4y7lOS8OTe4XAPreston Down Trust Decision-https://www.gov.uk/government/news/commission-publishes-report-on-the-preston-down-trustAberdeen incident- https://drive.google.com/file/d/1riImgAqwaqGwjYq6vRQIr4_jscJA0eQN/view?usp=drive_linkIf we walk in the light letters-https://drive.google.com/file/d/14WlgJladl1r95YGxW0FbZ0prYfjlg7FU/view?usp=sharingAdmin/Legal email address:stouffvillelegal-gal@protonmail.comOffice address:22 Braid BendStouffville ONL4A 1R7#plymouthbrethrenchristianchurch #pbcc #abuse #church #cult #religion #trauma #religioustrauma #sexualabuse #mindcontrol #brainwashing #conversation #exmembers #exposingtruth #expose #exposure #whistleblower #getalifepodcast #getalife #podcast #rules #strict #exclusivebrethren #brucehales #BruceHales #BDH #BruceDHales #UniversalBusinessTeam #UBT #RRT #RapidReliefTeam #Aberdeen #OneSchoolGlobal #OSG #johnhales #shutup #withdrawnfrom #worldly #excommunicate #assemblydeath #christiansect #christiancult #canadiancult #canadiansect #sect #worldwidesect #worldwidecult #cultescape #cultescapestory #bully #bullying #brokenfamily #awareness #cultescape #cultandculturepodcast #cultescapee #cultescapeer #cultescapeeinterview #askingforhelp #unispace

V državnem zboru poteka zadnja redna seja v tem mandatu. Danes bo pred poslankami in poslanci več zakonskih predlogov s področja pravosodja, med drugimi o kazenski obravnavi mladoletnikov. Čakamo ga več kot 15 let; predvideva prednostno vodenje kazenskih postopkov proti mladoletnikom in specializacijo vseh sodelujočih. Danes je na dnevnem redu tudi predlog zakona o zaščiti pred strateškimi, tako imenovanimi SLAPP tožbami. To so očitno neutemeljene in pretirane tožbe, največkrat namenjene zastraševanju in utišanju novinarjev in predstavnikov civilne družbe. V oddaji tudi: - Evropska unija si želi odpreti pot na azijske trge tudi s trgovinskim dogovorom z Indijo. - Nova zakonodaja o zbiranju smeti bo zvišala stroške za podjetja, manjši pa bodo za gospodinjstva. - Reprezentanti v dvoranskem nogometu po zmagi proti Belgiji ohranjajo upe na četrtfinale Eura.

Billy Howland, R'82, P'22, has always had a passion for barbecue that began with Richmond's Pig Roast tradition. What started as a family legacy has now blossomed into a thriving local brand: Billy's Slapp'n Sauce. In this episode, we dive into Billy's journey and explore the entrepreneurial shift he made in mid-life. Joined by his daughter Morgan Howland, '22, we uncover how her background in journalism helped shape their brand's marketing and product development. Together, they share some great lessons on turning a passion into a product, using secret recipes, and why community matters so much in business. Whether you're an aspiring entrepreneur or just love good food, this conversation is packed with inspiration and practical tips to help you turn a simple passion into a successful venture.Learn more about Billy's Slapp'n Sauce here: https://www.billysslappnsauce.com/Editing by Maggie Johnson, '18, Associate Director of Regional & Young Grad Engagement. Episode music by FASSounds from Pixabay.Nominate someone to be on our show by emailing alumni@richmond.edu.

Due to expiring tax credits, there are over a million people in this country not signing up for health insurance through the ACA, nearly 20,000 of them live in Wisconsin. We discuss what Congress is doing to remedy this problem, what the Senate could do and how you can help. Then, more work in Madison with a bill to combat SLAPP suits and a proposed constitutional amendment which shows our leaders don't know what DEI does for people. Then we speak with our friends from The Milwaukee Public Museum about their "Greatest Hits" series as they set to move out of the current location and open the doors on their new place...what do they have in common? Greg doesn't know where either of them are located apparently. As always, thank you for listening, texting and calling, we couldn't do this without you! Don't forget to download the free Civic Media app and take us wherever you are in the world! Matenaer On Air is a part of the Civic Media radio network and airs weekday mornings from 9-11 across the state. Subscribe to the podcast to be sure not to miss out on a single episode! You can also rate us on your podcast distribution center of choice. It goes a long way! Guests: Madeline Anderson, Stephen Petrie

AI-sanctions might get eyeballs, but the bigger sanctions are still for plain old bad lawyering. Jeff also raises this ethical and pragmatic question: who defends the lawyer when sanctions threaten the client? Should counsel facing an OSC retain separate counsel for the sanctions component to avoid divided attention and better protect client interests? What if the costs of independent counsel are likely to exceed the sanction?$25K for using Anti-SLAPP as a litigation weapon. A bare-bones anti-SLAPP was amplified by record emails suggesting the strategy was to inflict cost and pain rather than win on the merits.$13K for relitigating the merits through a fee appeal. The appeal purported to challenge fees, but largely recycled arguments already rejected in the prior appeal. The court finds the effort both objectively meritless and subjectively aimed at rehashing settled ground.

Three cases. Three firestorms. One attorney who cuts through the noise. In this extended episode, defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis joins me to break down the legal chaos surrounding the Netflix documentary Sean Combs: The Reckoning, the explosive allegations linking Diddy to the murders of Tupac and Biggie, and the mysterious cruise-ship death of 18-year-old Anna Kepner, where a 16-year-old stepbrother is the named suspect — yet no charges have been filed. Part One: Diddy vs. Netflix We look at the cease-and-desist letter, the “stolen footage” accusations, and why Diddy hasn't filed the billion-dollar lawsuit he threatened. Eric explains the hurdles of copyright ownership, the brutal reality of defamation law for public figures, and how anti-SLAPP statutes could turn the whole thing back on Diddy. We also break down why 50 Cent's decades-long feud with Diddy isn't enough to create legal exposure on its own. Part Two: Tupac & Biggie Allegations Keefe D named Diddy 47 times across interviews. Kirk Burrowes says Diddy “ushered Biggie to his death.” Former LAPD detective Greg Kading lays out timelines and motive theories. But accusations do not equal evidence. Eric explains why none of this has triggered criminal charges, what prosecutors would actually need, and whether future cooperation deals could change the landscape. Part Three: The Anna Kepner Case A death at sea. A teenage suspect identified in legal filings, not by investigators. Conflicting family narratives, witnesses claiming aggression and chokeholds, and an FBI investigation happening entirely out of sight. Eric breaks down why the silence may be strategic, how federal cases involving minors unfold, and what the legal roadmap looks like behind closed doors. This episode pulls together the legal, psychological, and forensic threads of three highly complicated cases — and gives listeners a grounded, real-world understanding of what justice looks like when the spotlight is this bright. #DiddyCase #TupacAndBiggie #AnnaKepner #EricFaddis #HiddenKillers #TonyBrueski #TrueCrimePodcast #LegalAnalysis #NetflixDocumentary #TrueCrimeDiscussion Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Three cases. Three firestorms. One attorney who cuts through the noise. In this extended episode, defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis joins me to break down the legal chaos surrounding the Netflix documentary Sean Combs: The Reckoning, the explosive allegations linking Diddy to the murders of Tupac and Biggie, and the mysterious cruise-ship death of 18-year-old Anna Kepner, where a 16-year-old stepbrother is the named suspect — yet no charges have been filed. Part One: Diddy vs. Netflix We look at the cease-and-desist letter, the “stolen footage” accusations, and why Diddy hasn't filed the billion-dollar lawsuit he threatened. Eric explains the hurdles of copyright ownership, the brutal reality of defamation law for public figures, and how anti-SLAPP statutes could turn the whole thing back on Diddy. We also break down why 50 Cent's decades-long feud with Diddy isn't enough to create legal exposure on its own. Part Two: Tupac & Biggie Allegations Keefe D named Diddy 47 times across interviews. Kirk Burrowes says Diddy “ushered Biggie to his death.” Former LAPD detective Greg Kading lays out timelines and motive theories. But accusations do not equal evidence. Eric explains why none of this has triggered criminal charges, what prosecutors would actually need, and whether future cooperation deals could change the landscape. Part Three: The Anna Kepner Case A death at sea. A teenage suspect identified in legal filings, not by investigators. Conflicting family narratives, witnesses claiming aggression and chokeholds, and an FBI investigation happening entirely out of sight. Eric breaks down why the silence may be strategic, how federal cases involving minors unfold, and what the legal roadmap looks like behind closed doors. This episode pulls together the legal, psychological, and forensic threads of three highly complicated cases — and gives listeners a grounded, real-world understanding of what justice looks like when the spotlight is this bright. #DiddyCase #TupacAndBiggie #AnnaKepner #EricFaddis #HiddenKillers #TonyBrueski #TrueCrimePodcast #LegalAnalysis #NetflixDocumentary #TrueCrimeDiscussion Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Before the Netflix documentary Sean Combs: The Reckoning even aired, Diddy's legal team fired off a cease-and-desist letter. They called the documentary a “shameful hit piece,” claimed the footage was “stolen,” and floated the idea of a billion-dollar lawsuit. And yet… nothing. No lawsuit. No emergency injunction. No filings. So what is actually happening here? In this segment, defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis breaks down the legal truth behind Diddy's threats. We examine what it would take for Diddy to win a copyright claim over footage filmed by his own videographer — especially when some reports say there were no formal contracts at all. Eric explains how ownership works, how intellectual property law overlaps with employment agreements, and why “stolen footage” is much harder to prove than people realize. We then dig into defamation. Diddy is a public figure — which means the “actual malice” standard applies. Eric walks us through how extraordinarily difficult it is for celebrities to win defamation cases, especially when a documentary includes on-camera statements from people like Kirk Burrowes rather than direct factual claims made by Netflix. We also discuss Diddy's active lawsuit against NBCUniversal, how his own sentencing-day statements may have severely weakened his claims, and whether 50 Cent — a vocal adversary — exposes himself to additional liability as an executive producer. Finally, we break down how New York's anti-SLAPP laws could turn the tables entirely, forcing Diddy to pay Netflix's legal fees if a defamation claim is deemed retaliatory. This is where legal threats meet actual law — and those two worlds rarely look the same. #DiddyCase #NetflixDoc #EricFaddis #LegalAnalysis #HiddenKillers #TonyBrueski #SeanCombs #DefamationLaw #TrueCrimePodcast #50Cent Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Before the Netflix documentary Sean Combs: The Reckoning even aired, Diddy's legal team fired off a cease-and-desist letter. They called the documentary a “shameful hit piece,” claimed the footage was “stolen,” and floated the idea of a billion-dollar lawsuit. And yet… nothing. No lawsuit. No emergency injunction. No filings. So what is actually happening here? In this segment, defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis breaks down the legal truth behind Diddy's threats. We examine what it would take for Diddy to win a copyright claim over footage filmed by his own videographer — especially when some reports say there were no formal contracts at all. Eric explains how ownership works, how intellectual property law overlaps with employment agreements, and why “stolen footage” is much harder to prove than people realize. We then dig into defamation. Diddy is a public figure — which means the “actual malice” standard applies. Eric walks us through how extraordinarily difficult it is for celebrities to win defamation cases, especially when a documentary includes on-camera statements from people like Kirk Burrowes rather than direct factual claims made by Netflix. We also discuss Diddy's active lawsuit against NBCUniversal, how his own sentencing-day statements may have severely weakened his claims, and whether 50 Cent — a vocal adversary — exposes himself to additional liability as an executive producer. Finally, we break down how New York's anti-SLAPP laws could turn the tables entirely, forcing Diddy to pay Netflix's legal fees if a defamation claim is deemed retaliatory. This is where legal threats meet actual law — and those two worlds rarely look the same. #DiddyCase #NetflixDoc #EricFaddis #LegalAnalysis #HiddenKillers #TonyBrueski #SeanCombs #DefamationLaw #TrueCrimePodcast #50Cent Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

We're back with a fresh update on the long-running Marco Marco vs. Erika Jayne saga—the alleged credit-card-fraud case we've been following for years. This time we're uncovering the truth behind the headline: RHOBH's Erika Jayne Loses SLAPP Appeal in $18 Million Lawsuit From Designer. If it's your first time tuning into this drama, don't worry, we'll give you a quick refresher before diving into the latest twists: the U.S. government being dismissed from the lawsuit, AMEX staying in the fight, and why Erika's anti-SLAPP appeal is now off the table. Plus, we'll check in on the Florida lawsuit involving Erika, Leia, and Mikey. What's on the docket? A refresher on the Marco Marco x Erika Jayne credit-card-fraud allegations Why the U.S. government was officially dismissed from the case AMEX's failed attempt to force arbitration and why they're still in the hot seat Erika's anti-SLAPP appeal and what it means What discovery will look like now that the case can finally move forward The latest in the Florida case: Marco Morante's tortious-interference and defamation claims against Erika, Leia, and Mikey Access additional content and our Patreon here: ⁠https://zez.am/thebravodocket⁠ The Bravo Docket podcast, the statements we make whether in our own media or elsewhere, and any content we post are for entertainment purposes only and do not provide legal advice. Any party consuming our information should consult a lawyer for legal advice. The podcast, our opinions, and our posts, are our own and are not associated with our employers, Bravo TV, or any other television network. Cesie is admitted to the State Bars of California and New York. Angela is admitted to the State Bars of Texas, Kansas, and Missouri. Thank you to our incredible sponsors! Balance of Nature: Visit balanceofnature.com and Use code DOCKET for 35% off your first order as a preferred customer, PLUS get a free bottle of Fiber and Spice. Hers: Visit forhers.com/bravodocket to get a personalized, affordable plan that gets you. Quince: Go to Quince.com/DOCKET for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Rula: Visit Rula.com/bravodocket to get started. Dupe: Go to Dupe.com today and find similar products for less. Monarch Money: Use code DOCKET at monarchmoney.com in your browser for half off your first year. Wayfair: Don't miss out on early Black Friday deals. Head to Wayfair.com now to shop Wayfair's Black Friday deals for up to 70% off. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.