Podcasts about slapp

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.

Imagine your former group launching a legal challenge over your use of a cartoon mascot, just as you begin speaking out about the abuse you experienced at the hands of an elder in the same group. Sometimes truth really is stranger than fiction.In today's episode, Cheryl Hope Bawtinheimer and Braden Simmons, former members of the PBCC (Plymouth Brethren Church/Exclusive Brethren) join us to explore what happens when whistleblowing meets litigation. We talk about courage, consequences, public voice and accountability and, in a twist few could have predicted, the unexpected role played by the PBCC Kookie mascot and our own dear co-host Lindy.

Magtfulde virksomheder og personer bruger i stigende grad retssystemet til at intimidere kritikere med dyre og langvarige retssager. De såkaldte SLAPP-sager er ikke først og fremmest tænkt til at få oprejsning for en potentiel krænkelse, men til at skræmme journalister, NGO'er, forskere og andre deltagere i den offentlige debat til tavshed. I Magtens Tredeling episode 255 forklarer bestyrelsesmedlem i Coalition against SLAPPS in Europe og Greenpeace-jurist Daniel Simons, hvordan SLAPP-sager fungerer som censur, hvorfor de truer den demokratiske samtale, og hvad EU's nye anti‑SLAPP‑direktiv betyder for Europa og Danmark. Gæst: Bestyrelsesmedlem i Coalition against SLAPPS in Europe og Greenpeace-jurist Daniel Simons Vært: Cecilie Uhre Magtens Tredeling er en del af K-NEWS, som produceres og publiceres af Karnov Group Denmark. K-NEWS leverer gratis og uafhængig journalistisk dækning af juraens verden og er tilmeldt Pressenævnet.

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.

Öll viðtölin úr þætti dagsins ásamt símatíma: Sigvaldi "Svali" Kaldalóns á Tenerife Runólfur Pálsson forstjóri Landspítala um 5 milljarða niðurskurðakröfu Landspítala og stöðuna á bráðamóttöku Símatími Róbert Bragason  og Arnar Arinbjarnarson sem eru stjórnarmenn í Samtökum skattgreiðenda Sigurþóra Steinunn Bergsdóttir varaþingkona Samfylkingarinnar um erlent eignarhald innviðafyrirtækja Einar Bárðarson framkvæmdastjóri SVEIT Samtaka fyrirtækja á veitingamarkaði um veitingageirann sem er kominn að þolmörkum Kristján Leó Guðmundsson tölvunarfræðingur með Slapp appið

Mikael Kubista drev ett av Sveriges snabbast växande techbolag. Man var bland de första i världen att erbjuda covidtester och pcr-tekniken, som man var expert på, öppnade nya möjligheter inom läkemedelsindustrin.Då hörde en amerikansk investerare av sig och erbjöd finansieringen som behövdes. Det som såg ut som en perfect match. Men det skulle sluta i katastrof.En söndagkväll i juni drygt två år senare blev Mikael Kubista uppsagd, datorn fjärraderades och mailen stängdes av. Bolaget försvann, pengarna försvann och jobbet försvann.Det enda som var kvar var vännerna, kollegorna och familjen.Dessutom blev Mikael stämd på miljonbelopp för att hindra honom från att söka nya jobb och att yttra sig offentligt. Förfarande kallas SLAPP, ett sätt för rika personer att tysta meningsmotståndare. Mikael är långt ifrån den ende som blivit utsatt men är en av väldigt få som kan berätta sin historia öppet.Det här är ett känslosamt möte med en ljus bakgrund om Mikael Kubistas karriär. Vi pratar om varför han fick räkna bilar utanför skolan, fylleriet i Kemihuset, mötet med MI6, hur Mikael var med och räddade bulgariska sjuksköterskor från avrättning, NIPT och hur han startade den första covidtesterna med hjälp av frivilliga i en skollokal.Vill du hoppa in direkt i historien med investerarna och hur Mikael blev av med sitt bolag så börjar den ungefär 40 minuter in i avsnittet.Moderator: Gunnar OesterreichMusik: Mattias Klasson/Daniel OlsenDistribution: AcastSamarbetspartners: Life Genomics, Gröna Gårdar, FunmedHitta allt om podden: Websida: https://spannandemoten.se/Instagram: @spannandemotenFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/spannandemotenLinkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gunnar-oesterreich/Kontakt: gunnar@oesterreich.se eller via sociala medier Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What is the future of anti-SLAPP laws in the UK?  And what are the implications of the recent High Court Judgment in Hurst v Solicitors Regulation Authority (https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/082-Hurst-v-SRA-002.pdf)in which the SRA was heavily criticised for holding that the experienced Osborne Clarke media solicitor, Ashley Hurst, was guilty of professional misconduct on the basis that he had wrongly attempted to deter tax campaigner Dan Neidle from publishing allegations of dishonesty over his tax affairs against former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nadim Zahawi?     Ken Macdonald KC and Tim Owen KC discuss the issues with distinguished media lawyer Gavin Millar KC who explains why he and other media lawyers and organisations are pressing the Government to include a universal anti-SLAPP law in the next King's Speech.   Ken and Tim go on to discuss the extraordinary efforts by a small group of members of the House of Lords to block the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill by endless amendments which have no hope of being debated before the April deadline when the Lords must vote on it.  They explain the threat to invoke the Parliament Act 1911 as a means of guaranteeing that the Bill becomes law and the constitutional implications of the Lords being seen to frustrate the will of the House of Commons.   Finally, the duo summarise Sir Brian Leveson's reply to critics of his jury reform recommendations as set out in his Sunday Times comment piece and they speculate on why the Government is finding it impossible to appoint anyone to Chair the Judicial Appointments Commission as it faces a heavy workload in light of recent retirements of a number of senior Judges, including the Master of the Rolls. -- Covering the critical intersections of politics and law in the UK with expert commentary on high-profile legal cases, political controversies, prisons and sentencing, human rights law, current political events and the shifting landscape of justice and democracy. With in-depth discussions and influential guests, Double Jeopardy is the podcast that uncovers the forces shaping Britain's legal and political future.     What happens when politics and law collide? How do politics shape the law - and when does the law push back? What happens when judicial independence is tested, human rights come under attack, or freedom of expression is challenged? And who really holds power in Britain's legal and political system?  Get answers to questions like these weekly on Wednesdays.    Double Jeopardy is presented by Ken Macdonald KC, former Director of Public Prosecutions, and Tim Owen KC, as they break down the legal and political issues in Britain. From high-profile legal cases to the evolving state of British democracy, Double Jeopardy offers expert legal commentary on the most pressing topics in UK law, politics, and human rights.     Ken Macdonald KC served as Director of Public Prosecutions from 2003-2008, shaping modern prosecutorial policy and advocating for the rule of law. He is a former Warden of Wadham College, Oxford, a crossbench member of the House of Lords, and a leading writer, commentator and broadcaster on politics and the rule of law.  Tim Owen KC has been involved in many of the most significant public, criminal and human rights law cases over the past four decades.  Both bring unparalleled experience from the frontline of Britain's legal and political landscape.  If you like The Rest Is Politics, Talking Politics, Law Pod UK and Today in Focus, you'll love Double Jeopardy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

Poslanke in poslanci so danes med drugim potrdili zakona o kazenski obravnavi mladoletnikov in o preprečevanju tako imenovanih tožb SLAPP. O zakonu o udeležbi delavcev pri dobičku bodo dokončno odločali na naslednji seji. Potrdili so tudi tri spremembe zakonov, s katerimi uvajajo pogoj nekaznovanosti za kandidiranje na volitvah predsednika republike ter na lokalnih volitvah. Koaliciji tega pogoja ni uspelo uveljaviti za volitve poslank in poslancev, saj v opozicijskih strankah SDS in NSi predloga niso podprli.

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.

Drugi dan zadnje redne seje v tem mandatu so se poslanci v slabih štirih urah prebili skozi osem zakonskih predlogov. Med drugim so obravnavali pomemben, povsem nov predlog zakona o kazenski obravnavi mladoletnikov, ki ima tako politično kot široko strokovno podporo. Druge teme: - V Bruslju obsežen prostotrgovinski sporazum z Indijo označili za "mater vseh dogovorov"; tudi v New Delhiju govorijo o zgodovinskem trenutku. - Poskusi za umiritev razmer v Minneapolisu: Trump napovedal odhod nekaterih agentov Službe za priseljevanje in carine. - Pred slovenskimi rokometaši odločilna tekma na evropskem prvenstvu - proti Hrvaški za ohranitev upov na polfinale.

Jon Reidars intime bilde havnet rett og slett på avveie, men også i Nettavisen, Avisa Oslo og i retrievers rikholdige mediearkiv. Men det er stor forskjell på å være flau og å føle skam, så Jon Reidar snakker gladelig ut:Hva var foranledningen?Hva sa pappa?Og hvilke konsekvenser har saken fått?Slapp av. Denne gutten henger ikke med hodet. Han står oppreist.Saken her: Ap-topp delte bilde av sin erigerte...Vi tar også for oss to henvendelser fra våre kjære lyttere som har benyttet vårt anonyme spørreskjema på homolobbyen.no:En småfeit trønder reagerer tar et oppgjør med treningsskammenOg en telemarking med bifil kjæreste får kalde føtter når kjæresten gjerne skulle hatt litt kvinnekropp på si.Og John Trygve har altså enda ikke kommet over Skrellex sin innsats i forrige episode. Har Tollefsen blitt et vaskeekte Skrell, han også?Vær en ekstra god homolobbyist: Besøk homolobbyen.no og send anonymt spørsmål eller dilemma vi kan diskutere. Følg oss på instagram @homolobbyenpodkast Hjelp Homolobbyen å bygge videre - støtte kan vippses til #833623

Poslanci so drugi dan zadnje redne seje državnega zbora v tem mandatu obravnavali osem zakonskih predlogov. Med njimi sta največ pozornosti vzbudila predlog zakona o kazenski obravnavi mladoletnikov, ki bi to področje prvič uredil z ločeno zakonodajo, ter o preprečevanju tako imenovanih zastraševalnih tožb SLAPP. Druge teme: - Trgovinski dogovor med Evropsko unijo in Indijo največji takšen na svetu. - Kitajski predsednik Ši s čistkami v vrhu vojske utrjuje svoj položaj. - Slovenski rokometaši proti Hrvaški lovijo pomembno zmago na poti v polfinale evropskega prvenstva.

Evropska unija in Indija sta v New Delhiju sklenili obsežen prostotrgovinski sporazum, ki določa postopno odpravo večine carin na skoraj vse izdelke. Indija bo med drugim močno znižala carine na evropske avtomobile, stroje in kemikalije, Evropska unija pa bo v zameno še dodatno odprla trg za indijske industrijske in farmacevtske izdelke. Ločeno potekajo tudi pogovori o poglobitvi strateškega sodelovanja na varnostnem in obrambnem področju. V oddaji tudi o tem: - Državni zbor danes med drugim o tožbah SLAPP. - Pri premierju na sestanku razpravljali o rešitvah za izvršbe na socialno pomoč. - Ob dnevu spomina na žrtve holokavsta opomini, da grozot ne smemo pozabiti.

Intervju z Milanom Kučanom in napad Inštituta 8. Marec na Anžeta Logarja sta znaka, da se levica boji izgube volitev, meni komentator Martin Nahtigal. Ljudska iniciativa Dolenjske o izvršbah na denarno pomoč: Izterjava glob je dejstvo, a treba bo najti zmernejšo pot. Golobova vlada je družini, kjer imata oče in mama vsak povprečno plačo in dva otroka, z zvišanjem davkov in prispevkov samo lani vzela 2.400 evrov, ugotavlja Družinska pobuda.NSi: Zdravstvo je na kolenih, pacient mora biti v središču.Opozicija kritična do rešitev v predlogu zakona o tako imenovanih SLAPP tožbah.EU z Indijo podpisala sporazum o prosti trgovini. Carine znižujeta na rekordno nizko raven.ŠPORT: Slovenski dvoranski nogometaši z zmago nad Belgijo ohranili upe na preboj iz skupine na domačem Euru.VREME: Popoldne se bo nizka oblačnost razkrojila, od zahoda se bo oblačilo. Jutri do večera bo dež od zahoda zajel vso Slovenijo.Klubu slovenskih podjetnikov pripravil program, ki zajema 21 ključnih priporočil za dvig kakovosti življenja državljanov Slovenije.V Auschwitzu se je začela slovesnost ob obletnici osvoboditve taborišča.ŠPORT: Rokometaši Slovenije danes proti Hrvaški za vrh skupine rednega dela.

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

David og Håkon tar for seg BMW E39-historien og snakker om hva BMW ønsket at den skulle være. Slapp godt av med denne tidvis veldig nerdete episoden om bilen vi alle elsker. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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.

A scandalous Netflix documentary called an unconventional sex-based therapy business an “orgasm cult,” all based on a sole source whose account has several flaws. But the Court of Appeal dismissed the defamation case on anti-SLAPP grounds. Tim and Jeff discuss whether any California defamation case against a media company could survive the one-two punch of anti-SLAPP and NY Times v. Sullivan. They also discuss California's unique approach to standing—it's not jurisdictional, it's purely pragmatic.Anti-SLAPP meets documentary defamation: OneTaste Inc. v. Netflix illustrates how courts evaluate actual malice when the plaintiff is treated as at least quasi-public, and how journalistic discretion can sink a claim even where the plaintiff says it provided contrary evidence before publication. Tim flags the built-in squeeze: if public-figure status and the controversy are intertwined, the plaintiff may need discovery to prove merit, but cannot get discovery without first showing merit.Standing without injury, by design, not accident: Kashanian v. National Enterprise Systems tees up a standing fight over technical FDCPA disclosure issues, think small-font compliance, with no alleged real-world harm. The takeaway is not subtle: in California, legislative authorization can do a lot of work, and no harm does not necessarily mean no case.When the statute creates the bounty, sanctions become the guardrail: The hosts debate whether CCP 128.5 and CCP 128.7 actually deter nuisance filings when the underlying enforcement scheme invites penalty-driven litigation. Is it appropriate—or wise—to use our courts as civil bounty enforcement, devoid of any harm requirement?Juror privacy is real, ask the team that wrote the $10,000 check: Don't research prospective jurors on social media.Minute entry, real consequences: A timing skirmish over whether a minute entry can function as an appeal-triggering order ends, for now, with the U.S. Supreme Court declining review. Be conservative in calculating the time to appeal

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

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

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

Today - One Cochise County official joins a legal push to limit how Arizona’s anti-SLAPP law is applied in criminal court — and it all started with charges against pro-Palestine protestors.Support the show: https://www.myheraldreview.com/site/forms/subscription_services/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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.

The California Supreme Court's long-awaited "Taking Offense" decision on gender pronouns in elder care facilities introduces a new “captive audience” exception to the First Amendment. Tim worries this new judicial carve out may creep to other forums; Jeff is unperturbed. Tim also shares insights from the Federalist Society National Conference, before examining a significant appellate-fee ruling.Taking Offense v. State (Cal., Nov. 6, 2025, No. S270535) **holds that advocacy groups lack taxpayer standing under CCP §526a to challenge state laws, but still issued 100+ pages addressing the merits through a "captive audience" framework.Captive audience concerns: Tim highlights potential "mission creep" with a “captive audience” rationale, potentially extending beyond elder care facilities to courthouses, government offices, and other venues where First Amendment protections could be weakened.“Bloodthirsty originalism”: From the Federalist Society conference, Judge Bumatay advocated less deference to stare decisis in favor of constitutional fidelity, while Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh addressed courage and civility in legal practice.Discovery fee windfall: In Baer v. Tedder, the court authorized recovery of $113,000 in appellate attorney fees for successfully defending a $10,000 discovery sanction, creating economics similar to anti-SLAPP appeals.AI arbitration arrives: The American Arbitration Association announced a pilot program offering AI resolution of construction disputes with human oversight, signaling that AI's impact on legal practice may be just "a couple of years away" rather than decades.Oral argument mastery: Federal Circuit judges advised narrowing issues to increase credibility, welcoming judicial interruptions as opportunities, and viewing argument time as the court's time for conversation rather than presentation.Tune in for practical insights on appellate strategy, the evolving legal landscape, and how to prepare for significant changes in legal practice in the coming years.

Jimmy Azadian is often in the room when federal judges get together to share their personal concerns about the job. When judges are asked to come speak to a group, Jimmy reports that top of mind are the recent threats to judges and the courts—whether from armed vigilantes, protesters, students, or senators.Jimmy, Tim, and Jeff then turn to some recent SCOTUS and 9th Circuit trends:Standing Doctrine Evolution: Courts are scrutinizing what constitutes concrete injury, particularly since Justices Gorsuch and Barrett joined the Supreme Court, with increased scrutiny of statutory damages and class action requirements.Birthright Citizenship Battle: In Washington v. Trump, the 9th Circuit held that the 2025 executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship was unconstitutional. But Judge Bumatay's partial dissent questioned states' standing, based on “fiscal” concerns, as too tenuous.Anti-SLAPP Shake-up: The en banc 9th Circuit in Gopher Media unanimously held that denials of California anti-SLAPP motions in federal court are no longer immediately appealable, reversing 22-23 years of precedent and potentially driving forum shopping.California Laws Preview: New 2026 laws include immigration enforcement limits at schools, required social media account deletion options, restrictions on facial coverings for immigration agents, direct Cal State University admission standards, and regulation of commercial audio volume.Tune in for essential perspectives on judicial independence, constitutional interpretation, and strategic considerations that could impact your federal practice in the coming year.

Can schools silence parents for speaking up? Parker Jackson, staff attorney at the Goldwater Institute, joins Steve Gruber to discuss a striking new case out of Wyoming, where a grieving mother faced retaliation from her school simply for questioning officials. The court ultimately ruled her speech is protected under the First Amendment, but the case highlights a growing pattern of schools attempting to push back against parental voices. Parker breaks down why anti-SLAPP protections are crucial and what this means for parents nationwide.

Phil Demers joins me outside the gates of Marineland for this episode- a return to a conversation we began seven years ago at the Fox Theatre.Back then, we were fighting to pass Bill S-203 to end whale captivity in Canada. The law passed in 2019.Now, the fight is to save the remaining 30 beluga whales and 500 other animals who remain trapped inside as the park has ceased to exist. At one point, recently, Marineland even threatened to euthanize the whales if governments didn't provide emergency financial support.Phil “The Walrus Whisperer” Demers was a trainer at Marineland turned whistleblower. He spent over a decade fighting Marineland in court after leaving his job there in 2012. After 13 years of legal battles and public advocacy, Marineland is finally on its last legs. But the fight to save the remaining animals isn't over.We discussed what happens next, short-term and long-term solutions, and why governments should lead on this instead of playing only a reactive role.Chapters:0:00 Standing Outside Marineland6:21 Why China Might Actually Be Better10:04 The Sanctuary Myth & Rescue Reality14:08 30 Dead Whales18:13 500 Forgotten Animals19:30 13 Years of Legal Hell24:37 Conclusion: The Divorce AnalogyRead further:The Walrus and the Whistleblower - Documentary (CBC Gem) https://www.cbc.ca/documentarychannel/docs/the-walrus-and-the-whistleblower7 years ago with Phil: Transcript: [00:00:00] Nate Erskine-Smith: All right, well, welcome to Uncommons. It's an interesting episode because I'm joined by Phil Demers, who actually joined me at the Fox Theater many years ago, four years ago before we started the podcast actually. And it was just a, a local town hall event. We showed Blackfish. Right. And you were there to talk about your experience as a whistleblower at this horrible place behind us.[00:00:19] Uh, it is interesting how far we've come, but also that the issue is so acute still. Uh, at the time we were talking about a bill that had to be passed. To end this kind of production and make sure we were protecting institutions in captivity. And you were adamant we had to get this bill passed. Hmm. Well we got the bill passed.[00:00:37] Yeah. And yet we've got marineland, uh, beside us now, and it was grandfathered through in a way. And now we've got 30 beluga whales. We've got 500 other animals that are, that are in here. Mm-hmm. And all of which, all, all of whom need to be saved in, in, in one way or another. And, uh, it didn't [00:01:00] have to come to this, really did it.[00:01:02] Phil Demers: Well, we've, what, what has glossed over in much of, of your story is we've got a unwilling marine land in all of that. Yes. To evolve in any way, shape or form to be a, financially viable, uh, you know, for the security of their own future. Uh, but b, to adhere to any of the laws that we essentially passed, both provincially and, uh, and federally, although we did ban the breeding of the whales. Yep. Had we not banned the breeding of the whales. So, so currently there's 30 belugas remaining. There's four dolphins. Uh, we got two sea lions and a, and a host of, uh, land animals there. Had we not banned the breeding of belugas in 2019?[00:01:41] Nate Erskine-Smith: Yep.[00:01:42] Phil Demers: And albeit, the pregnant belugas of 2019 were grandfathered in.[00:01:47] So there were some whale birth births there. On average, Marineland had five to seven belugas born per year. A couple would die. But there's, you know, it's conceivable to say that whereas [00:02:00] we have 30 right now in there, we would have had an excess of 50. Right. They would've kept probably 60.[00:02:05] Nate Erskine-Smith: Yes, of course they would've kept the business model broke down with that law.[00:02:08] But if they would've kept going otherwise, I mean, they're, they were the bad actors. It's the, it just wants to keep it active [00:02:12] Phil Demers: At this point. It's the only, it's the only part of the law that they've, ad they've adhered to outside of importing, of course, which, which, uh, we ban. So it's, it's beyond their control, but.[00:02:21] Um, you know, the breeding, they, they stopped, but had they not, we'd be talking about 50 to 60 whales in those tanks. It, it was, uh, you know, that's something to really hang our hat on. That was a huge, uh, and super progressive, uh, lawsuit. But it does interestingly, take us to this place now where marine land is, you know, we essentially bankrupt.[00:02:39] I, but we should stress owns a lot of land sitting on 700 acres of prime land meant to fuel or feed the, uh, the whole family trust. That's, those are the heirs to it. You know, the operation is essentially sucking the money out of that. And so they're looking for the, be it most lucrative or least expensive [00:03:00] way to get outta this thing.[00:03:01] The sale to China was to be a profitable one. Uh, should be stressed that here in North America, none of the facilities wanna do business with marine land, right? A few years ago, five belugas were sent to Mystic Aquarium, three of which died within weeks and months. Uh, all having to do with, uh, preexisting conditions from Marineland.[00:03:20] Nate Erskine-Smith: So, so pause, pause for a moment. ‘cause I think for those who are listening, they may not know you've got 30 belugas here. And there was, uh, a deal that Marine Land wanted a broker, at least with a facility in China. Ocean Kingdom time, long Ocean Kingdom. The decision of the federal minister was to say no animal welfare first.[00:03:41] Uh, the primary purpose here is entertainment and, and we're not convinced that they're gonna be putting animal welfare first. Akin to the concern here, right? And, and why we don't want this to contain to exist. But then the knock on question why is so acute right now is okay, but then what? Because marine land comes out as proper monsters. They say, well, if we don't get emergency funding, we're gonna, we're gonna euthanize these whales,[00:04:05] Phil Demers: which is a familiar theme with Marineland. In all of my years of dealing with them, it was always do this or else. Uh, again, I I, this morning alone, I watched a, a YouTube video. It was pretty.[00:04:14] Pretty thorough history of marine land and in it is always the familiar threat of, well, if you don't do this, I'm gonna, and it includes ship the park to the, to the US that includes, you know, a whole host of things. But that's all, that's marine land's bluster when it, they don't get their way right. But that said, the, the spirit of the law was to give, uh, to give final say to the minister so that they can ultimately consider the interests of the animals in it, which is a level of personhood, which is not.[00:04:39] Which is atypical of most laws, especially of animals.[00:04:40] Nate Erskine-Smith: Of, yeah. Yeah. An incredibly important step. Yeah.[00:04:43] Phil Demers: Really, really, uh, progressive, you know, the spirit is to end captivity and, you know, and if you can stamp that out here, the, the idea is that it, it's, uh, it'll evolve to the rest of the world. And to be fair, uh, France adopted a very similar law recently passed, [00:05:00] uh, as well as, uh, new South Wales.[00:05:02] The province in Australia adopted a law. It's actually picking up around the world. So, so it's, you know. I always stress when we, we look at, hey, we wanna end captivity, I always stress that's a hundred year, that's a hundred year fight. If all goes extremely well, you know, you've got burgeoning business in China, some in Russia, right?[00:05:20] And we're still ending sort of ours here, sort of choking that off here and that's still expanding there. So, you know, we've, we've started something that's gonna continue elsewhere, but you know, it's gotta end here. It's gotta end here first and ending.[00:05:33] Nate Erskine-Smith: You can put a law on the books and, okay, so. Uh, on a going forward basis, you, you might avoid problems and, and avoid cruelty, but you still have 30 belugas here.[00:05:44] And then the question becomes, well, what happens next? And, and I don't wanna pretend that it's just a marineland problem because you were just, uh, commenting on the fact that in Miami you got seaquarium that's now shut down, that this is going to happen in other places too. Well of Mexico just banned it.[00:05:59] Phil Demers: [00:06:00] And now all of their animals, now captive and legally captive can no longer perform in shows, can no longer do the swim with programs, et cetera, et cetera. So what happens is it becomes unviable to the owners. They lose their incentive, their incentive to have and use these animals. So what becomes well, unfortunately, in, in, in my estimation of what is available to us.[00:06:20] Nate Erskine-Smith: Yeah.[00:06:21] Phil Demers: You know, I'd always had hope that the much of these animals would go to the us, but it's not gonna happen by way of a broker deal because again, none of ‘em wanna touch marine land for obvious reasons. Again, I, I mentioned the five whales that died at, uh, mystic.[00:06:33] Nate Erskine-Smith: Yep.[00:06:34] Phil Demers: They also know of the bad PR.[00:06:36] Marine land's been getting here for the decades. I mean, it's been global news, you can't ignore it. So SeaWorld also had to sue Marine Land a number of years ago to get an orca back. So SeaWorld doesn't wanna touch marine land, so I don't think. Anyone in the US wants to associate with buying animals off marine land or brokering any type of deal affiliations, et cetera, et cetera.[00:06:54] But you know, I'd had this hope that this government, the provincial [00:07:00] Animal welfare society, especially with their policing powers and their ability to seize animals. You know, you have, you have essentially an opportunity to seize these animals and send them to these places, whereas those places might be receiving of them if they're by way of a rescue versus of, of a broker deal.[00:07:15] But again, this is me talking, theorizing, trying to figure this thing out. [00:07:19] Nate Erskine-Smith: But let's imagine that so, so the federal government. Has done its part in passing the law. I, I think the federal government could play a strong convening role here. And, and we're starting to, I mean, in the wake of the minister turning down those permits, uh, to, uh, ocean Kingdom in China, I mean, uh, there is a role for the federal government to show some leadership here, but the actual law, the power that you're talking about, the seizure power that exists, provincially, provincially, and you got Doug Ford over here talking about caring about dogs and okay.[00:07:46] I, I like that. Okay. Yeah. Let's, let's have concern for, for all animals. Uh, but in this particular case, as soon as Marineland says, well, without emergency funding, we'll euthanize them. They should be coming in here, seizing and using their authority. And, [00:08:00] and, and by the way, I mean even as part of, uh. Uh, I was reading, uh, as part of the settlement back in 2017 and driving the lawsuit.[00:08:07] I mean, they agreed to monitoring. I mean, like, what are we even talking about here? Have animal welfare experts, animal science experts. Well, they're in there. They're in there. And why, and why can't, and then why can't Doug Ford sees these and say, now we can broker a deal with the animal welfare top of mind instead of marineland trying to extract top dollar.[00:08:25] Phil Demers: So in the think tank, that's become, since all of this and the Yeah. You know, sort of the, where does this go? I do have to say with limited options, China might be atop the very best options. And let me explain why if those animals were in a neutral place right now. Just let's just, let's just do this as like a, a sort of a thought, uh, uh, experiment if this animals were in a neutral space right now and yet to elect where they're going.[00:08:49] Yeah. Outside of the laws themselves, which is, you know, for the most part, it doesn't exist in China. That I, that I know, I don't wanna be quoted, but I don't know what the animal, uh, oversight and, [00:09:00] and, and laws are like over here. But we know what they are here. Yeah. And we know that they exist here. But that said, they're not really do serving so, so much.[00:09:07] Uh, these days, if there was a choice between the facilities, it'd be hands down, you'd be sending them to, to China. It wouldn't even be a question. There wouldn't even be a question. These are brand new facilities that massive I had. A team member was there two weeks ago, a a, a former, uh, friend of mine that worked at marineland Works there.[00:09:24] These are brand new massive, expansive facilities, the conditions of which are good and in fact maybe even be said to be great in the realm of captive facilities. I don't want to be a defender of any facility. I don't wanna say, Hey, that's a good one, but what, on the scale of, you wouldn't consider this for a moment, but because they're in there, it becomes a little bit more complicated because it's a question of, of removing them, but.[00:09:48] Because of the limited space of where those animals have and being against the clock, they're gonna have to go somewhere. And, uh, again, I stress the us I ideally, first and foremost, if it doesn't work out [00:10:00] there, or if, you know, obviously they don't have the space for 30, we know this already, some are gonna have to go to China[00:10:04] Nate Erskine-Smith: So let, let's walk, let's, I, let's take some time to walk, walk through those options. Because again, some people might say, well, why not return them to the wild? We've seen the consequences of that in, in, in some ways. You, uh, in, uh, there was a return to, uh, facility in, in, in Iceland at one point, I think in.[00:10:24] So, well, that's not, that's not gonna work. And so there, there are just knock on challenges to, to that option.[00:10:28] Phil Demers: There is no such thing as a perfect scenario. Also, that needs to be stressed because I think we're, we're, and we have been wasting a lot of time and thought on what would be perfect. Right? And it doesn't exist.[00:10:38] We have to scale that. Our expectations back to what is. And, and also stress that these animals are not very healthy. Now, I'm not gonna call them sick. Do we know? Do, is it Well on a, on a scale of the, they all, they're all unwell by virtue of the conditions that have been here.[00:10:58] Nate Erskine-Smith: But do, uh, is there that [00:11:00] openness with, uh, say.[00:11:02] Uh, nonprofit or, or government experts and, and animal scientists who have access into properly not a chance.[00:11:09] Phil Demers: And, and for that matter, anything that you would've access to look at would be changed,[00:11:12] Nate Erskine-Smith: right?[00:11:13] Phil Demers: So, so anyone that has a pen and, and putting it to paper has an interest in some people not knowing everything that's going on.[00:11:20] Nate Erskine-Smith: So Wildes out and then you've got, uh, wild is out and there have been proposals. For animal sanctuaries, there's one in Nova Scotia that, that is, that is closest to realization. No. Uh, having spoke well, having spoken to the, the folks there, they said, well, the earliest is really next fall. And that's an optimistic timeline.[00:11:38] And, uh, and then you're, they're talking about a max of taking 10 of the whales, which today, in the environment that we exist, uh, doesn't seem like the most plausible option when you want to protect these animals and, and put animal welfare in their animal interest first. Today. So, uh, the answer does, you know, first it's just who's the decision maker?[00:11:59] And it can't be marine land that is deciding what the deal on the table should be.[00:12:03] Phil Demers: Well, clearly they're not, they don't make the decisions in the best, the best interest of the Yeah, exactly. Just to stress the point of the, of the whale sanctuary in Nova Scotia. I wish it more than anyone to be an operational place, but it's not.[00:12:13] I've gone, it can't be, it's not going to be. Its decades and hundreds of millions. And who's foot in the bill? This is. A theory at best, and we got to move beyond theories or else what happens is people start hanging their hats out. People start talking, talking, talking. But the specific needs of those animals, and that's outside of a perfect world, if we're gonna have a sanctuary for animals, that has to be tried.[00:12:36] In the best cases, not in one of duress and, and emergency, et cetera. It's, this is an experiment for the most part, but those animals need to get a access. So we're talking about a, uh, this monster sanctuary, but did they, in all of that, go through the what is required to actually care for these animals?[00:12:53] You need a, a rising floor of a tank to be able to access sick animals so that you can give them, uh, medication, et cetera. You gotta be able to [00:13:00] access the animals, but an animal's sick in the middle of your sanctuary. How are you gonna get them? And get them on a, on back to the shoreline, back into a tank where they can be monitored and then, you know, be given drugs and et cetera treated.[00:13:12] And you've got the, the challenges that these animals already face is just outside of the scope of what an experiments at this point can offer. Right? These animals need facilities with people that know where to inject The animals know where to draw blood, know, you know, they got the book on the meds and they got access to those animals because that's essentially what they need.[00:13:32] When we're talking about what the. What's happening here? It's essentially a rescue and it's, it's how it needs to be framed. It's how I've always said it. And again, I I'm, I'm sounding like a broken record because I've been saying this for a decade, and if you read it, it's, it, I don't think I've done a single interview in the last decade where I said, if we don't get those animals out, they're gonna die.[00:13:50] And, and, you know, it's easy to say, well, of course they're all going to die if they don't move. But you know, if you watch. At the rate that I was saying it and the rate that the animal [00:14:00] started to die, we're talking about a scale that's grading up and speeding up and accelerating. So 30 animals have died there, essentially.[00:14:08] I, I know it's in the records as, as 2020 whales, but you know, if you add the three that died at Mystic as being marineland whales, right. If you add the, uh, while we know that in the, in 2019 there's an affidavit that Marineland sworn of having 58 beluga whales. But we know that they would've pregnant ones.[00:14:27] So five to seven more born there. Deduct those numbers. ‘cause they're, they're no longer in that inventory. Um, you've got 30 whales that have died essentially since about 2018. More than 50 since I quit, which will have been 60 or more if we hadn't have passed the, the breeding bin. Nothing here is new.[00:14:55] Marine land's, bluster, et cetera, et cetera. You're finally hearing their actual voice. You're not seeing [00:15:00] the jingle on tv. You're not seeing them talking about their, their animal welfare record and, and boasting it as the best in the world. You are seeing the, the people here have seen the marine land, the, the real marine land for the first time.[00:15:09] Yeah.[00:15:09] Nate Erskine-Smith: Big difference between everybody loves marine land and we're gonna kill the whales if you don't gonna sip on. Right. And this is a, this is a theme I've known for far too long because, you know, they don't like me. But, uh, so just to close the, close this, uh, what's on the table? It could be on the table.[00:15:24] So. You've got, uh, sanctuaries talked about promising in the longer term, potentially [00:15:30] Phil Demers: Well, if, and when that exists, the belugas hopefully are alive no matter where they are in the world to one day be received there. [00:15:36] Nate Erskine-Smith: Right, right, right.[00:15:38] Phil Demers: There's so there if they're alive, which we have to stress.[00:15:39] Nate Erskine-Smith: And so, but in the immediate term, uh, you're looking at, in an ideal world, when it's not an ideal world, uh, you've got the premier acting, you got the provincial government that would seize. Control in order to make decisions in the best interest of the animals, you've got a situation where then you would survey what's available across North America and [00:16:00] and elsewhere and say, we're gonna proactively reach out and try to place these animals, putting animal welfare interests first.[00:16:07] Phil Demers: And if I was negotiating those moves, I would say any re, any facility that receives these animals. Have to adhere to the spirit of the 2019 law. Right. Which is, and I think North America would, would be glad to adhere to that. They already generally do. I don't think they're breeding belugas. Uh, you know, most of these places have their own, despite it not being law, they're sort of in-house no longer breeding.[00:16:27] Definitely orcas that I know of, hopefully dolphins one day, but we're, we're not there yet. Uh, but that, yes, so with the caveat that, hey, if we can follow this, you know, it should be noted that. The spirit of of S two S 2 0 3, which is the law that passed, was that we're, we're gonna eradicate captivity in Canada.[00:16:44] Sort of the idea was, you know, we're gonna end this situations of captivity. And well, with the idea of that globally, this build had this, this effect. But that said, these animals who are already here, sadly, and with, with zero to minus zero option of ever being returned [00:17:00] to the wild, and I hate to be this voice.[00:17:04] But if they go elsewhere, it may very well spare some live ones from being captured. And that is in the spirit of the law. So there is some salvation in this ending in Canada. The animals moving on to better places. Yep. And no more whales ever returning. And that practice being said and done, and we wash our hands of it.[00:17:24] And that's the biggest win that can be done. The noise of our bullhorns out here. Follow them to the next place. They'll hear us out there. The fight continues where they go. That's, that's the reality. We got a hundred year problem ahead of us if everything goes well. [00:17:43] Nate Erskine-Smith: And let's talk about the other animals.[00:17:45] I mean, you are known as the walrus whisperer. You didn't start fighting. Just for the whales. I mean, you were fighting for the walrus smooth. She, and there are an estimated, what, 500 other [00:18:00] animals? It's a lot of deer in there. Yeah. And, uh, and so is that also part of the picture here? I mean all obviously the public focus has overwhelmingly being on the whales, but, uh, what do we do with the other animals?[00:18:13] Phil Demers: Well, that I know of, the Toronto Zoo expressed some interest. They were visiting the facility in early October. Those animals are likely destined for, uh, I mean, ideally, some sanctuaries that we know do exist. They, there are some, yeah. Um, the bison are already gone. No one seems to really know where there, there's theories, but they're gone.[00:18:37] Uh, the bear, they that they're gonna have a tough time because bears are, are solitary animals. They shouldn't be confined to a tight space anyways. It's already really, uh, antisocial and dangerous for them. It's like a really unnatural environment. And so the coat is sort of stunted and no place is looking for a bunch of bears.[00:18:53] So, you know, I'm, I won't be surprised if a lot of them get euthanized very quietly, uh, and, you [00:19:00] know, the deer, 500 deer or so, what are you gonna do with that? So, I, I don't know. Again, I, I, I leave this to, you know, I, I'm, you know, I've had my sort of, I, I got a decade plus of fighting against this place.[00:19:14] That's the extent of my knowledge of animal rights. And a lot of people come to me and say, Hey, this, this, and that. I'm just like, uh, talk to an organization that knows this stuff.[00:19:23] Nate Erskine-Smith: Right. So they, I mean, the last time we spoke, uh, where we were, we had an audience in front of us.[00:19:30] Yep. Uh, that's, that, that you were still Yeah. Yeah. You were still deep in litigation where they were taking you on and trying to silence you. Mm-hmm. Uh, I mean, it's interesting, you know, you've come to animal rights, but also, uh, you've. Really been, I think, uh, uh, you've, you've shown what it is to be a whistleblower in a, in a, in a publicized important way.[00:19:53] And the, and the importance of whistle blowing protections despite the fact that they came after you with everything they got. And, uh, where [00:20:00] is all of that at now? I mean, you've, uh, uh, before we started recording, you're talking about smooshy ended up where, so we[00:20:07] Phil Demers: essentially, you know, so they sued me in 2000, early 2013 for plotting to steal smooshy the walrus.[00:20:12] Yep. You terrible verse you and I could have done it, but I didn't. And it had nothing to do with Marine le, but if anyone could have done it, but I wasn't going to, you'd have to be crazy. And much as they tried to make me out to be crazy, uh, you know, I, there's some percentage of crazy, but it's not, not to the scope of what they had described in this lawsuit.[00:20:31] So, you know, it was baseless. It, it did inspire antis, SLAPP legislation, uh, provincially, which was great. It didn't help me, but it's, you know, it, it's there for the future. It's important.[00:20:40] Nate Erskine-Smith: Yeah.[00:20:41] Phil Demers: And I also stress when you, when you say, you know, you did, you, you were a whistleblower and you know, we, we, we passed a, a host of different sort of whistleblower protection laws and everything.[00:20:49] I, this wasn't an animal rights issue. It, it, this was an animal rights issue when I left. It wasn't animal rights. It was a, here's what I've experienced and if something [00:21:00] doesn't happen to this, this, this, these animals will, you know, their suffering will increase. Tell you, I know me suddenly being sued.[00:21:07] Like these were, these were my friends, these animals and, and the employees. This is like, these were, you know, you're gonna see your neighbor's dog like that and you walk ‘em every day. You're gonna have some concerns. Like, so this was that for me. It spills over into an animal rights realm, of course, because animal rights, people who had, you know, to their credit, been fighting this forever, suddenly, you know, I, I show up, but you know, to be fair, I'm not really an animal rights guy.[00:21:31] She was your friend, smooshy. Yeah, of course. Right. That's of course. But I'm just, when it comes, those you love mistreated when it comes to the history of, and what is. The box of animal rights activists, which I get very often. It's like, no man, it's just, it's not, that's not really what this was for me.[00:21:49] What this was, was, let's say, professional a*****e versus semi-professional a*****e. And it was a clash of all crazy proportions if you weren't witness to it. I, I could only [00:22:00] imagine how much fun it was on the sidelines. I mean, I, I, I, I like to do it up for the people, put on a show, and we did. Uh, but that's what this was, this was every corner.[00:22:08] This was a fight. Tooth and nail in every aspect and element of every which way of my life outside of that, of the animals. It was a, it started as an animal thing and it's taken on an entire other, uh, entire, entire other, uh, uh, level. [00:22:24] Nate Erskine-Smith: But, but with that said and taken over your life, I mean, uh, well, the litigation and just the, I mean, all of that takes an incredible amount of toll and time[00:22:33] Phil Demers: I would not have imagined when it happened that.[00:22:36] That this was going to be like the most forever decision. I, I'll be honest, and this is ambitious and in retrospect, super naive of me, but armed with the truth at the time, I thought in my mind, this is gonna take six months to resolve the, again, my objective was not, let's shut marine land down six months.[00:22:53] Well, what did I know about litigation, about anything? I just thought, well, listen, if the people know, well, not even the people. I thought if the, [00:23:00] if the authorities knew the, you know, if they knew, and here they were here, it was, they knew. And that was like the beginning of my journey. And here I am 13 years later and it all wholly and entirely reshaped into a, a pretty efficient marineland busting machine.[00:23:19] Like it's, it's been a pleasure. But, uh, but yeah, there's an element of almost, it's a weird one and, but I, I almost chalk it up to what retired NHL players might. I feel like when they, when they're so engaged in something that, that, that requires so much energy and, you know, like, and, and levels of execution and like, you know, you really gotta psych yourself up for some of the s**t I've been through now I'm trying to take a breath from it all.[00:23:48] Then we got this thing going on still. You're like, ay, ay. So no, it turned into, i, I guess what will be a decade long, uh, life identifier. It's become. [00:24:00] You know, I'm, I'm kind of married to this place now.[00:24:02] Nate Erskine-Smith: Right, exactly. And, and, and you live through personal challenges and then coming after you legally and then all of that.[00:24:11] But you, you, I mean, you, we stand outside this place today and it's, you're gonna out survive it. You know? This is on his last legs. And it's, uh, in a, in large measure the law we passed in large measure the public outcry and large measure because you were able to shine a light on it and, and called attention is something that was wrong.[00:24:32] Phil Demers: It kind of looks like a divorce and now we want the kids[00:24:37] hard to, hard to find a home for the kids. That's the problem. Well. But here we are. Uh, but again, exactly, I, I, I do stress. I think that all of this will be revisited by the feds because there is gonna have to be some extra consideration give to the immediate conditions. Yes. As just this, the extent of, of how awful all of this is.[00:24:54] Should other things be considered first? Yes, I think so too. I don't think marine land should stand on, uh. [00:25:00] Hey, do what we say or, or give us money and this and that[00:25:03] Nate Erskine-Smith: No. They've, they've found their way to profit. It's a, they should care for the animals.[00:25:07] Phil Demers: It's a, it's a breath of fresh air to not to see nobody caving because, uh, Marineland has known that for too long.[00:25:12] Yeah. Uh, but, you know, so there, there should be a, a very diligent work done as into what can be done for these animals. But, you know, given the fact that we are super limited, I think there's gonna have to be some reconsideration. To the Chinese facilities. It just is. It would be great if they came with the caveat of don't breed them and don't do this.[00:25:32] Maybe that could be negotiated. I don't know.[00:25:35] Nate Erskine-Smith: But I think, uh, and I think it's useful to close here. I mean, in the end, in the same way that, uh, you've got individuals including yourself who have shown leadership. I mean, at this moment in time, we need governments not to react, not to say, well, it's our job to review a permit, or it's our job to review.[00:25:51] If there's a complaint or there's an investigation to say, no, no, no. We are gonna proactively find a home for these animals. We're gonna proactively pull the stakeholders together, [00:26:00] together, pull the organizations together across North America and elsewhere. Say it's not a perfect world. So what exists here?[00:26:06] What what is possible, and to, and to show some leadership and, and to not just react and to try to solve the problem in a proactive way and not leave it. To these guys who are not intending to solve the problem at all and are didn't want the law passed in the first place.[00:26:20] Phil Demers: They've proven themselves as being irresponsible caretakers.[00:26:24] It's time for other people to have a hand in what becomes, and uh, you know, they may not like it, but they've set the stage for exactly that. So now other people will have a say. [00:26:33] Nate Erskine-Smith: Appreciate it[00:26:34] Phil Demers: Anytime This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.uncommons.ca

Ten years ago, the idea of canned milk powering a fast-growing brand might have seemed far-fetched. And yet, Slate – which recently announced $23 million in fresh funding – has proven just how powerful a novel concept can be. What can CPG founders – and the industry at large – learn from its rise? The hosts also look back on an unforgettable meetup in San Francisco, where industry veterans, insiders, and ambitious early-stage founders came together in a high-energy atmosphere. Show notes: 0:25: SpearsTok. S.F. Straightaway. Soaring Slate. Aggressive Snacks & Sprinkles. — The show kicks off with banter about AI job titles and algorithm-driven social media feeds, before the hosts reflect on the energy of Taste Radio's recent San Francisco meetup and how the event fostered valuable industry connections and spotlighted emerging brands. They also preview the show's London meetup on October 2 as well as BevNET's Live events in December. The hosts then turn their attention to a $23M funding round for milk-based protein beverage platform Slate, which sparked a deeper conversation about brand evolution, product positioning and the importance of timing in industry success. They also discuss a plant-based meat snack brand with “aggressive” branding. Ray highlights Sprinkles' new cupcake bites, John gulps Zico's organic coconut water, Mike touts THC and turmeric drinks and Jacqui spotlights an innovative CPG brand designed for women. Brands in this episode: Slate, Spindrift, Health-Ade, Trip, In Good Taste Wines, Slapp, Dokkaebeer, Kechi, Mindful, Jules Matcha, Fort Point, Standard Deviant, Straightaway Cocktails, Plift, MixMix, KiuKiu, Uncle Matt's, ZICO, Drink Folks, Q Drinks, Benni Pops, Sprinkles, Rootless, AGRO, Yasso, Forager Project, Uncracked, Yerba Madre

The hosts dive into the sustained wave of protein-infused consumer products – from popcorn to mashed potatoes – and debate whether the market is approaching “protein fatigue” or merely scratching the surface of a macro trend driven more by marketing than science. They also recap Taste Radio's high-energy meetup in San Diego, spotlighting several new and innovative brands showcased at the event. Show notes: 0:25: Free Tee. Nice To Meet Thee. MDR In DEC. Poppi To Popcorn. Protein ≠ Pumpkin Spice. Head High. –  Ray encourages listeners to review Taste Radio on Apple Podcasts and offers a gift for those who do. The hosts recount their recent San Diego meetup, highlighting new brands like Birdie sparkling teas, cannabis ingredient company SoRSE Technology and fast-growing juice and shot company Sol-ti. They also discuss upcoming events in San Francisco, London, and the BevNET Live, NOSH Live, and Brewbound Live conferences in Marina del Rey, emphasizing early registration benefits. They turn their attention toward the deluge of new protein-infused products coming to market, from Kloud popcorn to Idahoan mashed potatoes, prompting a debate among the hosts about the limits of protein's market viability and consumer perception. The hosts also praise Rotten, a brand of better-for-you gummy worms, and highlight kanna-infused ANA brand Innerbloom as well as Happy Pop and Cien Chiles. Brands in this episode: Solti,  Straightaway Cocktails, Birdie, The NA Beverage Co.  Perfect Hydration, Slapp, Hoplark, Mother Earth, AleSmith, Bottle Logic, Fall Brewing, Poppi, Vita Coco, Health-Ade, Khloud, Idahoan, Mighty Squirrel, Cleveland Kitchen, Fave, Innerbloom, Happy Pop, Rotten, Fave, Cien Chiles

Appealing in the 9th Circuit? Your deadline is 30 days. Don't let Rule 58's “separate document” extension lead you astray. Appellate specialists Tim Kowal and Jeff Lewis also discuss ChatGPT 5 (a “market disruptor”), and sanctions strategies in federal court.Appeal Deadline Alert: The 9th Circuit in McNeil v. Guitare held that Rule 58's 150-day extension for appeal deadlines applies only to final judgments, not collateral orders like qualified immunity denials.Anti-SLAPP Motion Timing: Mora v. Menjivar confirms that filing just a notice of anti-SLAPP motion within the 60-day deadline is insufficient—supporting documents must be filed concurrently.Out: Res Judicata. In: Claim Preclusion.Sanctions Strategy: 28 U.S.C. § 1927 can be used for sanctions without Rule 11's cumbersome 21-day safe harbor.AI Ethics: California courts confirmed in Nolan v. Land of the Free that attorneys must personally read all cited authorities, regardless of whether AI tools were used in brief preparation.And more practical insights on navigating procedural pitfalls, avoiding sanctions, and ethically incorporating AI tools into your appellate practice.

Alex DiFrancesco joins Let's Talk Memoir for a conversation about using rituals and tarot as a framework in a manuscript, Italian folk tradition as a spiritual outlet, the sometimes difficult path to publishing, being sued for defamation, finding a publisher brave enough to publish our work, writing about sexual assault, thinking in sections, using books as inspiration, complex PTSD, hiding who we are, alters, saints, and card divination, taking it slow, keeping our body in working order, making our own magic, and their new memoir Breaking the Curse.   Also in this episode: -anti-SLAPP laws -seeking protection -multi-tonal books -Snakes and Acey's Print Shop: https://www.snakesandaceys.com/   Books mentioned in this episode: 78 Degrees of Wisdom by Rachel Pollack  The Part That Burns by Jeannine Ouellette Aura by Hillary Leftwich Saint Dymphna's Playbook by Hillary Leftwich  Glory Guitars by Gogo Germaine I Liked You Better Before I Knew You So Well by James Allen Hall   Alex DiFrancesco is the author of ALL CITY, PSYCHOPOMPS, TRANSMUTATION, and BREAKING THE CURSE. Their work has appeared in The New York Times, The Guardian, Electric Literature, Lit Hub, Tim House, and more. They are a 2022 recipient of the Ohio Atts Council's individual excellence awards, as well as the first transgender awards finalist in over 80 years of the Ohioana Book Awards.  Connect with Alex: Website: www.alexdifrancesco.com Get the book: https://www.sevenstories.com/authors/453-alex-difrancesco?srsltid=AfmBOor0TGaH2gWxGoaqEPlv2rNOrjiALa2iEha3b-z1m0s6mFIosnja   – Ronit's writing has appeared in The Atlantic, The Rumpus, The New York Times, Poets & Writers, The Iowa Review, Hippocampus, The Washington Post, Writer's Digest, American Literary Review, and elsewhere. Her memoir WHEN SHE COMES BACK about the loss of her mother to the guru Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and their eventual reconciliation was named Finalist in the 2021 Housatonic Awards Awards, the 2021 Indie Excellence Awards, and was a 2021 Book Riot Best True Crime Book. Her short story collection HOME IS A MADE-UP PLACE won Hidden River Arts' 2020 Eludia Award and the 2023 Page Turner Awards for Short Stories.  She earned an MFA in Nonfiction Writing at Pacific University, is Creative Nonfiction Editor at The Citron Review, and teaches memoir through the University of Washington's Online Continuum Program and also independently. She launched Let's Talk Memoir in 2022, lives in Seattle with her family of people and dogs, and is at work on her next book. More about Ronit: https://ronitplank.com Subscribe to Ronit's Substack: https://substack.com/@ronitplank Follow Ronit: https://www.instagram.com/ronitplank/ https://www.facebook.com/RonitPlank https://bsky.app/profile/ronitplank.bsky.social   Background photo credit: Photo by Patrick Tomasso on Unsplash Headshot photo credit: Sarah Anne Photography Theme music: Isaac Joel, Dead Moll's Fingers

The verdict comes through, more than doubling the damages, at a time when repression of protest is accelerating in the U.S., but somehow Energy Transfer's lawyers claim it is a victory for free speech. As the trial and our season wrap up, we take a look at what this verdict means for Indigenous rights, climate activists, and the decline of individual free speech rights in the U.S. as corporate free speech rights expand. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dr. Ed Livingston, renowned surgeon, educator, and researcher, who was a former deputy editor at JAMA, found himself out of a job after a JAMA podcast he hosted with Dr. Mitch Katz that discussed, among other items, structural racism as a contributor to the high mortality in minorities from COVID. This incident led to a series of lawsuits, some of which were highly publicized. Ed shares behind the scenes events, incidents, and what transpired in 2021, and how the AMA handled the situation. In this episode, Ed shares his background, career path, passion for education and medicine, and his disappointment at how everything was handled by the AMA. This is a rare discussion with some information being shared for the first time ever with listeners and viewers. The AMA declined the request to comment and provide their side of the story. Superior court ruling Livingston v AMA (AMA declares that physicians not entitled to due process, rules that the AMA committed libel and defamation): https://rulings.law/rulings/judge-curtis-a-kin/22stcv09441-2022-10-13.html Unanimous Appellate decision regarding libel and defamation by the AMA, Adds an additional finding of false light and invasion of privacy https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B324638.PDF X post summarizing the Appellate decision (the court refers to the AMA as disingenuous): https://x.com/ehlJAMA/status/1852551140799291817 Article summarizing the Appellate decision (““[d]rawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, Livingston has made a prima facie case that the gist or sting of the accusation in statement [that the podcast ‘denied the existence of structural racism in medicine,' was not true.”): http://www.metnews.com/articles/2024/defamation_11042024.htm Court orders Livingston to pay $110,000 to AMA despite his prevailing on the key allegations: https://rulings.law/rulings/judge-joseph-lipner/22stcv09441-2025-04-08.html Article from the lawyer representing the AMA declaring that the process the AMA used against Livingston is abused “the widely abused anti-SLAPP statute.”: https://www.law.com/therecorder/2019/06/03/calif-high-court-ruling-good-news-for-defamation-plaintiffs/?slreturn=20250722074004 X post with links to the various rulings: https://x.com/ehlJAMA/status/1913584194405425374 Check out Chadi's website for all Healthcare Unfiltered episodes and other content. www.chadinabhan.com/ Watch all Healthcare Unfiltered episodes on YouTube. www.youtube.com/channel/UCjiJPTpIJdIiukcq0UaMFsA

What's the point of PepsiCo's new sub-line of prebiotic colas? Is it addressing genuine consumer demand for functional ingredients, or just riding the wellness wave? The hosts once again weigh in. They also highlight emerging shot brands gaining traction and take a closer look at how the viral “WaterTok” phenomenon may have influenced Keurig Dr Pepper's acquisition of Dyla Brands. Show notes: 0:25: Take Two. Fun > Function. We Gotta Have More Ginger. Sturring The Pot. Thin Or Thick? Mike Takes A Hit. – The team kicks things off with behind-the-scenes banter, including a powdered drink spill mishap and Ray's failed frother. The hosts dive into PepsiCo's introduction of a prebiotic cola and debate its real consumer appeal, questioning whether health claims like “prebiotics” are more about marketing than meaningful function. They also discuss the rise of functional shot brands like GNGR Labs and Canada-based Slapp, and highlight Keurig Dr Pepper's acquisition of Dyla Brands, the maker of Stur drink mixes. Ray previews upcoming Taste Radio meetups in Chicago, San Diego, San Francisco, and London., before John samples a new flavor of Xochitl tortilla chips. Mike is tempted to try a cannabis beverage  and everyone celebrates UK-based soda brand Something & Nothing, praising its minimal, flavorful approach and expanding U.S. footprint. Brands in this episode: Slapp, Mio, Chomps, Xochitl, Cholula, Doritos, Hoste Cocktails, Something & Nothing, Tip Top Cocktails, Caulitos, Ritz, Triscuits, Tempter's, Roar, Plift, Forto, Stur, Valley Isle Kombucha

Jay-Z sued attorney Tony Buzbee in Los Angeles Superior Court, accusing him of extortion and defamation after Buzbee had publicly named him as a suspect in a sexual assault allegation tied to the broader Diddy scandal. The lawsuit stemmed from demand letters Buzbee sent in late 2024, suggesting Jay-Z rape accusations would be pursued unless mediated—claims Jay-Z called blackmail. In July 2025, a judge dismissed Jay-Z's suit, concluding the demand letters and Buzbee's public statements were protected speech under California's anti‑SLAPP laws and did not meet the legal definition of extortion or defamation.Meanwhile, Tony Buzbee's hotline for alleged Diddy victims remains operational and continues to receive calls. Originally set up in October 2024, the 1-800 number saw a tidal wave of over 12,000 calls in just 24 hours, with the volume remaining steady as people continue to come forward. Buzbee reports that many callers are witnesses or hesitant potential claimants—some describing disturbing reports from parties and after-parties. Despite Diddy's criminal acquittal on racketeering and sex trafficking, Buzbee is preparing civil suits, buoyed by the consistent stream of tips and allegations coming in through the hotline.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Judge Dismisses Jay-Z's Extortion Lawsuit Against Attorney Tony BuzbeeEXCLUSIVE: Diddy Sex Victim Hotline Still Being Flooded With Calls

TRN Podcast host Nick Estes interviews Allen Brown (@AlleenBrown) from Drilled and Tristan Ahtone (@Tahtone) from Grist about their investigation into the legal war waged on the Standing Rock Water Protectors and their allies years after the end of the encampments.  Check out Tristan's article  "A court ordered Greenpeace to pay a pipeline company $660M. What happens next?" Check out the video edition on The Red Nation Podcast YouTube channel Empower our work: GoFundMe: https://www.gofundme.com/f/empower-red-medias-indigenous-content  Subscribe to The Red Nation Newsletter: https://www.therednation.org/ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/redmediapr Join us for our book launch and tour as we release Red Media's second publication! Bordertown Clashes, Resource Wars, and Contested Territories: The Four Corners in the Turbulent 1970s by John Redhouse Find events and link to livestream here: https://redmedia.press/events/

Legal Team, the ladies are back together and catching up on several cases from the Vanderpump Rules and Valley universe. We break down the ongoing legal mess between Tom Sandoval, Ariana Madix, and Rachel Leviss including house disputes, lawsuits, anti-SLAPP motions, and discovery drama. We also check in on Faith Stowers' lawsuit against NBCUniversal and why it's now heading to arbitration. And finally, we touch on a bizarre AI-generated lawsuit involving Jax Taylor, a good reminder not to believe everything you read online.    What's on the docket?   The latest on Tom and Ariana's house — yes, Tom's still living there.  How Tom accidentally sued Ariana, blamed his lawyer, and fired him… via Instagram.  Details of Rachel's lawsuit against Tom and Ariana, including claims that Ariana knew about the affair earlier than portrayed.  Updates on Ariana's anti-SLAPP motion.  Tom's discovery drama: missed deadlines and more fallout after firing his attorney.  Faith's lawsuit against NBCUniversal has been ordered to arbitration — and what that means.  The truth behind Jax Taylor's alleged lawsuit.    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!       Quince: Visit ⁠Quince.com/docket⁠ for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns.      Rula: Connect with quality therapists and mental health experts who specialize in you at ⁠https://www.rula.com/bravodocket⁠       Wayfair: Head to ⁠Wayfair.com⁠ right now to shop a huge outdoor selection.      Dupe: Stop wasting money on brand names and start saving with ⁠Dupe.com⁠ today.     Indacloud: If you're 21 or older, get 25% OFF your first order + free shipping with code BRAVODOCKET at inda.shop/BRAVODOCKET    IRestore: Subscribe & Save for 25% off or more + free shipping on the iRestore REVIVE+ Max Growth Kit, and unlock HUGE savings on the iRestore Elite with the code BRAVODOCKET at https://www.irestore.com/BRAVODOCKET!    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Legal Team, the ladies are back together and catching up on several cases from the Vanderpump Rules and Valley universe. We break down the ongoing legal mess between Tom Sandoval, Ariana Madix, and Rachel Leviss including house disputes, lawsuits, anti-SLAPP motions, and discovery drama. We also check in on Faith Stowers' lawsuit against NBCUniversal and why it's now heading to arbitration. And finally, we touch on a bizarre AI-generated lawsuit involving Jax Taylor, a good reminder not to believe everything you read online.    What's on the docket?   The latest on Tom and Ariana's house — yes, Tom's still living there.  How Tom accidentally sued Ariana, blamed his lawyer, and fired him… via Instagram.  Details of Rachel's lawsuit against Tom and Ariana, including claims that Ariana knew about the affair earlier than portrayed.  Updates on Ariana's anti-SLAPP motion.  Tom's discovery drama: missed deadlines and more fallout after firing his attorney.  Faith's lawsuit against NBCUniversal has been ordered to arbitration — and what that means.  The truth behind Jax Taylor's alleged lawsuit.    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!       Quince: Visit ⁠Quince.com/docket⁠ for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns.      Rula: Connect with quality therapists and mental health experts who specialize in you at ⁠https://www.rula.com/bravodocket⁠       Wayfair: Head to ⁠Wayfair.com⁠ right now to shop a huge outdoor selection.      Dupe: Stop wasting money on brand names and start saving with ⁠Dupe.com⁠ today.     Indacloud: If you're 21 or older, get 25% OFF your first order + free shipping with code BRAVODOCKET at inda.shop/BRAVODOCKET    IRestore: Subscribe & Save for 25% off or more + free shipping on the iRestore REVIVE+ Max Growth Kit, and unlock HUGE savings on the iRestore Elite with the code BRAVODOCKET at https://www.irestore.com/BRAVODOCKET!    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This season on Drilled, investigative reporter Alleen Brown brings us the story of an Indigenous nation fighting for its water, an international environmental movement finding its voice, and an industry attempting to crush its political opposition. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices