Podcasts about slapp

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

David legger igjen sitt hat på Posten. Mens Patrick gjør det på Jysk. Og hva er det jødene holder på med egentlig? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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.

Webinar on freedom of press and expression & intimidation of journalists and activists

Unser großes Webinar zum Angriff auf Meinungs- und Pressefreiheit

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.

Er Knausgårds nye roman «Jeg var lenge død» det beste som har kommet fra hans hånd på veldig lenge, eller nok et eksempel på at man må lide seg gjennom altfor mange banale skildringer før godbitene kommer? Eilif har gitt en svært begeistret anmeldelse i Aftenposten, mens William er skeptisk. Også blant gjestene Anna Albrigtsen og Eirik Riis Mossefinn er det stor uenighet. Produsent: Jakob Meijers Kippersund Nesdal

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

Voditelji Unije v Bruslju razpravljajo o 140-milijardnem posojilu Ukrajini, ki bi ga financirali iz zamrznjenega ruskega premoženja. Rusija je prepričana, da bi šlo za krajo, saj Unija za to nima pravne podlage. Velike pomisleke ima tudi Belgija, kjer je največ ruskega premoženja, in zahteva zagotovila. Kot je dejal belgijski premier Bart De Wever, želi delitev tveganja, zagotovila, da bo vsaka članica prispevala, če bo treba denar vrniti, zamrznjeno rusko premoženje pa naj prispevajo vse članice, ki ga imajo. Premier Robert Golob se vrha zaradi bolezni ni udeležil, zastopa ga francoski predsednik Emmanuel Macron. Drugi poudarki: - Vlada potrdila zaščitne ukrepe za novinarje proti SLAPP tožbam. - Avstrijska komisija: Racija na Peršmanovi domačiji nezakonita in nesorazmerna. - Prek spleta so se trije Celjani izdajali za mladoletnice in vabili moške, enega pretepli, oropali in nato izsiljevali. - Deževje bo od zahoda zajelo vso državo, vetrovno bo. Za Primorsko in severovzhod velja oranžno opozorilo.

Lambreva, Diljana www.deutschlandfunk.de, @mediasres

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 CNI news team discusses major stories of the week, including the brief appearance of a recruiting billboard for the far-right group called the Proud Boys, Senate President Don Harmon appealing a $10 million fine for campaign finance violations, the expansion of protections for news organizations against SLAPP suits, and a new effort underway to put legislative mapmaking in the hands of an independent commission.

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

Mit einem neuen Gesetzentwurf will die Bundesregierung sogenannte SLAPP-Klagen – also missbräuchliche Klagen gegen Journalisten und NGOs – eindämmen. Im Interview mit Tichys Einblick äußert sich der Staatsrechtler und Jurist Ulrich Vosgerau, der selbst regelmäßig gegen Medien klagt, kritisch zu dem Vorhaben. Er bezeichnet die geplante Regelung als juristisch unausgereift und in der Praxis kaum anwendbar. Die zentrale Schwäche: Das Gesetz ignoriere das einzig objektiv prüfbare Kriterium – die offensichtliche Unbegründetheit einer Klage – und stütze sich stattdessen auf schwer überprüfbare Motive der Klägerseite. Wie soll nachgewiesen werden, dass eine Klage ausschließlich dazu dient, der Gegenseite hohe Kosten zu verursachen? Auch die politischen und gesellschaftlichen Implikationen bewertet Vosgerau als problematisch. Er sieht in der SLAPP-Gesetzgebung eine Tendenz der Bundesregierung, ihr nahestehende NGOs zusätzlich juristisch gegen Kritik aus der Bevölkerung abzuschirmen. Kritik an Journalist:innen oder Nichtregierungsorganisationen könnte so leicht abgewehrt und deren Handeln gerichtlicher Kontrolle entzogen werden – denn wer klagt, muss künftig damit rechnen, für vermeintlich missbräuchliche Klagen sanktioniert zu werden.

Maga-bevegelsen handler ikke lenger bare om Trump-caps og hillbillymyter. Jette Christensen har fulgt den nye høyresiden i USA – fra klubbmøter i Harlem til konferanser i Budapest – og avslører hvordan ideologi, penger og populærkultur smelter sammen i et prosjekt som prøver å endre både Europa og USA. Programleder: Lars Glomnes Produsent: Ådne Riis Hallås PS: Følg oss i Spotify eller Youtube for å se samtalen på video.

Forty years after the bombing of its Rainbow Warrior vessel, Greenpeace International's executive director Mads Christensen tells RFI that the attack not only failed to silence the movement, but made it stronger than ever. In an exclusive interview, he reflects on how an act of violence became a rallying cry. Christensen, who was 13 years old at the time of the sinking, remembers being inspired by the courage of the crew, who sailed into danger to protest French nuclear testing in the Pacific. The bombing, which killed photographer Fernando Pereira, revealed the extreme lengths to which governments were willing to go to protect their interests – and the power of peaceful resistance in the face of aggression. You still can't sink a rainbow, Greenpeace boss says 40 years after bombing The slogan “you can't sink a rainbow” became a symbol of defiance and resilience for Greenpeace. Christensen argues that the bombing ultimately gave the movement greater momentum and visibility, proving that when governments attempt to crush protest they often strengthen it instead. Today, Greenpeace faces new threats – from SLAPP suits to fossil fuel giants using legal action to intimidate activists. But just as in 1985, Christensen says Greenpeace will not be silenced. The Rainbow Warrior's legacy lives on in every campaign, every act of mobilisation and every young activist who refuses to look the other way. Forty years after the Rainbow Warrior bombing, activists still under attack

Last week saw Ireland's long-awaited Defamation Bill passed in both the Dáil and the Seanad.However, not everyone is satisfied that the bill is sufficient to prevent so-called SLAPP cases and therefore to protect free speech.Jessica Ní Mhainín is Head of Policy and Campaigns at Index on Censorship. She joins Seán to discuss.

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

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 CallsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

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 CallsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Mere days after SCOTUS enjoins universal injunctions, judges find other way to afford “complete relief.” A big one: The Administrative Procedure Act allows courts to enjoin agency actions.Also:What if a defendant does not want a co-defendant dismissed and relieved of liability? The California Supreme Court says co-defendants can oppose each other's MSJs in R&D Contractors v. Superior Court.The Climategate saga continues: when 12-years of anti-SLAPP litigation does not end Dr. Michael Mann's lawsuit defending his “hockey stick” temperature graph, the D.C. court reverses on punitive damages: with a mere $1 nominal damages award, $1M in punitives is too high. Dr. Mann's total result after a dozen years of litigation: $6,002 (and a bill for $9,000 in discovery sanctions).You snooze, you pay: Employer gets sanctioned $183k for late arbitration fee payment in Guffey v. Bokeet.Family law FC 2030 fee denial reversed for considering improper, extra-statutory equitable factors in Marriage of Sadie v. Cativar.Georgia appellate court sanctions lawyer for ChatGPT-cited fake cases, citing study showing AI makes mistakes 75% of the time.Can you hand up exhibits during appellate argument? Maybe in Texas.The Third District new program delays record deadlines pending mediation.Tune in for insights on trial prep, appeals strategy, and the increasingly blurred lines between branches of government.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.Other items discussed in the episode:Climate Change Trial Update: Jury awards $1 plus $1M punitives for hockey-stick criticismAlex Anteau 'Don't Be Dumb': Ga. Court of Appeals Sanction Gives Insight...Law360 The Funniest Moments of The Supreme Court's Term - Law360

SLAPP Back! Our Rights vs. Their Power GrabIn this episode the Dandelion Duo covers - the critical Greenpeace anti-SLAPP lawsuit and its global implications for free speech - the concerning rise of anti-protest laws and government power grabs impacting climate action - the critical role of global conferences in climate policy - and (not so) surprising news about government overreach that impacts climate actionall alongside some much-needed fast good news in sustainability.GET GROUND NEWS:https://ground.news/downloadGet 1 month of free Premium with my referral code: 8238674DON'T GET SLAPPED https://www.acluohio.org/en/how-guard-against-slapp-suitsNYC LEADERSHIP SUMMIThttps://events.unglobalcompact.org/leaderssummit2025/SIGN THE PETITION & SAY NO TO DEEP SEA MINING:https://www.change.org/p/say-no-to-deep-sea-mining/u/33606955⌛⌛TIMESTAMPS01:57: Fast Good News in Sustainability04:01: Resource Spotlight: Ground News 05:03: Defining SLAPP & Anti-SLAPP Cases 07:29: International Precedent for Free Speech 09:40: Stay Factual & Don't Get SLAPPed 11:47: The Importance of Conferences & Connections 18:41: Are Global Efforts Enough? (Falling short of targets, political will) 20:32: The Long Game of Societal Change vs. Climate Urgency 24:24: Government Power Grabs & Undermining Climate Action 30:42: The Importance of Civil Disobedience & Protests Please let us know if you want linked sources from this episode, we're happy to send them to you#SustainabilityNews #ClimateAction #FreeSpeech #AntiSLAPP #ProtestRights #EnvironmentalJustice #GovernmentOverreach #SustainableFuture #DandelionBranding #Podcast ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dandelion Branding is a digital marketing agency that specializes in telling sustainability stories.Here's where you can find Dandelion: Our Website: https://dandelionbranding.com/helloInstagram: https://instagram.com/dandelion_brandingLinked In: https://www.linkedin.com/company/dandelion-branding/

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/

No more nationwide injunctions, SCOTUS says Justice Barrett writing for the 6-3 majority in Trump v. CASA. District courts must limit their injunctions to the “case or controversy” before it. Justices Sotomayor and Jackson each wrote dissents urging that more judicial power was needed to check the executive. In response, Justice Barrett says that exceeding judicial power is not the right way to address excessive executive power.The Court did not reach the merits of the Natural Born Citizenship clause.Also:The 9th Circuit seems poised to hold that anti-SLAPP motions are not appealable. This week's en banc oral argument in Gopher Media v. Malone had many judges criticizing its precedent to the contrary.A lawyer calls a justice “honey” at oral argument. The internet is not forgiving.A party improperly recorded a trial court proceeding. While noting it is against the rules, the appellate court uses it as the record.How many hours does an appeal take?Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.Other items discussed in the episode:https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/trump-v-casa-inc/https://www.linkedin.com/posts/meganwade_i-am-very-curious-to-see-responses-here-activity-7343977603051008002-fy8B?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAACr8Z0cBB2uXy0Jklta4ZeCWMkby7fji_XkVideos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.

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.

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

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

The news of Texas covered today includes:Our Lone Star story of the day: Today is the first kill-the-bills-day in the Texas House. I comment on the following: Governor Abbott Signs Pro-Growth Business Legislation Into Law House Speaker Agrees to Senate's $8B School Funding Bill Texas bill passes to address ‘sexual abuse crisis' in public schools, more Ban on loudspeakers, masks at campus protests passes Senate Bill imposing caps on out-of-state campaign contributions passes Texas House House bill on lawsuits shelved after critics label it harmful to free speech – great news, the anti-SLAPP protection bill gets slapped down Junk science law changes pass Texas House – bad bill, lowers the standard so low that half the prison population could conceivably qualify; and at your expense. Texas House Passes Two Landmark Measures for Parental Rights Transactional Gold Legislation Moves Forward in Senate, Faces Pushback From Banking Lobbyist Our Lone Star story of the day is sponsored by Allied Compliance Services providing the best service in DOT, business and personal drug and alcohol testing since 1995.Attorney General Ken Paxton Reaches Agreement Requiring Travis County to Abide by the Texas Open Meetings Act and Other Government Transparency LawsMexico pays some water owed to U.S., a very small amount, before the October deadline.Listen on the radio, or station stream, at 5pm Central. Click for our radio and streaming affiliates.www.PrattonTexas.com

On this Salcedo Storm Podcast:Tony Macdonald is the General Counsel for the Tarrant County Texas Republican Party. He is also an attorney specializing in protecting American's First Amendment right of Free Speech.

 A North Dakota jury found in favor of pipeline company Energy Transfer and ordered Greenpeace to pay more than $600 million in damages over its role in helping protest the Dakota Access Pipeline. Some legal experts call the case a classic SLAPP or Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation suit and a threat to free speech.   Also, a program funded by the 2021 bipartisan Infrastructure Law sought to install many more electric vehicle chargers. But now the Trump administration has stalled this funding.   And the world can be an awfully noisy place. Ed Jahn of Oregon Public Broadcasting took a journey in search of silence and found what could be the quietest place in Oregon. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Strategic Litigation on Public Participation, or SLAPPs, is an oft-used tactics by power holders against activists, campaigners, journalists and ordinary citizens seeking to stop destructive corporate practices on people and planet. There are a number of high profile SLAPP suits in the courts now.In our latest, we talk with Evan Mascagni with the Public Participation Project about the history and use of SLAPP suits.Bio//Evan Mascagni is the Policy Director of the Public Participation Project, a nonprofit dedicated to combating Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) through state and federal anti-SLAPP legislation. A former attorney turned documentary filmmaker and First Amendment rights advocate, Evan is committed to defending the free speech rights of filmmakers, journalists, and activists nationwide. -----------------------------------------------Outro- "Lawyers, Guns and Money" by Los Alvarez Del Norte Links//+ Evan's website: https://www.evanmascagni.com/+Public Participation Project: https://anti-slapp.org/+ Protect the Protest: https://www.protecttheprotest.org/Follow Green and Red// +G&R Linktree: ⁠⁠⁠https://linktr.ee/greenandredpodcast⁠⁠⁠ +Our rad website: ⁠⁠⁠https://greenandredpodcast.org/⁠⁠⁠ + Join our Discord community (https://discord.gg/vgKnY3sd)+Follow us on Bluesky (https://bsky.app/profile/podcastgreenred.bsky.social)Support the Green and Red Podcast// +Become a Patron at https://www.patreon.com/greenredpodcast +Or make a one time donation here: ⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/DonateGandR⁠⁠⁠ Our Networks// +We're part of the Labor Podcast Network: ⁠⁠⁠https://www.laborradionetwork.org/⁠⁠ +We're part of the Anti-Capitalist Podcast Network: linktr.ee/anticapitalistpodcastnetwork +Listen to us on WAMF (90.3 FM) in New Orleans (https://wamf.org/) This is a Green and Red Podcast (@PodcastGreenRed) production. Produced by Bob (@bobbuzzanco) and Scott (@sparki1969). Edited by Isaac.

From Michael Mann's climate fraud crashing in a free-speech inferno—slashing his million-dollar win to half-million loss —to Texas ditching its oil riches for 30 nuclear reactors by 2030, fueled by foreign uranium we don't even have!     Meanwhile, California's serving up rodent recipes, the USDA's greenlighting untested gene-jabbing of cows     Then, the grand finale: Seeking Satoshi exposes Bitcoin as a transhumanist plot—futurists obsessed with AI, genetic engineering, and defying entropy itself! From Julian Huxley's sci-fi dystopias to Silicon Valley's god-complex oligarchs like Musk and Thiel, this is no mere currency—it's a tower of Babel for a godless elite, hellbent on immortality and global control2:30 Trump's Tariff Pendulum Swings BackOn-again, off-again tariffs get put on 30 day hold again as Trump's wrecking ball swings back. It's not about protectionism, it's not about revenue — but a chaotic assault on Canada and Mexico, threatening to torch the North American auto supply chain Trump himself turbocharged with the USMCA. But the Trump-sucker Proxy Media cheers it as a “win" 30:00Michael Mann's Climate Con Crumbles: Free Speech Strikes BackMichael Mann, the climate MacGuffin mastermind who fabricated exponential lie that fueled Al Gore's Oscar-winning propaganda, sees his house of cards collapse in a blaze of justice.  After a 12-year legal war, his million-dollar defamation win against sharp-tongued skeptic Mark Steyn just got slashed to a measly $5,000, while he's slapped with a $500,000 bill to National Review under anti-SLAPP laws. 42:00Texas, Rich in Oil, Will Go Nuclear for Data Centers — 30 Nukes by 2030The USA doesn't have much uranium (which is why they do this).  Where do we source it?  46:45 California Says — Eat Rodents!They're publishing recipes for eating Nutria…[hint: tastes just as good next week] 1:03:00 USDA Approval of Genetic “BirdFlu” Vax for CattleUSDA now skips testing like FDA.  Approval to use genetic injections on cows is imminent (as they've already done for chickens).  But Reason Magazine has completely lost the plot — they think high egg prices are due to “cage-free” laws in states 1:30:00 Trump's Shocking Bitcoin Reserve TwistTony Arterburn of DavidKnight.gold drops revelations on what started as a bold promise at the Nashville Bitcoin Conference.  The Bitcoin Reserve has morphed into a chaotic crypto circus, with mysterious additions like ADA, SOL, and XRP raising eyebrows and red flags. Is this a genius move or a sinister setup?     Arterburn exposes the murky ties to Trump's meme coins, insider graft, and a potential backdoor to Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs).     With Bitcoin soaring to $108K and crashing back down, the so-called “Bitcoin Strategic Reserve” is starting to smell like a high-stakes pump-and-dump scam.     Add in a sovereign wealth fund twist and BlackRock's shadowy fingerprints, and you've got a financial thriller that could shake the world economy to its core 2:22:48Seeking Satoshi: Unmasking Bitcoin's Transhumanist Puppet MastersCypherpunk pioneer Mike Laurie drops a bombshell: he says Satoshi's no lone genius but a hive of libertarian transhumanists from the Extropy Institute—futurists obsessed with AI, genetic engineering, and defying entropy itself! From Julian Huxley's sci-fi dystopias to Silicon Valley's god-complex oligarchs like Musk and Thiel, this is no mere currency—it's a tower of Babel for a godless elite, hellbent on immortality and global controlIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-show Or you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHTFor 10% off supplements and books, go to RNCstore.com and enter the code KNIGHTBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

From Michael Mann's climate fraud crashing in a free-speech inferno—slashing his million-dollar win to half-million loss —to Texas ditching its oil riches for 30 nuclear reactors by 2030, fueled by foreign uranium we don't even have!     Meanwhile, California's serving up rodent recipes, the USDA's greenlighting untested gene-jabbing of cows     Then, the grand finale: Seeking Satoshi exposes Bitcoin as a transhumanist plot—futurists obsessed with AI, genetic engineering, and defying entropy itself! From Julian Huxley's sci-fi dystopias to Silicon Valley's god-complex oligarchs like Musk and Thiel, this is no mere currency—it's a tower of Babel for a godless elite, hellbent on immortality and global control2:30 Trump's Tariff Pendulum Swings BackOn-again, off-again tariffs get put on 30 day hold again as Trump's wrecking ball swings back. It's not about protectionism, it's not about revenue — but a chaotic assault on Canada and Mexico, threatening to torch the North American auto supply chain Trump himself turbocharged with the USMCA. But the Trump-sucker Proxy Media cheers it as a “win" 30:00Michael Mann's Climate Con Crumbles: Free Speech Strikes BackMichael Mann, the climate MacGuffin mastermind who fabricated exponential lie that fueled Al Gore's Oscar-winning propaganda, sees his house of cards collapse in a blaze of justice.  After a 12-year legal war, his million-dollar defamation win against sharp-tongued skeptic Mark Steyn just got slashed to a measly $5,000, while he's slapped with a $500,000 bill to National Review under anti-SLAPP laws. 42:00Texas, Rich in Oil, Will Go Nuclear for Data Centers — 30 Nukes by 2030The USA doesn't have much uranium (which is why they do this).  Where do we source it?  46:45 California Says — Eat Rodents!They're publishing recipes for eating Nutria…[hint: tastes just as good next week] 1:03:00 USDA Approval of Genetic “BirdFlu” Vax for CattleUSDA now skips testing like FDA.  Approval to use genetic injections on cows is imminent (as they've already done for chickens).  But Reason Magazine has completely lost the plot — they think high egg prices are due to “cage-free” laws in states 1:30:00 Trump's Shocking Bitcoin Reserve TwistTony Arterburn of DavidKnight.gold drops revelations on what started as a bold promise at the Nashville Bitcoin Conference.  The Bitcoin Reserve has morphed into a chaotic crypto circus, with mysterious additions like ADA, SOL, and XRP raising eyebrows and red flags. Is this a genius move or a sinister setup?     Arterburn exposes the murky ties to Trump's meme coins, insider graft, and a potential backdoor to Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs).     With Bitcoin soaring to $108K and crashing back down, the so-called “Bitcoin Strategic Reserve” is starting to smell like a high-stakes pump-and-dump scam.     Add in a sovereign wealth fund twist and BlackRock's shadowy fingerprints, and you've got a financial thriller that could shake the world economy to its core 2:22:48Seeking Satoshi: Unmasking Bitcoin's Transhumanist Puppet MastersCypherpunk pioneer Mike Laurie drops a bombshell: he says Satoshi's no lone genius but a hive of libertarian transhumanists from the Extropy Institute—futurists obsessed with AI, genetic engineering, and defying entropy itself! From Julian Huxley's sci-fi dystopias to Silicon Valley's god-complex oligarchs like Musk and Thiel, this is no mere currency—it's a tower of Babel for a godless elite, hellbent on immortality and global controlIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-show Or you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHTFor 10% off supplements and books, go to RNCstore.com and enter the code KNIGHTBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-real-david-knight-show--5282736/support.

Energy Transfer Partners, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline, is suing Greenpeace for $300 million. The pipeline company accuses Greenpeace of criminal behavior — trespassing, vandalism, and assault of construction workers — and inciting riotous behavior by protesters at Standing Rock in 2016. Greenpeace considers this legal action to be a “SLAPP suit” — a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation — aimed at silencing not just Greenpeace, but civil protests everywhere. The trial is just getting underway in Morton County, North Dakota. In this episode we unpack not just this case, but the broader implications of such suits. Guests:  Rolf Skar, National Campaigns Director, Greenpeace Montgomery Brown, Member, Standing Rock Grassroots Laura Prather, Chair of First Amendment Practice, Haynes Boone On March 24, Google's Chief Sustainability Officer Kate Brandt and Irina Raicu, Director of the Internet Ethics Program at the Markkula Center, will speak with Climate One about the development of sustainably powered artificial intelligence. Tickets are on sale through our website. Support Climate One by going ad-free! By subscribing to Climate One on Patreon, you'll receive exclusive access to all future episodes free of ads, opportunities to connect with fellow Climate One listeners, and access to the Climate One Discord. Sign up today. For show notes and related links, visit our website. Ad sales by Multitude. Contact them for ad inquiries at multitude.productions/ads Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today's podcast is all about the antis: anti-SLAPP, anti-masking, anti-indoctrination, anti-retaliation, and anti-corruption. But before all that, Sarah Isgur and David French kick things off with the latest news on President Donald Trump's sentencing in his New York criminal trial. The Agenda: —Does Donald Trump have citizen-plus status? —David is somewhat of a SLAPP expert —Does Arkansas care for LEARNS? —Is face-masking protected? —Free Speech timeline —Campaign finance changes in Oxnard —Cyberbullying, harrassment, and student council drama Join us for a live taping of Advisory Opinions! Sarah Isgur and David French will be speaking in front of live audiences on Monday, January 13, 2024. You have two chances to catch them if you live in the DMV area. Details below: Catholic University of America CUA Columbus School of Law 3600 John McCormack Road NE Washington, D.C. 20017 Room 205, main floor 12:30 P.M. ET George Washington University 2000 H Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20052 Burns Moot Court Room 3:15 P.M. ET Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including Sarah's Collision newsletter, weekly livestreams, and other members-only content—click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices