Podcasts about slapp

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

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

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

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

Una giuria del North Dakota conferma una multa astronomica da 345 milioni di dollari a Greenpeace dopo la denuncia temeraria da parte di Energy Transfer, multinazionale del fossile, per via delle proteste portate avanti dalla ong insieme alle popolazioni Sioux contro l'oleodotto Dakota Access. Proseguono i bombardamenti sull'Iran da parte di Stati Uniti e Israele. Un missile iraniano è arrivato anche vicino alla Turchia, mentre il governo statunitense diffonde false notizie sull'uso delle basi militari Nato spagnole. La Croazia è finalmente un paese completamente libero dalle mine: a 30 anni dalla fine della guerra nei Balcani, il governo ha comunicato di aver estratto tutte le 107mila mine ancora presenti nel terreno.   Rassegna stampa: Perché sì, perché no: il referendum sulla riforma della giustizia spiegato da due magistrati, Simone Santi A cura di Giovanni MoriMontaggio: Giorgio Baù Supervisione editoriale: Camilla Soldati Produzione: Giacomo De Poli e Marco Rip Musiche: Luca Tommasoni Puoi scriverci a podcast@lifegate.it e trovare tutte le notizie su www.lifegate.it. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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