Podcasts about Special master

We spoke with Ken Feinberg, one of the nation's foremost experts on compensation and conflict resolution. Following the attacks of September 11th, Ken Feinberg was appointed Special Master of the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund -- tasked with the extraordinary responsibility of determining how to compensate families who had suffered unimaginable loss. He chronicled that experience in his book, What Is Life Worth? Image Credit: Reuters

It's been 25 years since 9/11. In this special episode, we revisit our conversation with Kenneth Feinberg, the architect of the federal compensation plan for victims and their families. As he asks in his book on the subject, “what's life worth?” Feinberg is an internationally known attorney who was appointed by President George W. Bush to administer the federal fund established to aid those injured in the terrorist attacks and to support the families of those who lost their lives.  We reflect on Feinberg's Herculean efforts and how his team grappled with a national open wound and struggled to put a monetary value on thousands of lives. In today's often divisive political climate, a brutal period 25 years ago reminds us of a time when our nation came together as one. If any episode of Workers' Comp Matters bears a second listen, this is the one. Everyone working with injured workers and their families can take a lesson from Feinberg's extraordinary challenge.  If you have thoughts on Workers' Comp law or an idea for a topic or guest you'd like to hear, contact us at JPierce@ppnlaw.com or APierce@ppnlaw.com.   Mentioned in This Episode: “Worth,” a Netflix film on Ken Feinberg's work, trailer “What Is Life Worth? The Unprecedented Effort to Compensate the Victims of 9/11,” by Kenneth R. Feinberg

This week on the Stay Tuned with Preet podcast, renowned mediator Ken Feinberg, known for his role as Special Master of the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund, joins Preet to discuss the new edition of his book, What is Life Worth? Reflections 25 Years After 9/11.  Feinberg breaks down the central question in his new edition, whether the United States could deal with a catastrophe so effectively today, as he compares the country's political climate in 2001 to today's. Preet and Feinberg then discuss the moral dilemma that comes with deciding what someone's life is worth and whether there are other tragedies that merit taxpayer funded victim compensation funds, like gun violence. Throughout their conversation, Feinberg shares some of the stories he heard from victims and why the emotional aspect of his job was the hardest part of it. Finally, they talk about their careers and why Feinberg believes planning ahead doesn't always work. In the bonus for Insiders, Preet and Feinberg discuss Congress's response to the 9/11 Fund and who opposed it. Join the Insider community for access to bonus content from Stay Tuned and weekly episodes of the Insider podcast hosted by Preet and Joyce Vance. Visit staytuned.substack.com to sign up. Thank you for supporting our work. Photo by Spencer Platt via Getty Images  Show notes and a transcript of the episode are available on our website.  Watch this episode on our Youtube channel. Shop Stay Tuned merch and featured books by our guests in our Amazon storefront. Have a question for Preet? Ask @PreetBharara on BlueSky, or Twitter with the hashtag #AskPreet. Email us at staytuned@cafe.com, or call 833-997-7338 to leave a voicemail. Stay Tuned with Preet is brought to you by CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome to RIMScast. Your host is Justin Smulison, Business Content Manager at RIMS, the Risk and Insurance Management Society.   In this episode, Justin interviews Cari Stinebower about sanctions as an enterprise risk management issue. They discuss the holistic view of the maritime space and enterprise risk. They cover aspects of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) and how insurance companies, brokers, and reinsurers work with the U.S. Government to mitigate terrorism risk.   Listen for advice on keeping your organization compliant with respect to sanctions and terrorism risk.   Key Takeaways: [:01] About RIMS and RIMScast. [:16] About this episode of RIMScast. We will discuss geopolitical risk, sanctions, and TRIA with Cari Stinebower, a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Steptoe. But first… [:42] RIMS-CRMP Virtual Workshops. RIMS will partner with PARIMA for the RIMS-CRMP on September 1st and 2nd for a two-day virtual workshop. Registration links are in this episode's show notes. [:55] Also on the webinars page, you will see a two-part series hosted by the RIMS Membership Department. The "Classroom to Career" webinar series highlights how RIMS equips students with the knowledge, skills, and connections needed to thrive in risk management careers. [1:10] Participants will gain insights into industry trends, career pathways, and practical tools that help them confidently step into the evolving world of risk management after graduation. These sessions will be hosted on September 1st and 9th. [1:24] These sessions are member exclusives and are complimentary for RIMS members, of course. So, if you are interested in becoming a member, this would be the time. Visit RIMS.org/membership. [1:34] Webinars: On September 17th, AXA XL returns to present the session, "Beyond the Loss Count: What Property Claims Reveal About Frequency, Severity, and Resilience." [1:46] On October 1st, Brown and Brown will make their RIMS Webinar debut with "The Future of Captives: What Risk Managers Should Think About Now." Visit RIMS.org/Webinars to register. [1:59] RIMS is back on YouTube. Our handle is @RIMSOfficialChannel. We've got plenty of videos there, including RIMScast, RIMScast Canada video podcasts, and other informative and entertaining content from RIMS. Subscribe to the channel today! [2:17] On with the Show! Our guest today is Cari Stinebower. She is a partner at Steptoe in Washington, D.C., and a former U.S. Department of the Treasury and Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) Attorney-Adviser. [2:32] Cari focuses her practice on regulatory risk where U.S. National Security and Foreign Policy objectives intersect with cross-border business. [2:39] We will talk about fraud, money laundering detection, and cybersecurity, and how this can be connected to the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA). [2:50] We'll also talk about how international sanctions can impact any organization, and why risk managers should be strategizing now, if they haven't already. There is so much to discuss!  Let's get to it! [3:04] Interview! Cari Stinebower, welcome to RIMScast! [3:24] Cari says she was at OFAC at an interesting time. She came in after a Hill job doing the campaign finance cleanup for the Democrats for three years, from 1996 to 1999. [3:38] Cari says that OFAC sank their teeth into anti-money laundering and the detection of fraud and corruption. When Cari joined Treasury as an analyst within OFAC, they slotted her into a position focused on counter-narcotics work, and also on the Milošević tribunal. [4:03] Cari says there was lots of work to do and not enough staff to do it. Everyone ot OFAC had then, and still has, multiple portfolios. Cari was splitting between Milošević and counter-narcotics work. [4:20] Cari says she spent a lot of time in Colombia working with banks and the Colombian government on anti-money laundering, focused on the cartels. The drug dealers were very sophisticated and were spectacular at establishing front companies and money laundering. [4:54] Cari says it was a very good lesson for what was to come through the counter-terrorism work. The Colombian narcotics traffickers and their front companies were light-years ahead on money laundering techniques and sanctions evasion. [5:44] Cari says in Colombia, at that time, the narcotics traffickers were excellent businessmen. It was such a lucrative career that they had to find ways to wash the cash. They were buying agricultural businesses, tourism businesses, pharmacies; anything they could to launder cash. [6:18] Cari says they could have been fabulous businessmen if they had gone legitimate. She says some of them tried. [6:32] Cari says 9/11 happened, so the world changed overnight. Cari switched from a counter-narcotics focus to a counter-terrorism focus. [6:44] They started chasing the money. Who was the source of the funds? Where was it going? Which financial institutions were involved? Were they doing it knowingly? Were they being used by governments? Were they being used by "charities"? How is it flowing? [7:03] Cari says that became her focus at OFAC for the next five years after 0/11, before she hopped into the private sector. [7:39] Justin asks about sanctions against nations. Cari says the old way Treasury used to do sanctions was by jurisdiction. A jurisdiction would be identified as prohibited, off-limits for U.S persons, meaning individuals and entities. [8:01] Any funds, transactions, or contracts that came into the possession or control of the U.S. person or entity would, by operation of law, be blocked or frozen; the title remained with the sanctioned party, but the U.S. person or entity had to freeze it and report it to the Treasury. [6:26] The original sanctions on Iran were jurisdictional, based on the government, based on persons located within the jurisdiction of Iran. The Department of the Treasury was aggressive in pursuing enforcement actions. [8:44] Financial institutions were sanctioned with multi-million-dollar penalties. The world started to voluntarily comply. It was U.S. driven initially, but European financial institutions and some of the Emirati financial institutions got on board and complied with the sanctions. [9:20] The Departments of the Treasury and Justice used a clause within the underlying statute for the Iran sanctions that allowed penalties to be imposed on non-U.S. financial institutions that were causing a U.S. bank to process transactions on behalf of the sanctioned party. [9:43] That was the line of the European banking cases that came out. Cari says banks were penalized from 2005 through 2015, which pretty much swept in everyone. [9:56] That was the modern buildout of the compliance program where the U.S. established it was applying its sanctions requirements not only to U.S. persons but to non-US. persons where they could also identify a nexus. [10:12] The favorite nexus was the use of U.S. dollars through the clearing system. Sanctions exploded. It was identifying ways to reach non-U.S. parties through the use of dollars, servers located in the U.S., call centers, approvals, or whatever they could, as a hook to get U.S. nexus. [10:51] Justin asks about sanctions against Russia, Iran, and North Korea. Cari says North Korea has sort of fallen off. There's a big focus on North Korea's use of forced labor. They've also been active in cyberspace and ransomware. [11:20] Cari says we don't see North Korea as often as we see Iran, Russia, and, to a certain degree, Cuba. It depends on the administration. For a while, Venezuela was really hot, from an anti-corruption, anti-money-laundering perspective, rather than a sanctioned invasion. [11:46] Justin speaks of the latest AML bill, passed in 2023. Cari says the big overhaul was under the Patriot Act, which updated and modernized the Bank Secrecy Act. It also updated and modernized the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), OPEC's big statute. [12:09] Cari says there have been updates since. When you hear M&A partners or private equity guys talking, they often refer back to the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act becomes this overarching term for updates to the AML laws and regulations. [12:48] Cari says there has been a growing evolution of the anti-corruption, anti-bribery statutes, the anti-money-laundering statutes, the sanctions world, and the adjacents like the whistleblower protections and the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. [13:09] Cari says all of these components are part of this growing collective focus on upgrading U.S. Government abilities to protect against threats to national security and the economy. [13:32] Justin says risk managers are accustomed to thinking about operational and financial risks, but sanctions can feel like a legal issue. Part of the problem is you may have a legal officer who is not a risk manager or a risk manager who is not a legal officer. [13:48] Justin asks, When should sanctions become an Enterprise Risk Management issue? Cari says, looking at OFAC's enforcement actions, sanctions should always be an Enterprise Risk Management focus. [14:04] It's very easy for the bad guys to take advantage of a business if it's siloed. The easiest way to detect a problem, whether it's financial sanctions evasion or exposure to corruption, is if the enterprise is looking holistically at its business, its counterparties, and its transactions. [14:26] Cari says, when we're working with clients on building a global compliance policy or procedure, we keep telling them that it's better to have a holistic view of the business, customers, and geography. [14:43] Not only geographic risk, customer risk, or service risk, but also across the regulatory schemes. If you have sanctions exposure somewhere in your enterprise, you're also likely going to have an anti-money-laundering issue, a corruption issue, and/or an export controls issue.  [15:06] Cari says when you're building out compliance, you want to have a 1,000-foot view of the business units, your customers, your geographies, and the regulatory components, so that you can take advantage of what you may be seeing in one area. It's silos that cause the problems. [15:26] A Quick Break! Many fantastic RIMS events are coming up in 2026. The 11th Annual Chicagoland Risk Forum will return to the Old Post Office on Thursday, September 24th, 2026. Visit ChicagolandRiskForum.org for more information. [15:42] The RIMS Western Regional Conference will be held from October 4th through the 7th in Seattle, Washington. The agenda is live, and registration is open. Visit RIMSWesternRegional.com and the link in this episode's show notes for more information. [15:59] Save the dates: October 18th through the 21st. In Quebec City, we will be hosting the 50th Annual RIMS Canada Conference. Booth sales are open, and sponsorship opportunities are still available. Visit RIMSCanadaConference.ca for more information. [16:16] Also, remember to check out RIMS.org/Canada for our spinoff show, RIMScast Canada, hosted by National Conference Committee Chair, Aaron Lukoni. [16:27] The RIMS ERM Conference 2026 will be held on November 19th and 20th in Columbus, Ohio. Registration is open. Visit RIMS.org/ERM2026. [16:40] We're already looking to RISKWORLD 2027, which will be held over four days in New Orleans, Louisiana, from April 18th through the 21st! [16:50] RIMS members can exclusively register by September 4th for the best rate. And get first access to the hotel block. Hotel reservations open on October 28th, ahead of public registration. Sitting this out is the real risk! The link to registration is in this episode's show notes. [17:10] Let's Return to Our Interview with Cari Stinebower! [17:26] Cari says an example of sanctions risk is Iranian oil or Venezuelan oil. Typically, the pattern is you have a Greek shipment manager under charter to deliver oil and gas to China.  The Bill of Lading says the cargo is of Omani origin or Malaysian blend. [18:08] It looks clean. They have all the sanctions exclusions language in the Charter Agreement; the insurers, the reinsurers, and the P&I quotes have all established that the vessel cannot carry Iranian cargo. The documents say it's Omani or Malaysian, and off you go. [18:28] Then you get a call from the U.S. State Department or the Treasury Department saying you've got Iranian cargo on board. The U.S. Government typically knows that because they're using satellite tracking software. They know that the cargo was loaded by ship-to-ship transfer. [18:58] If you go back through the satellite imagery, you can see that it's happened probably two or three times, and when the vessel called on the Omani port that was supposed to be the source of the cargo, it came in at the same draft as it left. Calling on the port was clearly a ruse. [19:34] When you get to the financial payments, that's where you have the money laundering side, and you can see that the Omani seller of the cargo is just a front company with a brand new website, secretly run by the Revolutionary Guard. [19:56] Cari says that when we start talking about the compliance policies and procedures, it's not good enough just to rely on the Bill of Lading. The expectation is that you're going to be doing something a little deeper. [20:11] In 2019, the Department of Justice started to pursue a lot of ship owners and ship managers for carrying Iranian cargo. Sometimes it was Iranian cargo going to Venezuela or going to China. [20:32] In a decent batch of those cases, the ship owners or ship managers would be contacted by the U.S. Government and agree that the Government was right and ask what they could do not to get sanctioned. [20:51] Cari says there were a series of cases where the ships were brought to the U.S. and the cargo was sold by the U.S. Government, with the proceeds going to the Victims of Terrorism Fund, for parties who registered with the Special Master and were entitled to a pro rata share. [21:20] That was the U.S. Government's solution to what to do with all this cargo that they can seize, and they had been seizing, under the Foreign Terrorist Organization Statute. We're now seeing the same focus on the narcotics trafficking cartels in Mexico, Brazil, and Venezuela. [21:46] Cari says, You see the evolution of the U.S. Government's thinking over the years, how the Iranian oil cases are now relevant to countering narcotics trafficking caused by the cartels in South America. [22:00] Justin asks about supply chain risk and sanctions-related risks companies may overlook when they evaluate suppliers. Cari says the supply chain, particularly when you're dealing with raw materials or manufacturers coming out of China, has been an issue for a long time. [22:29] Cari says it's not difficult for a U.S. importer who's bringing in parts and components for widgets to know that their manufacturer or warehouse in China is who they say they are. That's easy enough. [22:48] Where we see issues is when the Chinese manufacturer subcontracts to second or third parties, who ostensibly are also compliant, but it becomes difficult in a more opaque jurisdiction like China to do the tracing down to the actual mine or source of the raw materials. [23:14] That leads up to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA), which has forced companies to look at supply chains where there's a Chinese component, for several years. [23:31] Where are the raw materials coming from? Do you know where all of the raw materials are coming from, or do you just know where some are? Under the UFLPA, companies were particularly focused on identifying those risks in China. [23:50] Cari says, under the first Trump Administration, and under the Biden Administration, you started to see a lot of companies moving away from sole-sourcing goods from China, specifically because of that risk. [24:02] The National Drug Control Strategy Report that came out in May 2026 is digging deep into supply chain issues. [24:13] It says two things: first, that the U.S. Government needs to act as a whole. The Departments of Justice, Treasury, and Homeland Security need to work together on tackling supply chain issues and addressing where the gaps are. [24:35] Supply chains are being exploited, not only by narcotics traffickers, but across the board. [24:41] The report is also telling businesses that it's not enough to have an OFAC sanctions compliance program where you screen your counterparties against the SDN list. [24:54] There's an expectation for businesses to go deeper, using analytics and AI, looking at their records, and knowing who the suppliers of their suppliers are. [25:17] The expectation is for businesses to step up their game, but also for the U.S. Government to partner with businesses to figure out how to do that. [25:35] Cari says we've also been telling other jurisdictions, like those in the Caribbean and South America, that this is a really good opportunity. [26:44] The first Trump Administration, the Biden Administration, and the second Trump Administration have said to stop sole-sourcing in China. Let's near-shore and friend-shore, and let's bring business and infrastructure back to the Western Hemisphere. [26:00] Cari says we're starting to see jurisdictions offer tax incentives for setting up manufacturing spaces, or finding ways to invest in the United States to bring back manufacturing. [26:14] Cari says the big issue of late has been how to bring shipbuilding back to the United States. Is there a way to do it in Latin America without relying on China as the major shipyard? [26:29] Those issues are interesting because they trigger a series of other questions: cost of labor, sourcing raw materials, and more. It's a longer-term problem. If you're building out your supply chain nose-to-tail, it's going to require a more transparent jurisdiction than China. [26:52] One more Quick Break! RIMS, The Foundation for Risk ManagementTM, is dedicated to shaping the future of the profession. By making a contribution, you are strengthening the global risk management community and investing in the future of the industry. [27:11] The Foundation also supports the Spencer Educational Foundation but has a different mission. The Foundation focuses on providing opportunities for those professionals who have already decided to enter risk management and are just getting started. [27:26] You can learn more about the Foundation by visiting www.RIMS.org/FRM.  While you're there, be sure to check out information about the Susan Meltzer Scholarship Fund, which was established to honor Ms. Meltzer, who was RIMS President in 1999 and 2000. [27:44] Susan Meltzer was a cherished RIMS President and contributed so much to RIMS and the greater risk community. Learn more at RIMS.org/FRM. [27:53] Let's return to our interview with Cari Stinebower! [28:14] Justin asks if other countries sanction the United States or U.S. companies. Cari says it has become a new trend. The jurisdictions doing it are China, with the National Security Law; Russia, identifying Hostile Jurisdictions that have imposed sanctions against Russia. [29:12] Cari says it's a quid pro quo. Ukraine has a sanctions program against entities that do business with Russia. Canada and Europe are well-known for their Blocking Statutes. [29:48] They have Antidote Sanctions that prohibit their nationals from complying with the U.S.'s Cuba Sanctions. Those jurisdictions see the U.S. sanctions on Cuba as territorial. There is a quid pro quo. [30:08] Sometimes it triggers conflict-of-law issues, and companies have to decide how and when they're going to comply with which set of sanctions. [30:46] Cari says, if you don't have a holistic view of which jurisdictions you're operating in, and where your U.S. nationals are located, there's no way to build out a robust, comprehensive sanctions program. [31:01] If you have a U.S. person located in or in a business position in Canada, you wouldn't want them dealing with the Canadian company's Cuba business. You need to know where they are located in advance so you can protect the U.S. person. [31:27] Justin notes that RIMS is a global society. Canada is the second-largest RIMS membership base. [31:40] Justin says there's so much due diligence to be done. You have to vet the company you're going to be doing business with and do your second- and third-tier supply chain risk management deep dive to make sure that everything is above board. [32:02] Cari says there are many examples where the Canadian Government has aggressively stepped up its sanctions components. The Canadian sanctions on Russian targets may be more aggressive than the U.S. or EU sanctions on Russia. [32:19] If you have a financial institution or insurance company based in Canada, but operating in the U.S. and the EU, because they're complying with the Canadian sanctions, they're blocking transactions that a U.S. party wouldn't have to block. [32:44] You want to know what the entire web of sanctions regulations is before you figure out who your business parties are and how you're going to navigate something. [32:55] Justin surmises that a small company without a dedicated risk professional would need to reach out to a company like Steptoe. Cari agrees; a lot of people will use a law firm and a consultant to build out their compliance programs or to do the risk analysis. [33:13] Cari says, then they will either find someone in-house or outsource it to a consultant or a specialist to keep costs down. [33:23]  Cari says, we also see this pop up in Mergers & Acquisitions. One of the things that is often difficult is that they will see the compliance function either as redundant or as a cost center, and not as a profit center. [33:47] The guidance is always: Don't save costs by getting rid of your Compliance function, because it will cost you money in the long run. But often, that is what you will see. [34:00] Justin brings up the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA), a legislative priority for RIMS. RIMS sends an External Affairs Team to Capitol Hill every year to talk about TRIA with their Representatives in Congress. [34:19] Justin says RIMS helped lead the charge, over 20 years ago, to get TRIA passed into law. [34:30] The nature of terrorism risk has evolved since TRIA's enactment. Justin asks how risk managers should be thinking about terrorism exposure today, compared to when the program was established. [34:44] Cari says terrorism, like the narcotics traffickers, evolves. It's cash-intensive. There's more you can do now through technology, AI, cybersecurity, and cryptocurrency. [35:01] You can sit completely offshore and wreak havoc on the electrical grid or a utilities provider, or a financial institution, through cyberattacks or cybercrimes. It can be crippling if terrorists go after the grid. [35:28] Cari says we have seen an overlap between what could be a terrorist attack and what is more likely a ransomware grab, when they're going after smaller utilities located somewhere in the Midwest. That seems to be a trend. [35:45] They're not always sophisticated. You don't always know who the counterparties are. Going back to the Drug Control Strategy report, the Government is saying that there has to be a holistic approach to ransomware and cyberattacks. [36:03] A couple of years ago, the FBI and Homeland Security set up a task force to work with the utilities or other U.S. businesses that see themselves faced with a ransomware attack that is either just for the money or is something more nefarious. [36:24] Cari says, if the question is, is it terrorism or is it something else, but the way you would attack it would be the same if you're the utilities manager; it doesn't matter if it's terrorism or cybercrime. [36:48] You've got to work with law enforcement to protect your infrastructure, to figure out whether you're going to pay the ransom or not, so that you can protect your customers' data. [37:02] It's up to the Government to figure out who the illicit party was. Is it a hacker group sitting in Russia? Is it a terrorist group? Why were they doing it, and how do you stop it from happening in the future? [37:18] If you're the Business Manager or the Compliance Officer, you need to build in your risks, your risk mitigation strategies, redundancies, and backup servers that are not connected. The problem for you isn't: Is this a hacker or a terrorist doing this to me? [37:53] Cari says there are many insurance working groups. We've worked with clients, some of these groups, and the U.S. Government to come up with language that makes sense. We see it in the context of Iran or Russia, or with respect to language for War Risk in the Strait of Hormuz. [38:32] Cari says, The partnership between the insurers, reinsurers, brokers, and Government is pretty deep. [38:41] These working groups have been around for a long time because insurers, brokers, and reinsurers need buy-in from the Government to get assurances that the language they're putting out there is enough to get them out of trouble if they're acting in good faith. [39:00] Generally, everyone is, but you want that nod from the Government that what you've done is sufficient from the Government's perspective. [39:37] Cari's advice to risk professionals in August 2026: The most important thing is that the risk professionals and the business units know and trust each other. [39:47] Cari continues: A risk professional isn't going to be able to build out a compliance program that works unless they know what the business units are up to and what the business priorities are, and they have the trust of the business professionals. [40:05] Some critics warn that you don't want the compliance person to become a captive of the business units, driven by profit rather than compliance. Cari says the business compliance person needs the business unit and the compliance unit to work hand in glove. She explains it. [40:46] Cari says we've seen this a lot with all of these businesses jumping into the Venezuela market. There's a lot of business upside but also a lot of risk. It may not be that there's a sanctions risk, but the longer-term risks are the money-laundering and corruption risks. [41:26] Cari asks what happens ten years from now? If you're a compliance officer, you need to understand the upside to the business, which is lots of profit, but when you're drafting contracts and working with the business unit, how are you mitigating the risk that's five or 10 years out? [41:44] Cari says the only way you do that is if the compliance and business units have a certain amount of trust and respect for each other. [41:57] Cari says the Compliance Officer is not always the Risk Manager. Some businesses will have it siloed; some will have someone embedded. In some cases, there's no compliance person. They throw it onto a legal officer, and the legal officer can be spread fairly thin. [42:13] Cari says you can work through trade associations to understand industry risk. You can hire consultants. You can hire law firms. The benchmarking is incredibly important to understand not only the opportunity but also the appropriate risk. [42:49] Justin says this has been one of the most informative RIMScasts we've had in a while. I'm so glad we got a chance to tackle this topic. Cari, thank you so much for joining us here on RIMScast! [42:45] Special thanks again to Cari Stinebower of Steptoe for joining us here on RIMScast! A link to her LinkedIn profile is in this episode's show notes. [42:58] I have links on this episode's show notes to other RIMS coverage on sanctions, geopolitical tensions, and related supply chain risk. Also visit RMMagazine.com. [43:08] Plug Time! Become a RIMS member and get access to the tools, thought leadership, and network you need to succeed. Visit RIMS.org/membership or email membershipdept@RIMS.org for more information. [43:26] Risk Knowledge is the RIMS searchable content library that provides relevant information for today's risk professionals. Materials include RIMS executive reports, survey findings, contributed articles, industry research, benchmarking data, and more. [43:42] For the best reporting on the profession of risk management, read Risk Management Magazine at RMMagazine.com. It is written and published by the best minds in risk management. [43:56] Justin Smulison is the Business Content Manager at RIMS. Please remember to subscribe to RIMScast on your favorite podcasting app. You can email us at Content@RIMS.org. [44:08] Practice good risk management, stay safe, and thank you again for your continued support!   Links: Spencer Educational Foundation's 2026 Funding Their Future Gala | Sept. 17, 2026 ChicagoLand Risk Forum | Sept. 24, 2026 RIMS Certification Week: Sept. 21‒24 | Complimentary For All RIMS Western Regional Conference — Oct. 4‒7, 2026 | Seattle, WA | Register Today. RIMS Canada Conference — Oct. 18‒21, 2026 | Quebec City | www.rimscanadaconference.ca | Sponsorship Opportunities Available RIMS ERM Conference 2026 | November 19‒20 in Columbus, Ohio | Registration Now Open! | www.rims.org/ERM2026 | RISKWORLD 2027 Registration | RIMS members can lock in 2026 rates now through Sept. 4 RIMScast Canada — Episodes Now Live — Watch the new video with Sophie Grégoire Trudeau. The Strategic and Enterprise Risk CenterRIMS, the Foundation for Risk Management Spencer Educational Foundation — Scholarships and Grants | Open Calls and Timelines. RIMS Now RIMS-Certified Risk Management Professional (RIMS-CRMP) | Insights Video Series Featuring Joe Milan! RIMS Diversity Equity Inclusion Council RIMS-CRMP Stories RISK PAC | RIMS Advocacy RIMScast on YouTube! RIMS Risk Management Magazine | Contribute | Q2 2026 Issue Now Available Sponsor RIMScast — Sales@RIMS.org Cari Stinebower — Biography page Cari Stinebower on LinkedIn Upcoming RIMS-CRMP Virtual Workshops: RIMS-CRMP Exam Prep with PARIMA | Sept 1‒2 Full RIMS-CRMP Prep Course Schedule See the full calendar of RIMS Virtual Workshops   Upcoming RIMS Webinars: RIMS.org/Webinars "Beyond the Loss Count: What Property Claims Reveal About Frequency, Severity, and Resilience" | Sponsored by AXA XL | Sept. 17, 2026 "The Future of Captives: What Risk Managers Should Be Thinking About Now" | Sponsored by Brown & Brown | Oct. 1, 2026 "RIMS Student Series: Classroom to Career Part 1" | Sept 1 "RIMS Student Series: Classroom to Career Part 2" | Sept 9 RIMS Certification Week: Sept. 22‒24 | Complimentary For All   Related RIMScast Episodes: "Mid-Year Risk Roundup 2026 with Morgan O'Rourke and Hilary Tuttle" "Money Laundering Risks with Crystal Trout" (2025)   Sponsored RIMScast Episodes: "48 Hours From a Storm: What to Do Before A Hurricane Strikes" | Sponsored by Global Risk Consultants, a TÜV SÜD Company (New!) "AI-Scale, Risk Ready: Engineering Controls for the New Data Center Boom" | Sponsored by Global Risk Consultants, a TÜV SÜD Company "Facing Into Risk: Navigating the New Risk Landscape" (New!) | Sponsored by AXA XL "Secondary Perils, Major Risks: The New Face of Weather-Related Challenges" | Sponsored by AXA XL "The ART of Risk: Rethinking Risk Through Insight, Design, and Innovation" | Sponsored by Alliant "Mastering ERM: Leveraging Internal and External Risk Factors" | Sponsored by Diligent "Cyberrisk: Preparing Beyond 2025" | Sponsored by Alliant "The New Reality of Risk Engineering: From Code Compliance to Resilience" | Sponsored by AXA XL "Change Management: AI's Role in Loss Control and Property Insurance" | Sponsored by Global Risk Consultants, a TÜV SÜD Company "Demystifying Multinational Fronting Insurance Programs" | Sponsored by Zurich "Understanding Third-Party Litigation Funding" | Sponsored by Zurich "What Risk Managers Can Learn From School Shootings" | Sponsored by Merrill Herzog "Simplifying the Challenges of OSHA Recordkeeping" | Sponsored by Medcor "How Insurance Builds Resilience Against an Active Assailant Attack" | Sponsored by Merrill Herzog "Third-Party and Cyber Risk Management Tips" | Sponsored by Alliant   RIMS Publications, Content, and Links: RIMS Membership — Whether you are a new member or need to transition, be a part of the global risk management community! RIMS Virtual Workshops On-Demand Webinars RIMS-Certified Risk Management Professional (RIMS-CRMP) RISK PAC | RIMS Advocacy RIMS Strategic & Enterprise Risk Center RIMS-CRMP Stories — Featuring RIMS President Manny Padilla!   RIMS Events, Education, and Services: RIMS Risk Maturity Model®   Sponsor RIMScast: Contact sales@rims.org or pd@rims.org for more information.   Want to Learn More? Keep up with the podcast on RIMS.org, and listen on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.   Have a question or suggestion? Email: Content@rims.org.   Join the Conversation! Follow @RIMSorg on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn.   About our guest: Cari Stinebower, Partner, Steptoe   Production and engineering provided by Podfly.

Last week saw the reemergence of Donald Trump as he pushed the Big Lie from Mar A Lago and the GOP leadership forced its members to get in line or get out of the way. Liz Cheney tried to push back but found herself in the crosshairs of Kevin McCarthy who instead of moving on from the election has made it the central theme of the GOP. Meanwhile, the SDNY has found itself with a treasure trove of dirt inside Rudy Giuliani's hard drive. Could their appointing of a so called, “Special Master,” to sort through files be a sign that they're getting ready to flip Trump's other former lawyer? Finally, MSNBC's Jonathan Capehart joins Mea Culpa to discuss the GOP's sidelining of Liz Cheney, what happened to Tim Scott and so much more.To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policyLearn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It is rare to find someone in the field of intellectual property, in particular patent law, who is a scholar and a practitioner. Today, we have with us Jay Kesan who is both. Listen in for a great episode full of information about the PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) and the impact it has had on the patent system after 10 years. In this episode, Jeff Harty and Jay Kesan discuss: Jay's professional career as both a law professor and a practicing patent attorney/litigator. The impact of IPRs and PGRs on the patent system. Challenging the validity of a patent in an IPR proceeding versus district court litigation. Key Takeaways: The PTAB was created as an alternative forum for challenging issued patents. It was hoped that the PTAB would provide a lower-cost means of challenging already-issued patents.In the past few years, the number of patent validity challenges has leveled out to about 1,500 IPRs per year.The vast majority of IPRs involve parallel district court infringement actions.The USPTO, under its new director, has issued new guidelines for discretionary denials of PTAB proceedings. A fair comment, at this stage, would be that these discretionary denials are only going to continue to decrease even when there is parallel district court litigation.“If you're a patent owner and you believe that your patents are being infringed and you're contemplating an infringement action, you have to take into account the new world that you have to deal with.” — Jay Kesan   About Jay Kesan: Jay P. Kesan, Ph.D., J.D., is a well-recognized and accomplished patent attorney with more than 25 years' experience. His work encompasses all aspects of patent enforcement, patent strategy, and licensing. He has been lead counsel or co-counsel in numerous patent lawsuits in various federal district courts around the country. He has argued numerous appeals before the Court of Appeals in the Federal Circuit. He has also served as lead counsel in more than 30 IPRs and argued several times before the PTAB. He has been actively involved in every aspect of patent litigation as counsel, Special Master, appellate counsel, technical expert, legal expert, and mediator.Jay has a Ph.D. in electrical and computer engineering from the University of Texas at Austin and worked for several years as a research scientist at the IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center. As a result, he works with clients on IP disputes that involve a wide variety of technologies and innovations.Jay is also an active empirical scholar, and his recent works have focused on cyber risk and patent policy. He has published numerous articles and six books on patent law and policy and cybersecurity and privacy with an emphasis on empirical research methodologies.He is a professor and H. Ross and Helen Workman Research Scholar at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is an active and widely cited scholar.Connect with Jay Kesan: Website: https://jaykesan.com/ Email: jay@jaykesan.com Books: https://jaykesan.com/books/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/JayKesanP LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jaykesan/ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCENwROk5ywajSVoJWUX9SBA/featured Connect with Jeff Harty: Website: https://nyemaster.com/attorney-directory/jeffrey-d-harty/Email: jharty@nyemaster.comLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeff-harty-5a9a1643/

Cheryl Stelte helps spiritual yet unfulfilled women cleartheir subconscious blocks and breakthrough to their true calling through her customized programs. She is a spiritual coach, master healer, speaker, and best-selling author of three books, and the founder of the Star of Divine LightInstitute and the Azarias Energy Healing Certification Program. Cheryl works with women who have done the personal growth work, yet still feel blocked,unclear, or unable to move forward in the way they know they are meant to. Her work helps them gain deep clarity, reconnect to their inner truth, and step into their authentic power so they can live and lead with purpose. With over 30 years of experience in energy healing, spiritual leadership, coaching, retreat facilitation, shamanic practices, yoga, and meditation, Cheryl is known forhelping women break through subconscious blocks when mindset, strategy, and effort alone have not been enough.Link to episode can be found here:  #drdanamzallag, #drdanpodcast, #Happinessjourneywithdrdan,#ddanmotivation, #inspiringinterviews, #drdancbt, #drdantherapy,#drdancoaching, #drdanhappiness,  

Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), the bipartisan sponsors of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, have formally asked a federal judge to appoint a special master or independent monitor to oversee the Justice Department's release of files related to Jeffrey Epstein. Their request comes after the DOJ missed the law's December 19, 2025 deadline to make the documents public and has released only a small fraction of what it says is a multi-million document trove. In a letter to U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer, Khanna and Massie argue that the DOJ's slow pace, extensive redactions, and failure to submit legally required reports to Congress undermine compliance with the statute and could further traumatize survivors. They want a neutral third party empowered to assess whether the department is fully complying with the law and identify any improper redactions or other questionable conduct.The lawmakers have emphasized their lack of confidence in the DOJ's ability to self-police this process and contend that without court-appointed oversight, full disclosure is unlikely. In their filing, they highlight inconsistencies in the DOJ's reported figures on released versus remaining documents, and they stress that the department “cannot be trusted with making mandatory disclosures under the Act.” Massie has also threatened contempt proceedings against Attorney General Pam Bondi for ongoing noncompliance. By urging judicial intervention through a special master, Khanna and Massie aim to ensure the transparency envisioned by their law and compel the release of the full set of Epstein-related records despite departmental resistance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:US congressmen ask judge to appoint official to force release of all Epstein files | Jeffrey Epstein | The GuardianBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In its letter to Judge Paul Engelmayer, the Department of Justice argued aggressively against the appointment of a special master, framing the request as unnecessary, disruptive, and legally unjustified. DOJ claimed it was already fulfilling its obligations to review, process, and release Epstein-related materials in accordance with court orders, established procedures, and internal safeguards. The department leaned heavily on institutional deference, insisting that prosecutorial discretion and executive-branch authority over evidence review should not be second-guessed by an outside overseer. DOJ further warned that inserting a special master would slow the process, create confusion, and risk improper disclosure of sensitive materials, including grand jury information, law-enforcement techniques, and third-party privacy interests. In essence, the letter positioned DOJ as both referee and scorekeeper, arguing that the court should simply trust that the same institution that mishandled Epstein for years was now acting in good faith.What makes the letter striking is how completely it sidesteps the core reason a special master was proposed in the first place: DOJ's own credibility problem. Rather than directly addressing documented delays, redactions, contradictions, and shifting explanations surrounding the Epstein files, the department defaulted to procedural defensiveness and abstract warnings about efficiency and separation of powers. The letter reads less like a transparent explanation and more like a preemptive shield against scrutiny, treating oversight itself as the threat rather than the history of secrecy and failure that prompted it. DOJ did not meaningfully grapple with the public interest at stake or the extraordinary circumstances of a case involving systemic non-prosecution, political sensitivity, and proven institutional breakdowns. Instead, it asked the court to accept assurances at face value, effectively arguing that accountability would be more dangerous than opacity—an argument that, given the Epstein record, lands with all the credibility of a pinky swear.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:opposition-letter-ghislaine-maxwell-khanna-massie.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

A federal judge in the Southern District of New York has rejected a bipartisan effort by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) to appoint a special master or independent monitor to oversee the Department of Justice's compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which requires the DOJ to release all investigative materials related to Jeffrey Epstein by a December 19, 2025 deadline. The lawmakers argued that the department's slow pace — with only a small fraction of millions of documents disclosed so far — and extensive redactions suggested noncompliance with the law and harmed survivors seeking transparency. They pressed Judge Paul Engelmayer to intervene in the matter of the files' release, citing serious concerns about the DOJ's handling of the disclosures.In his ruling, Judge Engelmayer acknowledged that the issues Khanna and Massie raised were “undeniably important and timely” and highlighted genuine concerns about whether the DOJ is faithfully complying with federal law. However, he concluded that he does not have the legal authority or jurisdiction in the ongoing criminal proceedings involving Ghislaine Maxwell to oversee or enforce compliance with the civil transparency statute, since the matter of releasing records under the Epstein Files Transparency Act is not part of that criminal case. The judge said the lawmakers lack standing to intervene in this context and suggested they pursue other avenues of oversight outside the Maxwell case, such as civil litigation or congressional tools, leaving the oversight fight over the release of the files to proceed through political and legislative, rather than judicial, channels.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - MaxwellOrderJan21PAEBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The mask is slipping as globalist rhetoric from the World Economic Forum meets the cold, hard reality of American decline. When Yuval Noah Harari suggests the "vast majority" of the population is no longer needed, he's not just theorizing he's describing a blueprint currently in motion. This episode strips away the "conspiracy" label to reveal a calculated effort to hollow out the American middle class. We examine how a convergence of radical social engineering, declining national fertility rates, and a manufactured border crisis are working in tandem to replace critical thinkers with a dependent class, all while the nuclear family remains under a sustained, multi-front assault.We aren't just losing our culture, we are losing our future in the most literal sense. New data reveals that U.S. fertility rates have plummeted to record lows, yet 2023 saw nearly 10% of all births in the United States coming from illegal immigrant mothers—roughly 320,000 in a single year. While American citizens faced job losses and mandates, a parallel system was established for millions of unchecked, unvaccinated newcomers. With illegal alien households utilizing welfare at a staggering 59% rate compared to 39% for U.S.-born households, the economic toll is no longer a matter of debate, it is a mathematical certainty of systemic exhaustion and entitlement.Colorado has become ground zero for the hijacking of the American Republic. From the ongoing legal persecution of Tina Peters whose nine-year sentence was recently overturned by an appeals court citing a violation of her free speech to the "shadow boxing" happening in the Republican gubernatorial primary, the corruption is absolute. We dive into the latest developments in the Victor Marx campaign, questioning why a candidate continues to dodge public debates and unscripted comments. Is Colorado a lost cause, or is the exposure of pariahs like Matt Crane the first step in taking the state back? Attorney Stephanie Lambert joins us to break down the documents the "Special Master" doesn't want you to see.

Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), the bipartisan sponsors of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, have formally asked a federal judge to appoint a special master or independent monitor to oversee the Justice Department's release of files related to Jeffrey Epstein. Their request comes after the DOJ missed the law's December 19, 2025 deadline to make the documents public and has released only a small fraction of what it says is a multi-million document trove. In a letter to U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer, Khanna and Massie argue that the DOJ's slow pace, extensive redactions, and failure to submit legally required reports to Congress undermine compliance with the statute and could further traumatize survivors. They want a neutral third party empowered to assess whether the department is fully complying with the law and identify any improper redactions or other questionable conduct.The lawmakers have emphasized their lack of confidence in the DOJ's ability to self-police this process and contend that without court-appointed oversight, full disclosure is unlikely. In their filing, they highlight inconsistencies in the DOJ's reported figures on released versus remaining documents, and they stress that the department “cannot be trusted with making mandatory disclosures under the Act.” Massie has also threatened contempt proceedings against Attorney General Pam Bondi for ongoing noncompliance. By urging judicial intervention through a special master, Khanna and Massie aim to ensure the transparency envisioned by their law and compel the release of the full set of Epstein-related records despite departmental resistance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:US congressmen ask judge to appoint official to force release of all Epstein files | Jeffrey Epstein | The Guardian

Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), the bipartisan sponsors of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, have formally asked a federal judge to appoint a special master or independent monitor to oversee the Justice Department's release of files related to Jeffrey Epstein. Their request comes after the DOJ missed the law's December 19, 2025 deadline to make the documents public and has released only a small fraction of what it says is a multi-million document trove. In a letter to U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer, Khanna and Massie argue that the DOJ's slow pace, extensive redactions, and failure to submit legally required reports to Congress undermine compliance with the statute and could further traumatize survivors. They want a neutral third party empowered to assess whether the department is fully complying with the law and identify any improper redactions or other questionable conduct.The lawmakers have emphasized their lack of confidence in the DOJ's ability to self-police this process and contend that without court-appointed oversight, full disclosure is unlikely. In their filing, they highlight inconsistencies in the DOJ's reported figures on released versus remaining documents, and they stress that the department “cannot be trusted with making mandatory disclosures under the Act.” Massie has also threatened contempt proceedings against Attorney General Pam Bondi for ongoing noncompliance. By urging judicial intervention through a special master, Khanna and Massie aim to ensure the transparency envisioned by their law and compel the release of the full set of Epstein-related records despite departmental resistance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:US congressmen ask judge to appoint official to force release of all Epstein files | Jeffrey Epstein | The GuardianBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

On Today's Show Vince will Rate and Review: The Night of the Hunter (1955),  The Comancheros (1961),  Army of Shadows (1969),  The Last of the Mohicans (1992),  Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003) TimeCodes: The Night of the Hunter:  9:11 The Comancheros:  33:25 Army of Shadows:  58:07 The Last of the Mohicans:  1:18:17 Master and Commander:  1:36:32   - Check out all our Movie Scores on the site! - Support the Daily Ratings and become a Producer now! - Here are all the new movies out now! - Shop our store for all the Daily Ratings gear!

In its letter to Judge Paul Engelmayer, the Department of Justice argued aggressively against the appointment of a special master, framing the request as unnecessary, disruptive, and legally unjustified. DOJ claimed it was already fulfilling its obligations to review, process, and release Epstein-related materials in accordance with court orders, established procedures, and internal safeguards. The department leaned heavily on institutional deference, insisting that prosecutorial discretion and executive-branch authority over evidence review should not be second-guessed by an outside overseer. DOJ further warned that inserting a special master would slow the process, create confusion, and risk improper disclosure of sensitive materials, including grand jury information, law-enforcement techniques, and third-party privacy interests. In essence, the letter positioned DOJ as both referee and scorekeeper, arguing that the court should simply trust that the same institution that mishandled Epstein for years was now acting in good faith.What makes the letter striking is how completely it sidesteps the core reason a special master was proposed in the first place: DOJ's own credibility problem. Rather than directly addressing documented delays, redactions, contradictions, and shifting explanations surrounding the Epstein files, the department defaulted to procedural defensiveness and abstract warnings about efficiency and separation of powers. The letter reads less like a transparent explanation and more like a preemptive shield against scrutiny, treating oversight itself as the threat rather than the history of secrecy and failure that prompted it. DOJ did not meaningfully grapple with the public interest at stake or the extraordinary circumstances of a case involving systemic non-prosecution, political sensitivity, and proven institutional breakdowns. Instead, it asked the court to accept assurances at face value, effectively arguing that accountability would be more dangerous than opacity—an argument that, given the Epstein record, lands with all the credibility of a pinky swear.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:opposition-letter-ghislaine-maxwell-khanna-massie.pdf

In its letter to Judge Paul Engelmayer, the Department of Justice argued aggressively against the appointment of a special master, framing the request as unnecessary, disruptive, and legally unjustified. DOJ claimed it was already fulfilling its obligations to review, process, and release Epstein-related materials in accordance with court orders, established procedures, and internal safeguards. The department leaned heavily on institutional deference, insisting that prosecutorial discretion and executive-branch authority over evidence review should not be second-guessed by an outside overseer. DOJ further warned that inserting a special master would slow the process, create confusion, and risk improper disclosure of sensitive materials, including grand jury information, law-enforcement techniques, and third-party privacy interests. In essence, the letter positioned DOJ as both referee and scorekeeper, arguing that the court should simply trust that the same institution that mishandled Epstein for years was now acting in good faith.What makes the letter striking is how completely it sidesteps the core reason a special master was proposed in the first place: DOJ's own credibility problem. Rather than directly addressing documented delays, redactions, contradictions, and shifting explanations surrounding the Epstein files, the department defaulted to procedural defensiveness and abstract warnings about efficiency and separation of powers. The letter reads less like a transparent explanation and more like a preemptive shield against scrutiny, treating oversight itself as the threat rather than the history of secrecy and failure that prompted it. DOJ did not meaningfully grapple with the public interest at stake or the extraordinary circumstances of a case involving systemic non-prosecution, political sensitivity, and proven institutional breakdowns. Instead, it asked the court to accept assurances at face value, effectively arguing that accountability would be more dangerous than opacity—an argument that, given the Epstein record, lands with all the credibility of a pinky swear.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:opposition-letter-ghislaine-maxwell-khanna-massie.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The FBI opened a civil rights investigation into the shooting death of Renee Good in Minneapolis but Trump administration officials quickly shut it down.The Department of Justice Civil Rights Division has pivoted to investigating discrimination against white peopleJudge Engelmayer has denied the letter motion filed by Representatives Khanna and Massie to appoint a Special Master over the Epstein Files Transparency Act.Two whistleblowers have uncovered an internal DHS memo instructing ICE agents to enter homes without a proper warrant.Plus listener questions…Do you have questions for the pod? Send them here: https://formfacade.com/sm/PTk_BSogJThank you, Mint MobileGet this new customer offer and your 3-month Unlimited wireless plan for just $15 a month at  http://mintmobile.com/UNJUST Follow AG Substack|MuellershewroteBlueSky|@muellershewroteAndrew McCabe isn't on social media, but you can buy his book The ThreatThe Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and TrumpWe would like to know more about our listeners. Please participate in this brief surveyListener Survey and CommentsThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at the Justice Enforcers level and above:https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr when you subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3YNpW3P Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

A federal judge in the Southern District of New York has rejected a bipartisan effort by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) to appoint a special master or independent monitor to oversee the Department of Justice's compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which requires the DOJ to release all investigative materials related to Jeffrey Epstein by a December 19, 2025 deadline. The lawmakers argued that the department's slow pace — with only a small fraction of millions of documents disclosed so far — and extensive redactions suggested noncompliance with the law and harmed survivors seeking transparency. They pressed Judge Paul Engelmayer to intervene in the matter of the files' release, citing serious concerns about the DOJ's handling of the disclosures.In his ruling, Judge Engelmayer acknowledged that the issues Khanna and Massie raised were “undeniably important and timely” and highlighted genuine concerns about whether the DOJ is faithfully complying with federal law. However, he concluded that he does not have the legal authority or jurisdiction in the ongoing criminal proceedings involving Ghislaine Maxwell to oversee or enforce compliance with the civil transparency statute, since the matter of releasing records under the Epstein Files Transparency Act is not part of that criminal case. The judge said the lawmakers lack standing to intervene in this context and suggested they pursue other avenues of oversight outside the Maxwell case, such as civil litigation or congressional tools, leaving the oversight fight over the release of the files to proceed through political and legislative, rather than judicial, channels.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - MaxwellOrderJan21PAE

A federal judge in the Southern District of New York has rejected a bipartisan effort by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) to appoint a special master or independent monitor to oversee the Department of Justice's compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which requires the DOJ to release all investigative materials related to Jeffrey Epstein by a December 19, 2025 deadline. The lawmakers argued that the department's slow pace — with only a small fraction of millions of documents disclosed so far — and extensive redactions suggested noncompliance with the law and harmed survivors seeking transparency. They pressed Judge Paul Engelmayer to intervene in the matter of the files' release, citing serious concerns about the DOJ's handling of the disclosures.In his ruling, Judge Engelmayer acknowledged that the issues Khanna and Massie raised were “undeniably important and timely” and highlighted genuine concerns about whether the DOJ is faithfully complying with federal law. However, he concluded that he does not have the legal authority or jurisdiction in the ongoing criminal proceedings involving Ghislaine Maxwell to oversee or enforce compliance with the civil transparency statute, since the matter of releasing records under the Epstein Files Transparency Act is not part of that criminal case. The judge said the lawmakers lack standing to intervene in this context and suggested they pursue other avenues of oversight outside the Maxwell case, such as civil litigation or congressional tools, leaving the oversight fight over the release of the files to proceed through political and legislative, rather than judicial, channels.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - MaxwellOrderJan21PAEBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

A federal judge in the Southern District of New York has rejected a bipartisan effort by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) to appoint a special master or independent monitor to oversee the Department of Justice's compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which requires the DOJ to release all investigative materials related to Jeffrey Epstein by a December 19, 2025 deadline. The lawmakers argued that the department's slow pace — with only a small fraction of millions of documents disclosed so far — and extensive redactions suggested noncompliance with the law and harmed survivors seeking transparency. They pressed Judge Paul Engelmayer to intervene in the matter of the files' release, citing serious concerns about the DOJ's handling of the disclosures.In his ruling, Judge Engelmayer acknowledged that the issues Khanna and Massie raised were “undeniably important and timely” and highlighted genuine concerns about whether the DOJ is faithfully complying with federal law. However, he concluded that he does not have the legal authority or jurisdiction in the ongoing criminal proceedings involving Ghislaine Maxwell to oversee or enforce compliance with the civil transparency statute, since the matter of releasing records under the Epstein Files Transparency Act is not part of that criminal case. The judge said the lawmakers lack standing to intervene in this context and suggested they pursue other avenues of oversight outside the Maxwell case, such as civil litigation or congressional tools, leaving the oversight fight over the release of the files to proceed through political and legislative, rather than judicial, channels.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - MaxwellOrderJan21PAEBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In its letter to Judge Paul Engelmayer, the Department of Justice argued aggressively against the appointment of a special master, framing the request as unnecessary, disruptive, and legally unjustified. DOJ claimed it was already fulfilling its obligations to review, process, and release Epstein-related materials in accordance with court orders, established procedures, and internal safeguards. The department leaned heavily on institutional deference, insisting that prosecutorial discretion and executive-branch authority over evidence review should not be second-guessed by an outside overseer. DOJ further warned that inserting a special master would slow the process, create confusion, and risk improper disclosure of sensitive materials, including grand jury information, law-enforcement techniques, and third-party privacy interests. In essence, the letter positioned DOJ as both referee and scorekeeper, arguing that the court should simply trust that the same institution that mishandled Epstein for years was now acting in good faith.What makes the letter striking is how completely it sidesteps the core reason a special master was proposed in the first place: DOJ's own credibility problem. Rather than directly addressing documented delays, redactions, contradictions, and shifting explanations surrounding the Epstein files, the department defaulted to procedural defensiveness and abstract warnings about efficiency and separation of powers. The letter reads less like a transparent explanation and more like a preemptive shield against scrutiny, treating oversight itself as the threat rather than the history of secrecy and failure that prompted it. DOJ did not meaningfully grapple with the public interest at stake or the extraordinary circumstances of a case involving systemic non-prosecution, political sensitivity, and proven institutional breakdowns. Instead, it asked the court to accept assurances at face value, effectively arguing that accountability would be more dangerous than opacity—an argument that, given the Epstein record, lands with all the credibility of a pinky swear.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:opposition-letter-ghislaine-maxwell-khanna-massie.pdf

In its letter to Judge Paul Engelmayer, the Department of Justice argued aggressively against the appointment of a special master, framing the request as unnecessary, disruptive, and legally unjustified. DOJ claimed it was already fulfilling its obligations to review, process, and release Epstein-related materials in accordance with court orders, established procedures, and internal safeguards. The department leaned heavily on institutional deference, insisting that prosecutorial discretion and executive-branch authority over evidence review should not be second-guessed by an outside overseer. DOJ further warned that inserting a special master would slow the process, create confusion, and risk improper disclosure of sensitive materials, including grand jury information, law-enforcement techniques, and third-party privacy interests. In essence, the letter positioned DOJ as both referee and scorekeeper, arguing that the court should simply trust that the same institution that mishandled Epstein for years was now acting in good faith.What makes the letter striking is how completely it sidesteps the core reason a special master was proposed in the first place: DOJ's own credibility problem. Rather than directly addressing documented delays, redactions, contradictions, and shifting explanations surrounding the Epstein files, the department defaulted to procedural defensiveness and abstract warnings about efficiency and separation of powers. The letter reads less like a transparent explanation and more like a preemptive shield against scrutiny, treating oversight itself as the threat rather than the history of secrecy and failure that prompted it. DOJ did not meaningfully grapple with the public interest at stake or the extraordinary circumstances of a case involving systemic non-prosecution, political sensitivity, and proven institutional breakdowns. Instead, it asked the court to accept assurances at face value, effectively arguing that accountability would be more dangerous than opacity—an argument that, given the Epstein record, lands with all the credibility of a pinky swear.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:opposition-letter-ghislaine-maxwell-khanna-massie.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In its letter to Judge Paul Engelmayer, the Department of Justice argued aggressively against the appointment of a special master, framing the request as unnecessary, disruptive, and legally unjustified. DOJ claimed it was already fulfilling its obligations to review, process, and release Epstein-related materials in accordance with court orders, established procedures, and internal safeguards. The department leaned heavily on institutional deference, insisting that prosecutorial discretion and executive-branch authority over evidence review should not be second-guessed by an outside overseer. DOJ further warned that inserting a special master would slow the process, create confusion, and risk improper disclosure of sensitive materials, including grand jury information, law-enforcement techniques, and third-party privacy interests. In essence, the letter positioned DOJ as both referee and scorekeeper, arguing that the court should simply trust that the same institution that mishandled Epstein for years was now acting in good faith.What makes the letter striking is how completely it sidesteps the core reason a special master was proposed in the first place: DOJ's own credibility problem. Rather than directly addressing documented delays, redactions, contradictions, and shifting explanations surrounding the Epstein files, the department defaulted to procedural defensiveness and abstract warnings about efficiency and separation of powers. The letter reads less like a transparent explanation and more like a preemptive shield against scrutiny, treating oversight itself as the threat rather than the history of secrecy and failure that prompted it. DOJ did not meaningfully grapple with the public interest at stake or the extraordinary circumstances of a case involving systemic non-prosecution, political sensitivity, and proven institutional breakdowns. Instead, it asked the court to accept assurances at face value, effectively arguing that accountability would be more dangerous than opacity—an argument that, given the Epstein record, lands with all the credibility of a pinky swear.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:opposition-letter-ghislaine-maxwell-khanna-massie.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The Department of Justice faces mass resignations from the Civil Rights Division and the Minneapolis US Attorney's office over the handling of the killing of Renee Nicole Good.Judge Engelmayer asks the parties for briefing on whether he has jurisdiction to appoint a special master, and whether Congressmen Khanna and Massie have standing to ask for one.Jack Smith has agreed to testify publicly this week as experts debunk claims that he infringed on Donald Trump's free speech.President Trump is becoming disillusioned with Attorney General Pam Bondi and wants to create an office within the Justice Department that reports directly to the White House.Plus listener questions…Do you have questions for the pod? Thank you, Shopify!Sign up for a $1/month trial period at shopify.com/unjust Follow AG Substack|MuellershewroteBlueSky|@muellershewroteAndrew McCabe isn't on social media, but you can buy his book The ThreatThe Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and TrumpWe would like to know more about our listeners. Please participate in this brief surveyListener Survey and CommentsThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at the Justice Enforcers level and above:https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr when you subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3YNpW3P Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

VLOG Jan 14 Epstein files, @RepThomasMassie & @RoKhanna want Special Master https://www.patreon.com/posts/maximum-maxwell-148137777 Alexander Bros judge says focus on the livingVenezuelan NYC Council staffer detained https://matthewrussellleeicp.substack.com/p/extra-nyc-council-staffer-from-venezuela Herbert indicted.Fed OKs 5/3; UN Somalia stonewall

Federal judge appointed Special Master meet DOJ's continued coverup of millions of Epstein Files. Michael Popok explains how Trump's attempt to use Federal Courts to run interference for his refusal to release all the Epstein Files, has backfired, as Rep. Massey and Khanna demand that a federal judge stop trusting the DOJ, and appoint an independent officer of the court to take over the collection, review and production of ALL the Epstein Files. Sundays for Dogs: Get 50% off your first order of Sundays. Go to https://sundaysfordogs.com/MEIDAS or use code MEIDAS at checkout. Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast⁠ Legal AF: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af⁠ MissTrial: ⁠https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial⁠ The PoliticsGirl Podcast: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast⁠ Cult Conversations: The Influence Continuum with Dr. Steve Hassan: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan⁠ Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen⁠ The Weekend Show: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show⁠ Burn the Boats: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats⁠ Majority 54: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54⁠ Political Beatdown: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown⁠ On Democracy with FP Wellman: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman⁠ Uncovered: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), the bipartisan sponsors of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, have formally asked a federal judge to appoint a special master or independent monitor to oversee the Justice Department's release of files related to Jeffrey Epstein. Their request comes after the DOJ missed the law's December 19, 2025 deadline to make the documents public and has released only a small fraction of what it says is a multi-million document trove. In a letter to U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer, Khanna and Massie argue that the DOJ's slow pace, extensive redactions, and failure to submit legally required reports to Congress undermine compliance with the statute and could further traumatize survivors. They want a neutral third party empowered to assess whether the department is fully complying with the law and identify any improper redactions or other questionable conduct.The lawmakers have emphasized their lack of confidence in the DOJ's ability to self-police this process and contend that without court-appointed oversight, full disclosure is unlikely. In their filing, they highlight inconsistencies in the DOJ's reported figures on released versus remaining documents, and they stress that the department “cannot be trusted with making mandatory disclosures under the Act.” Massie has also threatened contempt proceedings against Attorney General Pam Bondi for ongoing noncompliance. By urging judicial intervention through a special master, Khanna and Massie aim to ensure the transparency envisioned by their law and compel the release of the full set of Epstein-related records despite departmental resistance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:US congressmen ask judge to appoint official to force release of all Epstein files | Jeffrey Epstein | The Guardian

Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), the bipartisan sponsors of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, have formally asked a federal judge to appoint a special master or independent monitor to oversee the Justice Department's release of files related to Jeffrey Epstein. Their request comes after the DOJ missed the law's December 19, 2025 deadline to make the documents public and has released only a small fraction of what it says is a multi-million document trove. In a letter to U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer, Khanna and Massie argue that the DOJ's slow pace, extensive redactions, and failure to submit legally required reports to Congress undermine compliance with the statute and could further traumatize survivors. They want a neutral third party empowered to assess whether the department is fully complying with the law and identify any improper redactions or other questionable conduct.The lawmakers have emphasized their lack of confidence in the DOJ's ability to self-police this process and contend that without court-appointed oversight, full disclosure is unlikely. In their filing, they highlight inconsistencies in the DOJ's reported figures on released versus remaining documents, and they stress that the department “cannot be trusted with making mandatory disclosures under the Act.” Massie has also threatened contempt proceedings against Attorney General Pam Bondi for ongoing noncompliance. By urging judicial intervention through a special master, Khanna and Massie aim to ensure the transparency envisioned by their law and compel the release of the full set of Epstein-related records despite departmental resistance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:US congressmen ask judge to appoint official to force release of all Epstein files | Jeffrey Epstein | The GuardianBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), the bipartisan sponsors of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, have formally asked a federal judge to appoint a special master or independent monitor to oversee the Justice Department's release of files related to Jeffrey Epstein. Their request comes after the DOJ missed the law's December 19, 2025 deadline to make the documents public and has released only a small fraction of what it says is a multi-million document trove. In a letter to U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer, Khanna and Massie argue that the DOJ's slow pace, extensive redactions, and failure to submit legally required reports to Congress undermine compliance with the statute and could further traumatize survivors. They want a neutral third party empowered to assess whether the department is fully complying with the law and identify any improper redactions or other questionable conduct.The lawmakers have emphasized their lack of confidence in the DOJ's ability to self-police this process and contend that without court-appointed oversight, full disclosure is unlikely. In their filing, they highlight inconsistencies in the DOJ's reported figures on released versus remaining documents, and they stress that the department “cannot be trusted with making mandatory disclosures under the Act.” Massie has also threatened contempt proceedings against Attorney General Pam Bondi for ongoing noncompliance. By urging judicial intervention through a special master, Khanna and Massie aim to ensure the transparency envisioned by their law and compel the release of the full set of Epstein-related records despite departmental resistance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:US congressmen ask judge to appoint official to force release of all Epstein files | Jeffrey Epstein | The GuardianBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Behind every delayed tuition payment is a family left in limbo. This episode pulls back the curtain on what's really going on.Host Tracey Spencer Walsh is joined by Matthew Delforte, a veteran education attorney, for an eye-opening conversation about the deep systemic failures surrounding tuition reimbursement, impartial hearing orders, and how the Department of Education's delays are devastating families and schools.Together, they break down the urgent issues and the bold solutions proposed to fix them. Here is what you'll take away from this important conversation:

Some Special Master's Programs offer linkage to med school—but only if you meet strict benchmarks. Here's what linkage actually means and who SMPs are best for. Like the podcast? Schedule a Free Initial Consultation with our team: https://bemo.ac/podbr-BeMoFreeConsult   Don't forget to subscribe to our channel and follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter for more great tips and other useful information!   YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/BeMoAcademicConsultingInc Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/bemoacademicconsulting Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/bemo_academic_consulting/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/BeMo_AC TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@bemoacademicconsulting

This week we start of December with Some Bunz & basketball talk with Master Legend. He is a Male Porn Star / Dom who is an actually ref for Bunz & Basketballs. This as an traveling event where female porn stars hoop and twerk all in the same game. Such names as Boss Lady G and Jayla Paige has been on the roster. He tells us stories about some of the events and her details her rise to becoming a Master Dom. We discuss what a house is and the philosophy of being a Dom. We discuss porn and the swinger lifestyle in Texas and more.To watch this episode as Video you must subscribe toThe Premium Smoke Room https://www.loyalfans.com/PremiumSmokeRoomSpecial Guest: Master Legendhttps://x.com/spiffy1031Host: Kween Bunny Bhttps://x.com/BunnyB_HTX2linktree.com/kweenbunnyb

“You can't put a price on life!” say politicians, pretending to be compassionate, spending other people's money.But Kenneth Feinberg, Special Master of the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund, says you CAN put a price on life. He's distributed funds to the victims of 9/11, the Pulse nightclub shooting, the Boston Marathon, the Deepwater Horizon spill, the Virginia Tech shooting, the Aurora movie theater shooting, and now the LA wildfires.In this podcast he explains how he does it, why it's important, but also why (despite the success of the 9/11 fund) paying out money to victims should not be something that government does.

Last week saw the reemergence of Donald Trump as he pushed the Big Lie from Mar A Lago and the GOP leadership forced its members to get in line or get out of the way. Liz Cheney tried to push back but found herself in the crosshairs of Kevin McCarthy who instead of moving on from the election has made it the central theme of the GOP. Meanwhile, the SDNY has found itself with a treasure trove of dirt inside Rudy Giuliani's hard drive. Could their appointing of a so called, “Special Master,” to sort through files be a sign that they're getting ready to flip Trump's other former lawyer? Finally, MSNBC's Jonathan Capehart joins Mea Culpa to discuss the GOP's sidelining of Liz Cheney, what happened to Tim Scott and so much more.    To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices Last week saw the reemergence of Donald Trump as he pushed the Big Lie from Mar A Lago and the GOP leadership forced its members to get in line or get out of the way. Liz Cheney tried to push back but found herself in the crosshairs of Kevin McCarthy who instead of moving on from the election has made it the central theme of the GOP. Meanwhile, the SDNY has found itself with a treasure trove of dirt inside Rudy Giuliani's hard drive. Could their appointing of a so called, “Special Master,” to sort through files be a sign that they're getting ready to flip Trump's other former lawyer? Finally, MSNBC's Jonathan Capehart joins Mea Culpa to discuss the GOP's sidelining of Liz Cheney, what happened to Tim Scott and so much more. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This Flashback Friday is from episode 385 published last June 16, 2014. Ray Bourhis is a partner with the law firm of Bourhis & Wolfson in San Francisco, California, specializing in insurance bad-faith litigation. A graduate of Boalt Hall at the University of California, Berkeley, Bourhis has been a court-appointed Special Master overseeing reforms in the California Department of Insurance and was appointed by U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer to her Federal Judicial Selection Advisory Committee.  He was recently profiled by Ed Bradley in a 60 Minutes report concerning fraudulent insurance practices. Born and raised in Elmhurst, Queens, Bourhis credits an attempt by gang members to throw him into a blazing bonfire at the age of twelve with helping him develop the survival skills needed to deal with insurance companies. He lives with his family in Kentfield, California.   Follow Jason on TWITTER, INSTAGRAM & LINKEDIN Twitter.com/JasonHartmanROI Instagram.com/jasonhartman1/ Linkedin.com/in/jasonhartmaninvestor/ Call our Investment Counselors at: 1-800-HARTMAN (US) or visit: https://www.jasonhartman.com/ Free Class:  Easily get up to $250,000 in funding for real estate, business or anything else: http://JasonHartman.com/Fund CYA Protect Your Assets, Save Taxes & Estate Planning: http://JasonHartman.com/Protect Get wholesale real estate deals for investment or build a great business – Free Course: https://www.jasonhartman.com/deals Special Offer from Ron LeGrand: https://JasonHartman.com/Ron Free Mini-Book on Pandemic Investing: https://www.PandemicInvesting.com    

Special Interview - Master Cormack Part 1 (Introduction + Tong-Il & Reunification)Upcoming Special Seminar with Mr. Federico Vindigni (3x Consecutive World Champion)! Join us as he goes through what makes his patterns special. Register at:Tulworld.com/eventsJoin our Tul World+ program where you get exclusive videos on patterns, techniques as well as special discounts on upcoming seminars!https://tulworld.com/info-tulworldplusSchedule a free in-person Taekwon-Do trial class at https://www.juestkd.com/more-infoAdd us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/juestaekwondo/

Illinois House Republicans are advancing their legal challenge against the state's legislative map, which they argue unfairly benefits Democrats. House Minority Leader Tony McCombie announced progress in the case, with a recent brief filed to assert the suit's timeliness. The lawsuit, initiated in January, seeks the intervention of the Illinois Supreme Court to invalidate the current map. Republicans are requesting the appointment of a Special Master to create a fair redistricting plan, aiming for equitable representation that benefits all political parties. This ongoing legal battle highlights the contentious nature of redistricting in Illinois politics.

Illinois House Republicans provided new insights on their legal challenge against the state's legislative map. The lawsuit, initiated in January, alleges the map unconstitutionally benefits Democrats. In a press conference, Republican leaders highlighted recent developments, noting they filed a brief with the Illinois Supreme Court to emphasize the case's timeliness. The plaintiffs request the court to invalidate the map and appoint a Special Master to create a fair redistricting plan, which they believe will serve both parties. State Representative Ryan Spain from Peoria emphasized the strengthened nature of their case and the essential steps forward.

Hosts Dion Dove and Troy Pinckney walk us through the halls of Hip-Hop.

What does the CISO need to practice everyday in terms of basic legal literacy? Let's answer that question by looking through the lens of data breach and privacy class action litigation. Our guest is Douglas Brush, a court-appointed Special Master and testifying expert in high-profile litigations involving cybersecurity, information governance, data privacy, and eDiscovery. Your hosts Kip Boyle, CISO with Cyber Risk Opportunities, and Jake Bernstein, Partner with K&L Gates. Doug's LinkedIn profile -- https://www.linkedin.com/in/douglasabrush/ Doug's Website -- https://brushcyber.com/

How do you turn academic setbacks into a stepping stone for medical school success? Join us as we sit down with Jennifer, the inspiring director of Georgetown's Special Master's Program (SMP), who shares her remarkable path from a pre-med student to a leader in academia. Jennifer reveals how her passion for teaching and research blossomed, steering her away from clinical practice and into a fulfilling career in education. Discover the unique history of Georgetown's SMP, the first of its kind established in 1975, offering a second chance for students to prove their mettle by taking actual medical school classes.In this episode, we shine a light on the pivotal factors that set students up for success in an SMP. Jennifer discusses the importance of addressing personal challenges such as family, financial issues, and mental health before committing to such an intense program. You'll hear the transformative story of Chad, whose dedication to his studies turned his academic life around. We also delve into the critical role of support systems and parent orientations, and the significant financial investment required for SMPs, highlighting the need for well-informed decisions.Moving forward, we explore the financial and academic incentives for choosing SMPs as a pathway to medical school. Jennifer provides valuable insights into the financial aid landscape, including reliance on federal loans, and explains why structured graduate programs often outshine disparate undergraduate courses in the eyes of medical schools. We wrap up by discussing the MCAT's role in SMP admissions and how these programs assist students by updating medical schools on their progress, underscoring the resilience and hard work required to succeed despite initial academic struggles. Get ready to be inspired by stories of perseverance and dedication, and learn how to navigate the challenges of getting into medical school.

Kenneth R. Feinberg is a renowned alternative mediation and dispute resolution attorney, best recognized for his pivotal role as Special Master of the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund.  His work, however, spans a wide range of other major settlements, including overseeing compensation efforts for the Agent Orange case, the BP Deepwater Horizon spill, and the Boston Marathon bombing — managing the distribution of billions to victims and their families. In this timely encore edition episode of The Game Changing Attorney Podcast, Michael Mogill and Ken discuss: The deeply subjective nature of assigning monetary value to human life The often underappreciated influence individuals truly possess Key takeaways from the groundbreaking initiative to compensate 9/11 victims ---- Show Notes: 00:00 – Introduction to Ken Feinberg and the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund 02:52 – Ken Feinberg's Journey to Becoming a Lawyer 04:12 – The Challenges and Emotional Toll of the 9/11 Fund 07:21 – Pro Bono Work and Financial Sacrifices 08:44 – Calculating Compensation and Legal Complexities 13:32 – The Emotional Impact and Mistakes Made 25:58 – Lessons Learned and Future Outlook 29:35 – Ken Feinberg's Personal Reflections and Advice 36:26 – Conclusion and Final Thoughts ---- Links & Resources Watch Worth on Netflix What is Life Worth? by Kenneth R. Feinberg Agent Orange Settlement Fund Deepwater Horizon Settlement Boston Marathon Settlements  ---- Listening to this episode but want to watch it? Check it out on Spotify.  Do you love this podcast and want to see more game changing content? Subscribe to our YouTube channel. ---- Past guests on The Game Changing Attorney Podcast include David Goggins, John Morgan, Alex Hormozi, Randi McGinn, Kim Scott, Chris Voss, Kevin O'Leary, Laura Wasser, John Maxwell, Mark Lanier, Robert Greene, and many more. ---- If you enjoyed this episode, you may also like: #33 Robert Bilott – Poisoned Water, Corporate Greed: The 20-Year Battle Against DuPont #107 Randi McGinn – Authenticity is the Advantage #268 AMMA – Resilience in the Face of Uncertainty

The show starts off hot with a debate. Who would win in a 7 game series, The 04 Pistons or The 17 Warriors? Who comes out on top? Plus, special guest and Mavs fan Master Tesfatsion joins the show. Find out their predictions and more on this weeks episode of 3TTC! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this podcast, Rob and Chappell recap Season 9 Episode 2 of Suits.

Rob Cesternino (@robcesternino) and Chappell (@chappells_show) are recapping one episode of SUITS every day until they complete the series. In this podcast, Rob and Chappell recap the Season 9 Episode 2 of Suits. Be sure to go to http://suitspodcast.com to subscribe to the Suits Yourself podcast feed on the platform of your choice! Send your feedback to: http://suitspodcast.com/feedback Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Donald Trump has an absolutely brutal day of legal news, Republicans pivot to attacking Democrats on crime, and Carlos Odio from Equis Research joins to talk about some new research on the Latino vote in the midterms.

In this sample from the CAFE Insider podcast, Preet Bharara and Joyce Vance discuss the briefs submitted by the Department of Justice and Trump's lawyers addressing the potential appointment of a special master to review the documents seized during the FBI's search of Mar-a-Lago. In the full episode, Preet and Joyce discuss: – The New York Times report that DOJ has subpoenaed about 40 former Trump aides and seized the phones of two top Trump advisors; – The respective recommendations of DOJ and Trump's legal team for who should be appointed special master in the Mar-a-Lago matter. Stay informed. For analysis of the most important legal and political issues of our time, try the membership for one month for $1.00: www.cafe.com/insider. You'll get access to full episodes of the podcast, and other exclusive benefits. This podcast is brought to you by CAFE Studios and Vox Media Podcast Network.  Tamara Sepper – Executive Producer; Jake Kaplan – Editorial Producer; David Tatasciore – Audio Producer REFERENCES & SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS:  Donald J. Trump v. United States of America, United States' Notice Respecting the Court's Appointment of a Special Master, United States District Court of Florida, 9/12/22 Donald J. Trump v. United States of America, Plaintiff's Supplemental Reading Regarding Special Master Nominations, United States District Court of Florida, 9/12/22 Donald J. Trump v. United States of America, Judge Cannon's Order, United States District Court of Florida, 9/5/22 Donald J. Trump v. United States of America, United States' Motion for a Partial Stay Pending Appeal, United States District Court of Florida, 9/8/22 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On this important episode of The Charlie Kirk Show, with 62 to go until the November Midterms, Senator Rick Scott—one of the good guys—joins the show walk through the GOP's hopes and the state of the Red Wave as of this month. He also offers a rebuttal to Mitch McConnell's pessimism surrounding “candidate quality” and shares his thoughts on how each candidate is doing, from his vantage point as Chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and what he and the NRSC will do to help them across the finish line. Next, Mike Davis from The Article III Project joins to unpack the breaking news that a federal judge will grant President Trump's request to have a “Special Master” oversee—or in Charlie's words: babysit the DOJ as they continue their legal attack on the former president. Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A federal judge grants Trump's request for a special master, Russia closes the largest natural gas pipeline to Europe, and experts say a housing recession has begun. Get the facts first on Morning Wire. 

On Friday's Mark Levin Show, why did former AG Bill Barr stay with the Trump Administration as long as he did if Trump was as bad as he said he was? Barr erroneously assumes that the appointment of a Special Master for the FBI raid is a red herring when the issue at hand is the protection of privilege or one's fourth amendment right. If privilege simply didn't matter then it wouldn't be part of the Presidential Records Act. Then, this program will never defend the people that broke into the Capitol on January 6 and attacked cops. However, the greatest war this country has ever fought was the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address preached unity and reconciliation for the nation when he said "With malice toward none and charity for all." Lincoln didn't condemn the confederate Democrats or mention the names of political opponents because he didn't want to even the score, he wanted to keep the nation together. By contrast, President Biden's speech did the exact opposite. Afterward, Sen. Ron Johnson calls in with an update on his senate race. Johnson also called out the FBI for corruption when they presented phony briefings to senators to smear them. Johnson contends that the FBI has done more to meddle in US elections than any foreign enemy has.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices