Podcast appearances and mentions of Star Chamber

   Slam the Gavel welcomes back Dr. Bandy X. Lee to the podcast. Dr. Lee was last on the podcast Season 4, Episode 23 (1-31-2023). Today we discussed Dr. Bandy Lee's lawsuit with impeachment initiative to bring transparency to the Star Chamber-like family court (Press Release).     Family courts are nefariously secretive, like the Star Chamber in England, which had been abolished approximately four centuries ago. Transparency is ESSENTIAL for deterring family court abuses which include judicial bias, witness perjury and CPS/Guardian ad Litem one-sided interviews.     Dr. Bandy Lee's lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey challenges the constitutionality of the dark secrecy cloud that hangs over family courts nationwide. The Judge in Dr. Lee's case censored her for writing about family court proceedings, ordering it to be removed from the internet and holding her in contempt under the threat of imprisonment is she should speak or write about the serious health and financial abuses she has professionally witnessed. A PRIOR RESTRAINT IN BLATANT FASHION OF THE VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.     Both Dr. Lee and her constitutionally acclaimed Attorney, Bruce Fein are available to the media.To Reach Bandy Lee:  bandylee.com***** Supportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)Maryann Petri: dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.comhttps://www.tiktok.com/@maryannpetriFacebook:  https://www.youtube.com/@slamthegavelpodcasthostmar5536Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/guitarpeace/Pinterest: Slam The Gavel Podcast/@guitarpeaceLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/maryann-petri-62a46b1ab/  YouTube:  https://www.youtube.com/@slamthegavelpodcasthostmar5536  Twitter https://x.com/PetriMaryannEzlegalsuit.comhttps://ko-fi.com/maryannpetri*DISCLAIMER* The use of this information is at the viewer/user's own risk. Not financial, medical nor legal advice as the content on this podcast does not constitute legal, financial, medical or any other professional advice. Viewer/user's should consult with the relevant professionals. Reproduction, distribution, performing, publicly displaying and making a derivative of the work is explicitly prohibited without permission from content creator. Podcast is protected by owner. The content creator maintains the exclusive right and any unauthorized copyright infringement is subject to legal prosecution. Support the showSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/

Show all the true soul of this imposter. Show your ears the tales of us demonstrating bravery, wearing underthings on the dome, prohibiting weapons at church, restoring memory with song, kidnapping singers for occult rituals, going Full Mom, predicting anime, desiring evil mommy punishment, blinging the dragon ring, passing back through the Cave of Trial, sorting through extended Sega CD events, and debuting the world's finest Ghaleon impression. Brought to you by Michael “Rage” Hardy and James “Smarty” Cools. 00:00:00 Let's Be Cops 00:01:09 Intro 00:02:43 Return to Magic Guild 00:07:12 Crystal Tower 00:15:33 Star Chamber 00:26:06 Anime Spiral 00:28:39 Resuming Star Chamber 00:35:40 Sega CD Star Chamber 00:42:14 Star Chamber Debrief 00:47:40 Real Net 00:55:43 Outro Patreon: patreon.com/retroam Bluesky: @retrogradeamnesia.bsky.social YouTube: www.youtube.com/@RetrogradeAmnesia E-Mail: podcast@retrogradeamnesia.com Website: www.retrogradeamnesia.com  

Happy Valentine's Day from The B-Side! Here we talk about movie directors! Not the movies that made them famous or kept them famous, but the ones that they made in between. Today we appreciate one of the great, under-appreciated Hollywood directors: Peter Hyams! Our B-Sides include Peeper, Hanover Street, The Star Chamber, 2010: The Year We Make Contact, and Running Scared. Our guest is Mike Ryan, great writer, interviewer, and deep fan of Hyams' eclectic body of work. Sudden Death is a favorite, along with 2010. We discuss the auteur versus the “workman director,” why some filmmakers gather an intense following and others don't, and the lasting effect many of Hyams' films have had on the culture as well as other filmmakers. There's much talk about Hyams' ability as a cinematographer, and how rare it is to be a director that films their own movies.  Mike makes the case that 2010 is more watchable than 2001: A Space Odyssey, Conor attempts to get over how corrupt Billy Crystal and Gregory Hines are as cops in Running Scared, and Dan sings the praises of Hyams' Narrow Margin. There's extended conversation about Robert Blake, co-star of Hyams' debut Busting, an appreciation of director John Badham (specifically Blue Thunder), and a reflection on the enormity of the production of End of Days. Be sure to give us a follow on social at @TFSBSide. Also enter our giveaways, get access to our private Slack channel, and support new episodes by becoming a Patreon contributor.

Send us comments, suggestions and ideas here! In this week's episode we dive into part 2 of our review and discussion of Phil Hine's Chaos Magick classic, CONDENSED CHAOS. In the first half we tackle the D.R.A.T. formulae and why relaxation is such an underappreciated talent of the magus. We discover powerful secrets to hacking our emotional feedback loops, shifting our meat gears, how to do a path-working of pretty much anything (but especially Tarot cards) and how to activate the dreaded Star Chamber of Chaos! In the extended episode we explore the features of the magickal will and embark on a tour of Phil Hine's S.P.L.I.F.F. formulae of sigilization. Before wrapping up we break into the toybox of the magus, see what unexpected tools a Chaos Magician can use and why play and fun are an essential part of the formulae. Top 50 Occult Podcasts on FeedSpotOn this week's show we cover:The D.R.A.T. FormulaeBodymind TrainingManaging Emotional EnergiesPostureLateral Diaries? Shades of Perception PathworkingsAstral DoubleTHE STAR CHAMBERReasons For Using Trance States! ScryingIn the extended show available at www.patreon.com/TheWholeRabbit we go further down the rabbit hole to discuss:The Magickal WillSigil Magick (The S.P.L.I.F.F. Formulae) S.W.O.T. Assessment of IntenThe Sorcerer's Toolbox CrystalsMagickal Weapons Finding Lost ObjectsEach host is responsible for writing and creating the content they present. Heka wrote and prepared purple sections, Luke was red and Mari presented blue sections. Where to find The Whole Rabbit:Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0AnJZhmPzaby04afmEWOAVInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/the_whole_rabbitTwitter: https://twitter.com/1WholeRabbitOrder Stickers: https://www.stickermule.com/thewholerabbitOther Merchandise: https://thewholerabbit.myspreadshop.com/Music By Spirit Travel Plaza:https://open.spotify.com/artist/30dW3WB1sYofnow7y3V0YoSources:Phil Hine, Condensed Chaos Support the show

Monday, 2 December 2024   “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.' Matthew 5:27   “You heard that it was said to the ancients, ‘Not you shall commit adultery'” (CG).   In the previous verse, Jesus spoke to the disciples about not getting out of prison until the last penny had been paid. This is the idea behind the law. When there is law, there is a possible violation of the law. In violating the law, one can then be sentenced and punished according to the standard of the law.   But Jesus has been teaching that the standard of the Law of Moses is actually more stringent than simple external observance. He will begin to highlight that thought again by saying, “You heard that it was said to the ancients.”   As in verse 21, He addresses a teaching that has already been set forth long ago to the people. A teaching was spoken to them and they were to abide by it. It should be noted that some manuscripts do not include the words “to the ancients.”   If it was inserted into the text, it was probably for the sake of conforming to the previous instance in verse 21. If it was dropped out of the text, it was probably because this is a command directly quoted by the Lord to the people. As such, someone may have decided that the words shouldn't be there because no additional commentary is attached to what is said, as was the case in verse 21. Either way, what was said was, “Not you shall commit adultery.”   This is the seventh commandment as recorded in Exodus 20:14. Despite it being one of the Ten Commandments, it was also a teaching that was passed down by the spiritual leaders of Israel. In fact, it may be that the people didn't even realize it was a precept of Moses. Rather, it was something taught as binding upon the people as it is in many cultures.   Jesus will provide insight into this teaching that will go far beyond what was either taught or considered.   Life application: In 1631, Robert Barker and Martin Lucas, the royal printers in London, published a reprint of the King James Bible. A copy of that reprint is now worth between $55,000 to $85,000. This is because it has become known as the Wicked Bible. Other names for it are the Adulterous Bible or the Sinners' Bible.   The reason for the names is that it is based upon a mistake made by the compositors. In the Ten Commandments of Exodus 20:14, it says in the KJV, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” However, whether truly a mistake or an intentional change, the word “not” was left out, “Thou shalt commit adultery.”   Along with that, Wikipedia describes a second error that was found in the print –   “The 1886 Reports of Cases in the Courts of Star Chamber and High Commission (which gives the Bodleian Library manuscript Rawlinson A 128 as its source) lists this as one of the ‘two grossest errors', among ‘divers other faults'. The other is a misprint appearing in Deuteronomy 5: the word ‘greatness' appearing as ‘great-asse' [meaning a donkey], leading to a sentence reading: ‘Behold, the LORD our God hath shewed us his glory and his great-asse'. Gordon Campbell reports that there are no surviving copies of the book that contain the second error (‘great-asse'), but that in three of the surviving copies there is an inkblot where the missing ‘n' would be, suggesting such a mistake may have been covered up in these copies. He also notes that, at the time of the Wicked Bible's publication, the word ‘asse' only had the sense of ‘donkey'.”   Because of the lack of current evidence, some have suggested that the second error was sabotage by other printers on the surviving copies. However, when the court was held, neither of the publishers suggested the possibility of sabotage. Either way, because of the nature of the error, the king had their printing license revoked, and they were fined 300 pounds, an enormous sum at the time, equaling $72,863.42 today.   Considering the penalty for making an error in a printed copy of the Bible levied upon these two, what do you suppose God will do when you purposefully or negligently trifle with His word? Be sure to treat the Bible with the utmost respect it deserves.   Glorious God, Your word is precious and holy. May we never trifle with its sacred contents. Amen.

Will, Adam, and Mike watched The Star Chamber (1983). It's a movie about a rogue group of judges who go full Judge Dredd and start killing criminals who beat the system. IMDb: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086356/ Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCe1pHqP06A

Dennis LETTERBOXD: https://letterboxd.com/shotbyshot/ INSTAGRAM: https://www.instagram.com/shotbyschott86/ TWITTER: https://twitter.com/shotbyshot86 https://letterboxd.com/hakan_bros/ https://letterboxd.com/cinemavolante/ SOCIAL https://www.facebook.com/wirquatschenueberfilme/ https://www.instagram.com/wir_quatschen_ueber_filme/ Merch https://cinemavolante.myspreadshop.de/ cinemaVOLANTE http://www.cinemavolante.de http://www.patreon.com/cinemavolante https://www.youtube.com/@cinemavolante (00:00:00) Intro(00:05:38 ) 1972: Rolling Man (Fernsehfilm) (00:12:35) 1972: Ein Koffer für das Syndikat (Fernsehfilm)(00:18:16) 1974: Spur der Gewalt (Busting) (00:30:34) 1978: Unternehmen Capricorn (Capricorn One)(00:43:02) 1979: Das tödliche Dreieck (Hanover Street)(00:48:55) 1981: Outland – Planet der Verdammten (Outland)(01:03:57) 1983: Ein Richter sieht rot (The Star Chamber)(01:07:25) 1984: 2010: Das Jahr, in dem wir Kontakt aufnehmen (01:14:14) 1986: Diese zwei sind nicht zu fassen (Running Scared)(01:19:05) 1988: Presidio (The Presidio)(01:28:53) 1990: Narrow Margin – 12 Stunden Angst (Narrow Margin)(01:35:24) 1992: Stay Tuned(01:41:57) 1994: Timecop(01:48:29) 1995: Sudden Death(01:55:51) 1997: Das Relikt (The Relic)(02:02:32) 1999: End of Days – Nacht ohne Morgen (End of Days)(02:06:46) 2001: The Musketeer(02:11:45) 2005: A Sound of Thunder(02:15:58) 2009: Gegen jeden Zweifel (Beyond a Reasonable Doubt)(02:22:13) 2013: Enemies Closer

On this episode of this the podcast, Ross and Phil talk LOTS of films, including all the big releases we've seen across the last month whilst we've been off air... including Speak No Evil, Beetlejuice Beetlejuice, Alien: Romulus, The Killer (2024), The Crow (2024), Blink Twice and Trap. Hosted by Award winning filmmaker Ross Boyask and blogger/writer/former filmmaker Phil Hobden. Discussed: Speak No Evil, Beetlejuice Beetlejuice, Alien: Romulus, Trap, Beetlejuice, The Crow (2024) , The Killer (2024), The Crow, Borderlands, The Last Stop in Yuma County, The Star Chamber, Wise Guy: David Chase and the Sopranos, Festival of the Living Dead. For more on Ross Boyask search @RossBoyask on all the socials. Also check out @EvoFilmsUK online and follow Ross on Letterboxd. For more on Phil Hobden check out ⁠www.philsquickreview.co.uk⁠ or you can follow me on Letterboxd. Podcast available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, ⁠Amazon Music⁠, ⁠⁠TuneIn⁠, ⁠Anchor⁠ and here at www.rossandphiltalkmovies.co.uk.#RossAndPhil #RossAndPhilTalkMovies #MoviePodcasts #Podcasts #wittertainment #2024films #BeetlejuiceBeetlejuice #AlienRomulus #SpeakNoEvil

Check out our latest double edition featuring a wide variety of music. Part 1 includes music from sequential, Berlin School, progressive, neo-classical and modular genres, perfect for those who enjoy energetic and dynamic sounds. Meanwhile, part 2 delves into ambient, symphonic, and experimental music, offering a more introspective and immersive listening experience. Detailed biographies of the featured musicians and bands can be found on our website http://www.sequencesmagazine.com/podcasts/ Sequences Playlist No 25 01.36 Stephan Erbe ‘Unpredictable' (album Retrologica 2024) https://stefanerbe.bandcamp.com/album/retrologica-2024 06.04 Stephan Erbe 'At The Last Stage (1st edit)' 10.25 Stephan Erbe ‘Pulse Of Time' 12.10 Stephan Erbe ‘Epica' 18.58 Dask ‘Redemption' (album Time And Burden) https://syngate.bandcamp.com/artists 32.34 Keith Richie ‘Revival' (album Electric Panda) https://keithrichie.bandcamp.com/album/electric-panda 36.57 Keith Richie ‘Social Cesspit' 42.11 Paul Ellis ‘Three Trajectories 2' (album Three Trajectories) https://cyclicaldreams.bandcamp.com 52.27 Fusion Of Elements ‘Binary Confrontation' (album Bigger Than Us) https://syngate.bandcamp.com/artists 01.01.03 Field Lines Cartographer ‘Fog Warning' (album Portable Reality Generator) https://dinrecords.bandcamp.com 01.11.03 Stephen Parsick ‘Infinite Void (album Polarity Redux) *** https://doombientmusic.bandcamp.com/album/polarity-redux 01.14.34 Stephen Parsick ‘Magnificant Void' 01.17.39 Stephen Parsick ‘Through The Open Sky' 01.22.47 Michael Bruckner & Cousin Silas 'Spheres Part 1 & 2' (album Passages & Spheres) *** https://michaelbrueckner.bandcamp.com 01.41.37 Michael Brückner ‘Crystaloquence' (album Threequences) *** https://michaelbrueckner.bandcamp.com 01.49.44 Micado 'SculptureS In GlaSS' (album SculptureS) https://cyclicaldreams.bandcamp.com 01.55.58 Agitation Free ‘Khan El Khalili' (album Malesch) https://www.discogs.com/master/25689-Agitation-Free-معليش-Malesch 02.01.33 NINA Feat: Lau ‘One Of Us'(EP One Of Us: instrumentals) https://ninasounduk.bandcamp.com/album/one-of-us-ep-instrumentals 02.05,56 Natalia Quest ‘Redemption Instrumental' (single) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6FExkgk6yU 02.09.21 Cartas De Japon ‘Camet' (album Santa Clara) https://cyclicaldreams.bandcamp.com 02.18.52 Fritz Mayr ‘Vanadium' (album Third Nature) https://fritzmayr.bandcamp.com 02.29.40 Erez Yaary 'Never Again' (album Everything Will Dissolve) https://cyclicaldreams.bandcamp.com 02.40.12 Ice Planet 9000 ‘The Aquestor' (album Sequence 2:Star Chamber) https://iceplanet9000.bandcamp.com/album/sequence-2-star-chamber Edit ***

01:00 Philosopher and author Rony Guldmann, https://ronyguldmann.com/ 17:00 Why the swift crackdown on the protests? 33:00 Conservative Claims of Cultural Oppression, https://ronyguldmann.com/conservative-claims-cultural-oppression/ 36:00 Joseph Bankman and Barbara Fried, Stanford Law profs and progenitors of disgraced FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried. https://ronyguldmann.com/faq/ 42:00 Affirmative action and student protests 57:30 Rony's memoir: The Star Chamber of Stanford, https://ronyguldmann.com/ 58:20 The Craft of Writing Effectively, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=154774

NCLA filed a Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee challenging the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board's secret, unaccountable, and inherently biased prosecutorial processes. PCAOB has investigated and brought a secret prosecution aiming to brand NCLA's client a wrongdoer, strip away his livelihood and impose severe financial penalties against him—without a jury trial, due process of law, an impartial adjudicator, or any constitutional accountability. NCLA's client, John Doe (a pseudonym used to protect his anonymity), asks the Court to stop these disciplinary proceedings and declare them unconstitutional. Vec and Senior Litigation Counsel Russ Ryan discuss John Doe v. PCAOB.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

An honest to god discussion about ethics...How much porn is too much porn...Putting people on a pedestal...Avoiding cancer...OJ Simpson...All that and more... --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/mattanddoug/message

From censorship and bullying, we now go to look at the propaganda from PBS in a documentary about January 6. You need to see the production of this “documentary” that is really just a tv show. Plus, Democratic operatives like George Stephanopoulos are still at work. What does God's Word say? Psalms 120:2Save me, LORD, from lying lips and from deceitful tongues.Psalms 101:7No one who practices deceit will dwell in my house; no one who speaks falsely will stand in my presence.Episode 1,388 Links:ABC host abruptly ends interview with JD Vance over Supreme Court remarks: 'No, no George'; Vance said during 2021 podcast that if former President Trump was elected again, he should fire every 'civil servant' in the administrative statePBS: “‘Democracy' on Trial.” 4Patriots https://4Patriots.com/Todd Stay connected when the power goes out and get free shipping on orders over $97. Alan's Soaps https://alanssoaps.com/TODD Use coupon code ‘TODD' to save an additional 10% off the bundle price. Bioptimizers https://bioptimizers.com/todd Use promo code TODD for 10% off your order. Bonefrog https://bonefrogcoffee.com/todd Use code TODD at checkout to receive 10% off your first purchase and 15% on subscriptions. Bulwark Capital Bulwark Capital Management (bulwarkcapitalmgmt.com) Call 866-779-RISK or visit online to get their FREE Common Cents Investing Guide. SOTA Weight Loss https://sotaweightloss.com SOTA Weight Loss is, say it with me now, STATE OF THE ART! GreenHaven Interactive Digital Marketing https://greenhaveninteractive.com Your Worldclass Website Will Get Found on Google!

Patrick and Adam Riske take comfort in knowing they never had a choice. Download this episode here. (51.1 MB) Listen to F This Movie! on Apple Podcasts. Also discussed this episode: The Beekeeper (2024), Goodbye, Dragon Inn (2003), Without a Paddle (2004), Young Guns II (1990), The Hot Spot (1990), White Palace (1990), Bad Influence (1990), RocketMan (1997), Anyone But You (2023), Little Darlings (1980), The Star Chamber (1983)

 A little levity and "Jealousy", the addition of some guitar, when our artistic heroes become sleazeballs, the worst basketball team ever, the best high school class ever, some great songs from Grease, Kristy McNichol, and Yaphet fucking Kotto. Stuff mentioned: Billy Joel "Jealousy" (1978), Badfinger "No Matter What" (1970), Play it Again, Sam (1972), The Bad News Bears (1976), Built to Spill "Twin Falls" (1994), Built to Spill Perfect from Now On (1997), Nightmare on Elm Street (1984), Rambo: First Blood Part 2 II (1985), Bye Bye Birdie (1963), Grease (1978), Bye Bye Birdie "We Love You Conrad" (1963), Grease "There Are Worse Things I Could Do" (1978), Grease "Look At Me, I'm Sandra Dee"/Reprise (1978), Xanadu (1980), Olivia Newton-John "Magic" (1980), The Pirate Movie (1982), The Blue Lagoon (1980), Dream Lover (1986), The Pirate Movie "Happy Ending" (1982), Heart of Dixie (1989), Midnight Run (1988), Beverly Hills Cop (1984), Gigli (2003), The Star Chamber (1983), Blue Collar (1978), and Jigsaw "Sky High" (1975).

Author and passionate genealogist William "Bill" Cole was in the Chapter House studio to talk more about his latest book, Puritans, Plagues, and Promises. You'll want to listen to our part 1 podcast and part 2 podcast if you haven't already. That conversation covered Bill's ancestors and their involvement in the Puritan Movement, which was an important piece of Christian history. Along the way, we also talked about King Henry VIII, the Church of England, the dreaded "Star Chamber," and religious freedom. Here in Part 3, we talk about his ancestors in the families Cole, Clarke, and Collier. Bill describes his ancestors' lives in Southwark, where London Bridge meets the south bankside of the River Thames. Bill's 9th great-grandmother, born Jane Yates in 1587, survived 4 plagues and 17 childbirths. William Collier, Jane's husband, was a successful merchant who invested in the Mayflower and supported Plymouth Colony. Bill describes Mayflower's troubled voyage and his two ancestors on the ship who helped establish Plymouth Colony. This offers a rare glimpse of the Mayflower story from of two sides: the passengers and the investors. His two Mayflower ancestors, Stephen and Constance Hopkins, were joined by the Collier family and the Cole brothers in Plymouth Colony in the 1630s. Trials, tribulations, political turmoil, economic incentives including land ownership, and religious freedom all intersect with the promises offered by life on a pristine continent. It's a story that's both personal and yet sweeping in the scope of English and American history. Join us!

Author and passionate genealogist William "Bill" Cole was in the Chapter House studio to talk more about his latest book, Puritans, Plagues, and Promises. You'll want to listen to our part 1 podcast if you haven't already. That conversation covered Bill's ancestors and their involvement in the Puritan Movement, which was an important piece of Christian history. Along the way, we also talked about King Henry VIII, the Church of England, the dreaded "Star Chamber," and religious freedom. Here, in Part 2, we talk about the dreadful plagues that English subjects experienced and how they decimated families including Bill's ancestors. After all, who wouldn't enjoy hearing about good outcomes from horrible pandemics? Join us!

Author and passionate genealogist William "Bill" Cole was in the Chapter House studio to talk about his latest book, Puritans, Plagues, and Promises. It'd be a fascinating enough-- and historically consequential-- story if it was about someone else's ancestors. But that the tale involves his own family and an important piece of Christian history makes Bill's story all the more remarkable. In this first of what we hope will be several conversations, we talk about King Henry VIII, the Church of England, the dreaded "Star Chamber," and religious freedom. Join us!

In Early Modern England, there was a rash of abductions of boys, who were being forced to work as actors. Then a child was taken whose father was in a position to actually do something about it.  Research: Soth, Amelia. “Her Majesty's Kidnappers.” JSTOR Daily. 12/17/2020. https://daily.jstor.org/kidnapping-for-the-queens-choir/ Early Modern London Theaters. “Viewing Event Record: Star Chamber, Clifton v Robinson et al: Clifton States His Case.” https://emlot.library.utoronto.ca/db/record/event/93/ Reynolds, Patricia. “Kidnapped to order: child actors in Shakespeare's day.” The National Archives. 5/12/2016. https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/kidnapped-order-child-actors-shakespeares-day/ Map of Early London. “Blackfriars Theatre.” https://mapoflondon.uvic.ca/BLAC6.htm Shapiro, Michael. “Children of the Revels: The Boy Companies of Shakespeare's Time and Their Plays.” New York: Columbia University Press. 1977. Fleay, Frederick Gard. “A Chronicle History of the London Stage 1559-1642.” New York. G.E. Stechert & Co. 1909. Benet, William Rose. "Blackfriars." Benet's Reader's Encyclopedia, 3rd ed., Harper & Row, 1987, p. 103. Gale General OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A18034327/GPS?u=mlin_n_melpub&sid=bookmark-GPS&xid=fefb4932. Accessed 21 June 2023. Munro, Lucy. "Living by Others' Pleasure: Marston, The Dutch Courtesan, and Theatrical Profit." Early Theatre, vol. 23, no. 1, June 2020, pp. 109+. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A638900245/GPS?u=mlin_n_melpub&sid=bookmark-GPS&xid=ce5c9645. Accessed 21 June 2023. Dutton, Richard. “The Revels Office and the Boy Companies, 1600-1613: New Perspectives.” English Literary Renaissance , SPRING 2002, Vol. 32, No. 2. Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43447637 Wridgway, Neville. "Giles, Nathaniel (c. 1558–1634), choirmaster and composer." Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press. Date of access 22 Jun. 2023, https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-10724   Barrie, Robert. “Elizabethan Play-Boys in the Adult London Companies.” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900 , Spring, 2008, Vol. 48, No. 2. Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40071333 Mamujee, Shehzana. “'To serve us in that behalf when our pleasure is to call for them': performing boys in Renaissance England.” Renaissance Studies , NOVEMBER 2014, Vol. 28, No. 5. Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24423452 Jones, Roger T. “The Role of the Junior English Schools in the Development of the Drama.” A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Loyola University September, 1944. Bradbrook, M.C. “'Silk? Satin? Kersey? Rags?' The Choristers' Theater under Elizabeth and James.” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900 , Spring, 1961. Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/449339 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Peter Hyams' 1983 thriller wonders what happens when good men feel forced into being bad - and asks whether they can make their way back once they've walked on the dark side. We just wonder whether it's as bad as A Sound of Thunder The Star Chamber This episode presented by: J.R. Southall With: Iain Martin

It is difficult to know exactly where to start when analyzing something that appears on its face to be of real historical consequence. First reported directly by former President Donald J. Trump late yesterday afternoon via his Truth Social account, the Department of Justice has communicated to President Trump's legal team that it has brought an indictment against their client in connection with the DOJ's months-long investigation into allegations of improper handling of classified information in the former President's possession at his Mar-a-Lago estate. If the morning seems still and the commentary somber, your eyes and your ears do not betray you. Norm and Mike in this stream attempt to peel back the calcified layers of narrative that have crusted a development barely 12 hours old. On the same day Congress receives testimony indicating the sitting President accepted millions in his capacity as Vice President in a quid pro quo to influence the governmental affairs of a foreign nation, which foreign nation now happens to be siphoning hundreds of billions from American taxpayers in a war effort for which America has yet to even generally agree on a purpose—the former President and leading candidate for President in the upcoming 2024 election has reportedly been indicted, for a second time. Yes, we expect at least two (2) additional indictments: Georgia and D.C. for election interference and seditious conspiracy respectively. That knowing does not blunt the blows, however. This is Law and Legitimacy. Join us. Daily livestreams beginning at 8:00 am EST on: › Rumble: https://rumble.com/user/LawandLegitimacy › Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@lawandlegitimacy › Twitter: https://twitter.com/PattisPodcast Subscribe and turn on notifications! Support Law and Legitimacy: - Locals: https://lawandlegitimacy.locals.com/ - Follow on Twitter: @PattisPodcast, @PattisNorm, and @MichaelBoyer_ - Subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Audible, Spotify, or wherever you receive podcasts and rate LAL 5 stars. - Subscribe here on our Rumble and Youtube channels, give us a Rumble, and join our active community of free-thinkers, contrarians, and the unafraid on Locals!  

It is difficult to know exactly where to start when analyzing something that appears on its face to be of real historical consequence. First reported directly by former President Donald J. Trump late yesterday afternoon via his Truth Social account, the Department of Justice has communicated to President Trump's legal team that it has brought an indictment against their client in connection with the DOJ's months-long investigation into allegations of improper handling of classified information in the former President's possession at his Mar-a-Lago estate. If the morning seems still and the commentary somber, your eyes and your ears do not betray you. Norm and Mike in this stream attempt to peel back the calcified layers of narrative that have crusted a development barely 12 hours old. On the same day Congress receives testimony indicating the sitting President accepted millions in his capacity as Vice President in a quid pro quo to influence the governmental affairs of a foreign nation, which foreign nation now happens to be siphoning hundreds of billions from American taxpayers in a war effort for which America has yet to even generally agree on a purpose—the former President and leading candidate for President in the upcoming 2024 election has reportedly been indicted, for a second time. Yes, we expect at least two (2) additional indictments: Georgia and D.C. for election interference and seditious conspiracy respectively. That knowing does not blunt the blows, however. This is Law and Legitimacy. Join us. Daily livestreams beginning at 8:00 am EST on: › Rumble: https://rumble.com/user/LawandLegitimacy › Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@lawandlegitimacy › Twitter: https://twitter.com/PattisPodcast Subscribe and turn on notifications! Support Law and Legitimacy: - Locals: https://lawandlegitimacy.locals.com/ - Follow on Twitter: @PattisPodcast, @PattisNorm, and @MichaelBoyer_ - Subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Audible, Spotify, or wherever you receive podcasts and rate LAL 5 stars. - Subscribe here on our Rumble and Youtube channels, give us a Rumble, and join our active community of free-thinkers, contrarians, and the unafraid on Locals!  

Our Fourth Amendment, protections from unreasonable searches and seizures, has never been more threatened. Does it still exist at all? How parallel construction is used to develop illegal evidence. The most important deep state strategy. Introduce concept with subtlety. The Pied Piper showed how to get rid of rats. Thank Henry Eighth for forming and using secret court star chambers. Now let's look at FISA. The CALEA act of 2005. Deep divisions are showing up in SCOTUS. Keeping evidence outside of the people's courts. The Tip and Lead system. Intel info passed to law enforcement. The goal is to make it all look legal. How is the MAL raid related? Wiretaps went to the FBI regional office. Dirty DOJ money and client blackmail. Illegal subpoenas and lack of notification. Modern book burning intends to change history. Denying all knowledge works as an ongoing strategy. Stellar Wind is blowing cold. When protecting state secrets becomes paramount. The Tara Lee Rodas testimony on child trafficking. We have all this information, now what are we going to do with it? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward rebellion against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent toward, or insurrection against, established authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interest of sedition. Because sedition is overt, it is typically not considered a subversive act, and the overt acts that may be prosecutable under sedition laws vary from one legal code to another. Roman origin. Seditio (lit. 'going apart') was the offense, in the later Roman Republic, of collective disobedience to a magistrate, including both military mutiny and civilian mob action. Leading or instigating seditio was punishable by death. Civil seditio became frequent during the political crisis of the first century BCE, as populist politicians sought to check the privileged classes by appealing to public assemblies. The Julio-Claudian emperors addressed this situation by abolishing elections and other duties of the assemblies. Under Tiberius the crime of seditio was subsumed in the law of majestas, which prohibited any utterance against the dignity of the emperor. Seditio has often been proposed as the offense for which Jesus was crucified, as described in Luke 23:14: "inciting the people to rebellion" (Greek: ἀποστρέφοντα τὸν λαόν, "leading the people astray"). History in common law jurisdictions. The term sedition in its modern meaning first appeared in the Elizabethan Era (1590) as the "notion of inciting by words or writings disaffection towards the state or constituted authority". The law developed in the Court of Star Chamber, relying on longstanding scandalum magnatum statutes and a broad repressive act of Mary the 1st against literature that contained "the encouraging, stirring or moving of any insurrection". That seditious statements were true was no defense, but rather an aggravating factor, since true statements were all the more potent. After the Star Chamber's dissolution, enforcement continued in the courts of assize and quarter sessions. Three classes of seditious offense were commonly charged: "seditious words" manifested by speaking, "seditious libel" by writing or publishing, and "seditious conspiracy" by active plotting. Although England adopted the name of the offense from Roman-derived civil law, it did not rely on the jurisprudence. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

A class action, also known as a class-action lawsuit, class suit, or representative action, is a type of lawsuit where one of the parties is a group of people who are represented collectively by a member or members of that group. The class action originated in the United States and is still predominantly an American phenomenon, but Canada, as well as several European countries with civil law, have made changes in recent years to allow consumer organizations to bring claims on behalf of consumers. Description. In a typical class action, a plaintiff sues a defendant or a number of defendants on behalf of a group, or class, of absent parties. This differs from a traditional lawsuit, where one party sues another party, and all of the parties are present in court. Although standards differ between states and countries, class actions are most common where the allegations usually involve at least 40 people who the same defendant has injured in the same way. Instead of each damaged person bringing one's own lawsuit, the class action allows all the claims of all class members—whether they know they have been damaged or not—to be resolved in a single proceeding through the efforts of the representative plaintiff(s) and appointed class counsel. History. England and the United Kingdom. The antecedent of the class action was what modern observers call "group litigation," which appears to have been quite common in medieval England from about 1200 onward.  These lawsuits involved groups of people either suing or being sued in actions at common law. These groups were usually based on existing societal structures like villages, towns, parishes, and guilds. Unlike modern courts, the medieval English courts did not question the right of the actual plaintiffs to sue on behalf of a group or a few representatives to defend an entire group. From 1400 to 1700, group litigation gradually switched from being the norm in England to the exception.  The development of the concept of the corporation led to the wealthy supporters of the corporate form becoming suspicious of all unincorporated legal entities, which in turn led to the modern concept of the unincorporated or voluntary association.  The tumultuous history of the Wars of the Roses and then the Star Chamber resulted in periods during which the common law courts were frequently paralyzed, and out of the confusion the Court of Chancery emerged with exclusive jurisdiction over group litigation. By 1850, Parliament had enacted several statutes on a case-by-case basis to deal with issues regularly faced by certain types of organizations, like joint-stock companies, and with the impetus for most types of group litigation removed, it went into a steep decline in English jurisprudence from which it never recovered.  It was further weakened by the fact that equity pleading, in general, was falling into disfavor, which culminated in the Judicature Acts of 1874 and 1875.  Group litigation was essentially dead in the United Kingdom after 1850. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

We chat to Dr Dean Irwin, long-time listener to the podcast and co-curator of the episode 'History According to Ali', about the history of the Jews in medieval England. We discuss the origins of a Jewish community in England along with their legal status and close relationship to the crown. We look in particular detail at the thirteenth century, considering the attitudes of Henry III and Simon de Montfort as well as some exception individuals like Licoricia of Winchester. Finally, we look at the end of the Jewish population under Edward I with the Edict of Expulsion and why this happened.If you'd like to hear more about Licoricia of Winchester, you can sign up to the Special Episode or Star Chamber tier of our Privy Council where she was featured in an episode of our special Local Legends podcast series. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Star-Chamber, Volume 1 An Historical Romance

The Star-Chamber, Volume 2 An Historical Romance

01:00 Do people with a 70 IQ have a hero system? 02:50 Rony Guldmann's hero system 06:00 Typical right-wing American hero systems 07:30 Hero systems of the Left 15:00 Moving will change your hero system 18:00 Orthodox Judaism as a hero system 36:00 Rony's memoir: The Star Chamber of Stanford: On the Secret Trial and Invisible Persecution of a Stanford Law Fellow, https://readersfavorite.com/book-review/the-star-chamber-of-stanford 38:30 The Sam Bankman-Fried connection to Rony's memoir, https://ronyguldmann.com/faq/ 40:00 Mark Latham refuses to apologise for homophobic tweet, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/apr/01/nsw-environment-minister-renews-calls-for-mark-latham-to-apologise-over-unacceptable-tweet 41:00 Mark Latham's tweet, https://twitter.com/Wahya77/status/1641277909263609856 59:00 The more individuated you are, the weaker 1:16:00 Rony wishes he was more captivated by the news 1:20:00 How does living in a multicultural society affect the intensity of one's hero system? Rony Guldmann's book Conservative Claims of Cultural Oppression: On the Nature and Origins of Conservaphobia: https://ronyguldmann.com/pdfviewer/conservative-claims-of-cultural-oppression/ Part one, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=144168 Part two: https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=144294 Part three: https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=144821 Author Rony Guldmann: https://ronyguldmann.com/ Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSFVD7Xfhn7sJY8LAIQmH8Q/join https://odysee.com/@LukeFordLive, https://lbry.tv/@LukeFord, https://rumble.com/lukeford https://dlive.tv/lukefordlivestreams Listener Call In #: 1-310-997-4596 Superchat: https://entropystream.live/app/lukefordlive Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/lukeford/ Soundcloud MP3s: https://soundcloud.com/luke-ford-666431593 Code of Conduct: https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=125692 https://www.patreon.com/lukeford http://lukeford.net Email me: lukeisback@gmail.com or DM me on Twitter.com/lukeford Support the show | https://www.streamlabs.com/lukeford, https://patreon.com/lukeford, https://PayPal.Me/lukeisback Facebook: http://facebook.com/lukecford Feel free to clip my videos. It's nice when you link back to the original.

Challenging PCAOB's Modern Star Chamber Proceedings NCLA has filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board's secret, unaccountable, and inherently biased prosecutorial processes. With no meaningful supervision by any government official appointed or directly removable by the President, and using funds raised by private taxes with no Congressional appropriation or oversight, PCAOB has investigated and brought a secret prosecution seeking to strip NCLA's client of his livelihood and impose quasi-criminal monetary penalties—without a jury trial, due process of law, an impartial adjudicator, or any constitutional accountability. Mark and NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Russ Ryan discuss NCLA's complaint against PCAOB. CFTC Tries to Shut Down PredictIt Market After the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) issued an order to the PredictIt political prediction market to close by February 15th, 2023, a group challenged the agency in federal court, arguing that the shutdown order violates the Administrative Procedure Act. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has now granted an injunction allowing the PredictIt market to continue operating while the court considers granting longer term relief. Vec and Russ talk through the PredictIt market and CFTC's actions.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Would you like to share your thoughts with Ralph?  Please email your comments to hello@idahospeaks.com or post your comments on @IdahoSpeaks on Twitter.Idaho Speaks is a listener supported production.  Please visit idahospeaks.com/support to learn more.Do you have something so say?  Interested in learning more about publishing on the Idaho Speaks Network?  Our nation was built on ideas and your idea could be the next political advancement for Idaho.  Call Ed at (208) 209-7170 or email hello@idahospeaks.com to start the conversation.Transcript:"You are yourself, plus your circumstances."  The early 20th Century Spanish philosopher, Jose Ortega y Gasset, was correct when he described an individual's identity as being a fusion of internal qualities and external context.Each of us is awash in a sea of circumstances which define who we are, what we do, and how we think about the world.  Our lives are lived within a precise moment in history and culture.Everything extrinsic to us, from our language to our expectations about life, derives from whether we were born in 1962 or in 1992, in New York City or in Rathdrum, Idaho, in the USA or in Zimbabwe.   We are shaped by whether we were raised by a gentle soul or by a martinet, by a Doctor or by a Day Laborer, by a Christian or by a Communist, by a married father and mother or by a single parent.Taken in isolation, we are each vulnerable.  Alone in a treacherous world, we are hard-pressed just to survive.  Very few of us can thrive without others.  In fact, a stark and unremitting solitude will drive many of us mad.Fortunately, the circumstances of everyday life provide many opportunities for isolated individuals to connect meaningfully with others.  The birth family, neighborhoods, churches, schools, military service, jobs, clubs, teams, romantic partners and chosen families that we experience all offer us opportunities for meaningful relationships.  Such connections make life worth living.We can find purpose and satisfaction by associating with others of similar faith, ideals, ethnic heritage & culture, life experiences, vocations, avocations, and nationality.  Or, we can enjoy discussing our differing notions with those of divergent views.With functional linkages to other human beings, our stark solitary existence is energized by the vitality and enthusiasm of others.  With the involvement and help of family, friends, associates, colleagues, and other companions, our efforts reshape our world.In short, we human beings are social animals.  One of our most fundamental needs is companionship.  With it we thrive, and without it we wither.Given our social nature, the inescapable consequences of certain "woke" progressive ideas on human relationships is nothing less than appalling.  In their unremitting eagerness to destroy the imperfections of the past and build an entirely new utopia of justice, these zealots are prepared to wreck our established connections to the wider world.Woke progressives advocate that every human tradition, religion, philosophy, ideology, business, workplace, symphony, opera, song, poem, book, play, movie, video game, comic book, art object, sport, contract, or social custom be reevaluated.  Nothing, not even the unstructured play of preadolescent children, must be allowed to flow naturally.  Every work of human hands and the human mind must be scrutinized to determine how power is distributed.Who has power, and who lacks it?  Which parties have been privileged by traditions and which have been systematically disenfranchised?A stark equality of result, the touchstone of all variant Communisms, is becoming the new universal standard of value and virtue.  Perceived past wrongs must be righted, and all must conform to the strictures of reward and punishment necessary to redistribute power and bring about a new order of righteous equity.This type of unrelenting fanaticism is well-known throughout history.  "The Cause" varies from epoch to epoch, but the totalitarian methods are always consistent: an uncompromising and doctrinaire pursuit of ideological purity at all costs.The impure receive terror, pogroms, purges, Holy Inquisitions, and Star Chamber Courts.  The pure receive the power to sit in judgment over everything and everyone; to play god and decide who lives and who dies.This violent winnowing of human society from anything discordant from their woke ideal is not truly about justice.  It is designed to detach the individual from all healthy relationships, making the solitary person isolated, vulnerable, and more easily subjugated.This pattern is ubiquitous in abusive relationships.  The abuser always attempts to detach their victim from their family, friends, and other worldly contacts.  Alone, the victim is at the mercy of the abuser.  Despite their talk of social justice, the woke among us mean to abuse us.  As Robespierre said during the French Revolution, virtue without terror is useless.We each must insist that our naturally evolved human relationships, personal associations, faiths, and traditions not be reduced to the raw calculus of a dogmatic understanding of power and justice.In China during the Cultural Revolution, adolescents were given Mao's "Little Red Book", a summary of the expressed insights of the greatest mass murderer in human history.  These Middle Schoolers were organized into Red Guard cadres, given AK-47 assault rifles, and entrusted with the power of judgment over everyone and everything in the People's Republic.  30-50 million Chinese were murdered in 10 years, and every survivor was brutalized; left carrying scars to this day.  The fictional "Lord of the Flies" had nothing on this hellscape reality!This is the dystopia we are abetting if we continue to abide woke progressives savaging everything that is not of them as being indecently racist or obscenely oppressive.  This extremist cult has already spread from college campuses into corporate boardrooms.  How long until armed thugs fill our streets, holding "People's Courts" where "Enemies of the People" are identified, tried, punished, and even executed; all in one afternoon?We must stand by plain friendship and free play, straightforward associations and time-honored traditions.  We must insist that most of the relationships in which we engage have nothing to do with power politics.We must defend the sublime complexity of real human societies, and the needs of most every man, woman, and child to be free to fully engage without permission from would-be Political Commissars.  We must do these things and more, because if we don't then we risk the extermination of everything spontaneous in this world that makes life worth living.

“Innocent until proven guilty” has been the rule of the American justice system since its inception. It still is today. Unless, that is, you happen to be accused of wrongdoing on a college campus. In that case, you might as well be dragged before the modern-day equivalent of the Star Chamber, where campus administrators hardly even pay lip service to your due process rights.As we explored last week with Carissa Hessick, it is a far graver injustice to deprive an innocent person of the liberty than to let a guilty person go free. That is why the founders gave the accused so many protections in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) was created to uphold these protections against rules passed under the Title IX legislation that require colleges to effectively prosecute students outside of the criminal justice system. In these campus tribunals, those accused of serious misconduct like sexual assault have been denied basic protections like the right to a live hearing, to cross examine witnesses, and even to hear the full charges being levied against them.Joe Cohn, director of FIRE's Legislative and Policy department, joins me this Sunday to discuss a proposed rule change from the same administrative office behind the infamous 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter. The new language would turn certain kinds of constitutionally-protected free speech into a punishable offense under the broad umbrella of “sexual harassment.” Under the new rule, the “trial” that results from alleged misconduct would be conducted by a single college administrator acting as judge, jury, and prosecutor.Anyone connected with an American university that receives federal funding (aka, virtually all colleges) should tune in to this important broadcast. The first step to protecting your rights is to know what they are. Be sure to share this with any college students who may not know their rights, and check out FIRE's free Guide to Due Process and Campus Justice.

https://www.npr.org/2022/11/14/1136482889/ftx-sam-bankman-fried-shockwaves-crypto For six months, I've been talking about the life and thought of Rony Guldmann (author of Conservative Claims of Cultural Oppression: The Nature and Origins of Conservaphobia), who recently published a memoir, The Star Chamber of Stanford: On the Secret Trial of a Stanford Law Fellow. The two antagonists in this memoir are the Stanford Law professor Barbara Fried and Joe Bankman, the parents of con artist Sam Bankman-Fried. Here are related links: REVIEW: https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=143937 Stanford Star Chamber, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=143824 Reaction to Stanford Star Chamber, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=143994 https://law.stanford.edu/directory/barbara-fried/ https://law.stanford.edu/directory/joseph-bankman/ Conservaphobia: https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=144168 Conservative Claims of Cultural Oppression: The Nature and Origins of Conservaphobia, Part Two, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=144294 Conservative Claims of Cultural Oppression: The Nature and Origins of Conservaphobia, Part Three, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=144821 https://www.influencewatch.org/person/barbara-fried/ https://cryptonews.com/news/was-sec-chair-gary-gensler-helping-sam-bankman-fried-find-legal-loopholes-for-ftx-heres-what-you-need-to-know.htm https://fortune.com/longform/ftx-sam-bankman-fried-what-happened/ https://nypost.com/2022/11/12/ftxs-sam-bankman-fried-in-bahamas-after-collapse/ https://tvpworld.com/64507293/usd-1-billion-in-client-funds-missing-at-crypto-firm-ftx https://news.bitcoin.com/philanthropic-ftx-foundation-sunsets-operations-amid-bankrupt-exchanges-fallout/ https://gizmodo.com/ftx-michael-lewis-movie-rights-bitcoin-price-ether-sbf-1849778463 https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Meet-SBF-the-Bay-Area-born-crypto-mogul-at-the-17575495.php Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSFVD7Xfhn7sJY8LAIQmH8Q/join https://odysee.com/@LukeFordLive, https://lbry.tv/@LukeFord, https://rumble.com/lukeford https://dlive.tv/lukefordlivestreams Superchat: https://entropystream.live/app/lukefordlive Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/lukeford/ Soundcloud MP3s: https://soundcloud.com/luke-ford-666431593 Code of Conduct: https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=125692 https://www.patreon.com/lukeford http://lukeford.net Email me: lukeisback@gmail.com or DM me on Twitter.com/lukeford Support the show | https://www.streamlabs.com/lukeford, https://patreon.com/lukeford, https://PayPal.Me/lukeisback Facebook: http://facebook.com/lukecford Feel free to clip my videos. It's nice when you link back to the original.

Esta semana en Islas de Robinson nos movemos entre 2018 y 2022 para recuperar algunos bonitos discos recientes y dar aire a algunas novedades presentes. Suenan: SILVER SYNTHETIC - "ON THE WAY HOME" ("SILVER SYNTHETIC", 2021) / LEAH SENIOR - "TIME TRAVELLER" ("THE PASSING SCENE", 2020) / BONNY DOON - "I AM HERE (I AM ALIVE)" ("LONGWAVE", 2018) / HOLLOW HAND - "IT'S YOU" ("STAR CHAMBER", 2018) / WAY DYNAMIC - "SO FAMILIAR" ("SO FAMILIAR", 2022) / MILA WEBB - "MASTERPIECE" ("LUCKY NIGHTS", 2022) / CUT WORMS - "DREAM MOST WILD" (2022) / JULIANNA RIOLINO - "ISN'T IT A PITY" ("ALL BLUE", 2022) / LIAM KAZAR - "SO LONG TOMORROW" ("DUE NORTH", 2021) / DRUGDEALER - "VALENTINE" ("HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT", 2022) / AOIFE NESSA FRANCES - "WAY TO SAY GOODBYE" ("PROTECTOR", 2022) / JOHN CALVIN ABNEY - "GOOD LUCK AND HIGH TIDE" ("TOURIST", 2022). Escuchar audio

Recently The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by my guest on this episode, Yale freshman Sahar Tartak. Titled “My High School's ‘Antiracist' Agitprop”, she described how illiberal her supposedly liberal high school had become, and the ways she and other students were “berated, bullied and insulted” for voicing dissent towards the school's race essentialist policies and programs. The story goes like this. In 2021 Great Neck North High School directed the student government to give $375 of student funds to a “racial equity” group to speak to the student body about “systemic racism.”  Sahar, then a Senior at Great Neck, was the student government's treasurer, and felt they didn't know enough about the organization and its mission to disburse the funds.  So she refused to sign the check. What happened next was that the full weight of the education cartel's racialist star chamber fell upon a smart and courageous 17 year old.  The teachers who advise the student government berated, bullied and insulted her at their next meeting. They began by announcing that her social studies teacher would be present. Together, the three adults told her that the principal himself found my stance “appalling.” She had made them and the school “look bad,” they told her. One teacher said the situation gave her “hives.” Another said “If you're not on board with systemic racism, I have trouble with that, girlfriend.” The adults in the room were teachers who had the power to grade and affect her prospects of getting into college. After that, there were a series of tense meetings between Sahar and the administration and her parents, resulting in stalemate. Sahar, whose mother escaped revolutionary Iran, and grandfather escaped the Nazis, wouldn't back down.  “The experience prompted me and a few like-minded others to look into our school's curriculums. What we found was an arsenal of lopsidedly race-obsessed lesson plans.”  One was the American Psychological Association's “Apology to People of Color” for its role in “Promoting, Perpetuating, and Failing to Challenge Racism.” Another asserted that America is a place where racism is “no better today than it was 200 years ago.” So what does she do? She presents her findings in an audacious speech to the school board and receives a standing ovation - from other students parents, not the school board.  “This was about speech,” she explains. “These are the values that we protect and the reason why my family came to this country.” Sahar's story is inspirational.  I'm sure we'll be hearing much more from her in the future. By the way, she taped this show from her Yale dorm room, where she also shared what a terrific time she's having in her Freshman year.  She's a fun and engaging interview. Listen in.  

THE THESIS: The events The Party wants us to see in politics are theater--”nothing is real”--what is really happening is not at the political level, it's at the spiritual level and it is frightfully real. THE SCRIPTURE & SCRIPTURAL RESOURCES: I am stunned at how this short slice of the Bible applies to so much, and how following its advice would end all of this madnessProverbs 3:77 Do not be wise in your own eyes; fear the Lord and shun evil.Matthew 18:21-2221 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?”22 Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.Ephesians 6:1212 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.THE NEWS & COMMENT:In relatively small ways we see the lies of The Party. When Jerry Nadler wags his mouth about white privilege and how white people need to recognize that “privilege” he's acting. When a black reporter wants to speak with him, Jerry Nalder rudely dismisses him, that's the reality. [AUDIO] - Democrat Jerry Nadler repeatedly refused questions about rising crime: “I'm in a rush.”The entire Party is 100% onboard with spending your money on defending the sovereignty of Ukraine. When the Chinese Communist Party sets up police stations in America, only a few politicians care enough to politely ask questions. The CCP, of course, is not only violent, murderous and tyrannical, they are Chinese-supremcists of the actual sort. GOP Lawmakers Question Blinken, Garland Over CCP Police Station in New YorkRapists rejoice! The “War on Women” never mattered to them, nor does the sanctity of a woman's body in matters sexual. There are no charges of racism in the actions of the jury, or the cops or the prosecutors, there are no questions about the guilt of the rapist. Still, the brutally corrupt Star Chamber laughably called the Washington State Supreme Court unanimously overturned the conviction of a rapist because, and I quote, “objective observer could view race or ethnicity as a factor [in denying a person a seat on the jury.”]. WA Supreme Court overturns Black man's rape conviction over bias in jury selection . . . By the way, rapes are at record levels in Western portion of the separate Country of WashingtonNo one in politics has any business pretending to be shocked the members of a group that constantly employs racial scapegoating are also racists. ‘Little Monkey': Los Angeles City Council Members Under Fire Over Leaked Racist Remarks City council president on Koreans: “I was like, I don't know where these people are from, I don't know what village they came [from], how they got here.” She then described them as “ugly.”And, no one should be surprised that a young woman raised under the constant efforts to divide based upon the concept of race thinks this is how to behave: [AUDIO] - A young woman tells people how to test for racism and sexism What is the “ism”, here? Favoritism, of course. There is no possible way to defend SWAT team tactics used to arrest pro-life protesters, let alone protesters who harmed no one and were willing to voluntarily walk into police stations for arrest. [AUDIO] - One of the pro-life leaders targeted by Biden's DOJ sent me footage of the early morning FBI raid on his family home. Paul Vaughn was placed in handcuffs by armed FBI agents in front of his children just before school drop-off. Watch as his wife pleads for answers mid-arrest:No one believes we don't know when pregnancy begins. Stacey Abrahams is acting. [AUDIO] - "Were you to become governor, where would you draw the line? 15 weeks? Viability? 36 weeks? What's the limit?" STACEY ABRAMS: "The arbitrary standards of timelines ignore the medical reality that it is a fallacy we know exactly when a pregnancy starts."

In the season finale, Alex and Patricia discover how Visa and MasterCard became the reluctant rulers of porn. And they figure out what being ruled by credit card companies means for the porn industry today. If you'd like to keep up with the most recent news from this and other Pushkin podcasts be sure to subscribe to our email list. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

00:20 Author Rony Guldmann, https://ronyguldmann.com/ 46:30 Stanford Law professor Barbara Fried, https://law.stanford.edu/directory/barbara-fried/ 48:30 Joe Bankman, https://law.stanford.edu/directory/joseph-bankman/ 1:55:00 Jews and populism, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=138784 REVIEW: The Star Chamber of Stanford: On the Secret Trial and Invisible Persecution of a Stanford Law Fellow, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=143937 Stanford Star Chamber, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=143824 Reaction to Stanford Star Chamber, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=143994 My Best Work: https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=143746 Mind, Modernity, Madness: The Impact of Culture on Human Experience, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=143670 Professor of Apocalypse: The Many Lives of Jacob Taubes, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=143590 http://vouchnationalism.com https://postkahanism.substack.com/p/the-failure-and-importance-of-kahanism?s=r Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSFVD7Xfhn7sJY8LAIQmH8Q/join https://odysee.com/@LukeFordLive, https://lbry.tv/@LukeFord, https://rumble.com/lukeford https://dlive.tv/lukefordlivestreams Listener Call In #: 1-310-997-4596 Superchat: https://entropystream.live/app/lukefordlive Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/lukeford/ Soundcloud MP3s: https://soundcloud.com/luke-ford-666431593 Code of Conduct: https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=125692 https://www.patreon.com/lukeford http://lukeford.net Email me: lukeisback@gmail.com or DM me on Twitter.com/lukeford Support the show | https://www.streamlabs.com/lukeford, https://patreon.com/lukeford, https://PayPal.Me/lukeisback Facebook: http://facebook.com/lukecford Feel free to clip my videos. It's nice when you link back to the original.

Episode Notes Episode Summary: Mo, a criminal defense/movement lawyer with the National Lawyers Guild, talks about how Grand Juries are used by the State to destabilize communities, and what your options are for resisting them if you are issued a subpoena. Margaret and them talk about the importance of not cooperating with Grand Juries and how you can be an eternal badass...i mean protect yourself and your community by resisting them. They also talk about the most important legal strategy: Hope. Guest Info: Mo, Moira Meltzer-Cohen (they/them), is a Criminal Defense Lawyer who works at the intersection of Criminal Defense and struggles for social and economic justice. They work for the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) Federal Defense Hotline. You can find them on Twitter @ProbYrLawyer. Show Links: National Lawyers Guild Federal Defense Hotline: (212) 679-2811 IF YOU RECEIVE A SUBPOENA FOR A GRAND JURY CALL THEM. (If you call you might get Mo!) NLG NYC_:_ On Instagram @NLG_NYC Civil Liberties Defense Center: CLDC.org for legal primers, brochuers and information. Grand Jury Resistance Project: GrandJuryResistance.org SparrowMedia.net: Chelsea Manning Grand Jury Resitance info. Host: The host Margaret Killjoy can be found on twitter @magpiekilljoy or instagram at @margaretkilljoy. Publisher: This show is published by Strangers in A Tangled Wilderness. We can be found at www.tangledwilderness.org, or on Twitter @TangledWild and Instagram @Tangled_Wilderness. You can support the show on Patreon at www.patreon.com/strangersinatangledwilderness. Transcript Mo on Grand Juries Margaret 00:15 Hello and welcome to Live Like the World is Dying, your podcast for what feels like the end times. I'm your host, Margaret killjoy. And this week I will be talking to my friend Mo, who is a lawyer. And not just any lawyer, but the lawyer I know who got one of my friends out of jail when he was in jail for Grand Jury resistance. "What is a Grand Jury?" you might ask, and "Why might we resist it?" Well, that's the topic of this week's episode. So if you stay tuned, you will hear all about Grand Juries and why they suck, and what we can do about them, and what you can do about them. This podcast is a proud member of the Channel Zero network of anarchists podcasts. And here's the jingle from another show on the network. Margaret 01:48 Okay, if you could introduce yourself with your name, your pronouns, and then kind of what you do for work. Mo 01:53 Hi, Margaret, I'm Mo. My name is Moira Meltzer-Cohen. My pronouns are they/them. I'm an attorney, and I work at the intersection of criminal defense and struggles for social and economic justice. So, I've probably represented a lot of your listeners. Margaret 02:13 Hurray. Yeah, for context. I've literally had nightmares, where I get rounded up by cops, and I'm just like, "I need to call Mo!" And and then Mo comes and saves me. Mo 02:26 I'll do my best. Margaret 02:27 Yeah, I appreciate it. The only other phone number I've memorized besides like my immediate family. So speaking of friends of ours that Moira has gotten out of jail, I want to talk about something that happened a number of years ago to our mutual friend, Jerry Koch, which was that one time Jerry Koch was may may or may not have once been in a bar. And people in that bar may or may not have been talking about a crime that happened. I think, before Jerry even moved to New York City, but I'm not entirely certain. And that crime was that someone may or may not Well, clearly, someone did it. No one knows who did it. Someone bicycled past recruitment center and threw a box full of black powder at it, and it destroyed the door in the middle of the night, and no one was hurt. And because it was a federal crime, it became this huge deal. And so Jerry was subpoenaed to speak before a Grand Jury, and Jerry refused to do so. And as a result, he spent nine months in jail without being accused of any crime, and basically, like all of his rights were taken away. Like all of his, you know, First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights were not enough to say, well, basically, they can try and make you talk even though it's not illegal to not talk to them, and they can still throw you in jail. And I wanted to have Mo on one because Mo was the one who got Jerry out of jail. But also because I think that it's useful for people to know about the Grand Jury process, kind of what it is, what it can do to social movements, and how we can prevent it from doing those things to our social movements as we fight for a better world. So do you want to tell me like, What is a Grand Jury? Mo 04:18 Right? So the Grand Jury is anomalous in the American legal system, and it's, as you will see, it's so anomalous, and it so disregards so many of the core assumptions that most people have about the Constitution and the American legal system that I have encountered many people, including many attorneys, who have a really hard time believing that Grand Juries exist and operate in the way that they do actually operate. So a federal Grand Jury is an investigation where 18 to 24 people are called together in the same way that, you know, you get called for, like jury duty. People get called for Grand Jury Duty. And they hang out and listen to prosecutors to federal prosecutors present evidence about various criminal offenses and determine whether or not a crime has actually occurred. And in doing these investigations, federal prosecutors can issue subpoenas, which say, to whoever they're issued to, you have to show up to this Grand Jury and answer my questions in front of these 18 to 24 people. And there's really...and you don't get an attorney in there with you. And there's no judge in there. There's just the prosecutor and these people who have been called to Grand Jury Duty. And they can tell you to come and give testimony and answer their questions. And they can also tell you to come and bring various kinds of documents. And this is compulsory, whereas usually, you would have the right to decline to participate in a police investigation, which is what I talked about last time I was on your show, which is that you really never have an obligation to talk to police. Unfortunately, this is sort of the opposite, where if you are issued a Grand Jury subpoena, and you declined to participate, you can be ordered by a judge to participate, sort of, in spite of all of the rights you think you have, like the First Amendment, right to Association and Speech and Belief, and your Fifth Amendment rights to remain silent. And your Sixth Amendment right to have a lawyer with you, if you're being questioned, all of those rights kind of fly out the window. And if you refuse to participate, a judge might order you to participate anyway. And if you continue to decline to participate, the judge will find you in Contempt of their Order To Participate, and they can throw you in prison. And so you can spend a pretty significant amount of time in federal prison, not because you have been accused of a crime, not because you have been convicted of a crime, but because you have declined to help the state make out their case against yourself or someone else. Margaret 07:29 One of the things that really strikes me about Grand Juries is like when you first try to describe the process of someone, it sounds like a good thing, right? It's like set up to be this thing where you're like, oh, you can't just accuse people have crimes. And you actually have to have a meeting ahead of time to make sure there's enough evidence before you can accuse someone of a crime. And it just I feel like the state is really good at taking things that like ostensibly might possibly be designed to protect us from government overreach and turn them into over government overreach. Mo 08:01 That's exactly right. So a Grand Jury is a it's a process that was invented in the 12th century. And the reason that it was invented is it was a group of sort of citizens, men, who would come together to privately investigate whether an offence had even been committed, because sometimes the Crown would just throw people in, in jail. And so this was... the Grand Jury was a step that was intended to make sure that there was some constraint on the unfettered power of the Crown. And unfortunately, the way that the Grand Jury has been adopted and used in the United States is not...it is an arm of state power, as opposed to a bulwark against it. Although, federal prosecutors get really butthurt if you say things like that, and they...they're constantly saying, we're a bulwark against unfettered power, but they're.... Margaret 09:07 And that's why we threw your friend in jail for nine months for not talking to us. Mo 09:11 I can never tell if federal prosecutors actually believe the things that they're saying. They're very defensive about... they're very defensive about the Grand Jury process. And they seem genuinely to believe that it's protective, despite the fact that there, I think, is only one other nation in the world that still uses Grand Juries, because they have come to be understood as really damaging. They're not transparent. They're secret proceedings. They're frequently compared to Star Chamber Proceedings. But one of the things that is a big difference between a federal Grand Jury and the Star Chamber is that the Star Chamber Proceedings were public. Margaret 09:54 What's a Star Chamber Proceeding? 09:57 The Star Chamber was this like, sort of secret authoritarian court. Margaret 10:03 Cool. Mo 10:04 So, yeah, so the thing about Grand Jury proceedings is the claim that's made is that they happen in secret so that they don't sort of destroy the reputations of people who the innocent accused, right? But there's actually ways of initiating a criminal prosecution that don't involve secrecy, right? You....people in countries all over the world managed to prosecute criminal offenses without using Grand Juries. And it involves sort of public cross examination and having sort of the trappings of due process that we would assume, obtain in the American legal system, and they typically do, but federal Grand Juries, you know, as I said, there, it's totally unnecessary. But, they're very useful. They're very useful for a number of reasons, because their critical attributes give tremendous power to prosecutors. Sorry, let me rephrase that they're very useful to prosecutors for a number of reasons. They're not particularly useful to anyone else? They're quite dangerous for exactly these reasons. Margaret 11:18 Because they can like...they can use them to just fish information out of scenes, right? Because you can show up and say... Mo 11:24 There's a bunch of things about them. One is that what a prosecutor can ask is almost unlimited. There's there's really... the rules of evidence that we would think about, like, you know, hearsay, being inadmissible various kinds of unlawfully collected evidence being admissible, relevance, right? If you're having a criminal trial or a civil trial, you can't just get any kind of...you can't start asking questions about unrelated things, right? Well, in a federal Grand Jury, you can, and there's...Furthermore, there's nobody there. There's no judge there, there's no defense attorney present. The only person who's present is the prosecutor. So the prosecutor gets to determine what evidence gets seen, and what evidence doesn't get seen, right? They're presenting their case to this Grand Jury, but they're not giving a complete picture, which is why we have Grand Juries where, you know, over 99%, of people accused of a federal offense get indicted by a Grand Jury. But are those people ever cops? I mean, almost never, right? And that's because the prosecutor controls how evidence is presented and what evidence is not presented, and how evidence gets placed before those grand jurors. And so they really control the narrative. And they basically determine what gets prosecuted and what doesn't. They can also use the federal Grand Jury, as you said, to go fishing, because they can basically issue as we saw with Jerry, they can issue a subpoena to just about anyone and ask them just about anything. So, you know, we have no idea whether they actually thought Jerry had any relevant information about that event, which they refer to as The Bicycle Bombing. Right? Who knows whether they actually thought that Jerry had any information about it, despite the fact that he told them publicly many times that he did not. And they don't seem to have had any real reason to think he did. But what they definitely thought he had information about was anarchist organizing in New York City. And that's clearly what they were interested in asking him about. And so maybe they weren't necessarily going to get information about the Bicycle Bombing from subpoenaing him to come and give testimony. And maybe they weren't gonna even get information about any kind of Federal offense from his testimony, but they sure we're gonna get some social mapping. They sure we're gonna get some information about, you know, potentially about like, internecine quarrels in the anarchist community. So, you know, a lot of, a lot of this is a fishing expedition. And I think that sort of brings us to the next thing that you and I were discussing, which is, Grand Juries are these really complicated, really anomalous legal proceedings. They're sort of quasi criminal. They involve a lot of different really technical elements. But at bottom, they're sort of anathema to anarchists. And there's a few reasons for that. And I think, you know, this is sort of the thing that I guess we wanted to talk about, which is that, Margaret 14:55 Yeah, why don't anarchists talk to Grand Juries? Mo 14:58 Well, this is yeah, I mean, this is the thing, right, is that there's sort of three things going on. One thing is anarchists pretty much don't talk to Grand Juries, on principle, because fuck the state. But there's also materially, it's very dangerous to give testimony to a Grand Jury, because you're essentially, even if you're not giving them information about any unlawful activity, any information that you give to the state, can and very much will be used against you and your community. And anytime you're talking to a federal Grand Jury, or a federal investigator, law enforcement of any kind, anything that you say, can be used to get more information can be used to cause trouble in your community, and can be used to prosecute, prosecute you or the people in your community. And then the third even more technical reason is that strategically, legally, there are a whole slew of reasons and legal arguments that you can bring to bear against cooperating with a federal Grand Jury. And, in fact, you know, I would say, as a legal matter, you know, I can't...whether or not to cooperate with a federal Grand Jury is not a decision that an attorney can make for another person. Margaret 16:25 Right. Mo 16:26 But there are a number of legal advantages to litigating questions around the enforceability of a Grand Jury subpoena. Margaret 16:39 Well does this tie into, like, how how you got Jerry out? Mo 16:44 Yes. Well, there's sort of there's phases, right, because the first thing that I would say, the first thing that would happen in Grand Jury litigation, is developing arguments or or seeing if there are arguments against the enforceability of the Grand Jury subpoena. And these range from things like: "Is the subpoena properly issued and enforceable?"to "Can you enforce this Grand Jury subpoena against this particular individual?" Does this Grand Jury subpoena impermissibly intrude into First Amendment protections? Does it impermissibly intrude into Fifth Amendment protections? Can you demonstrate that this particular subpoena was issued on the basis of illegally collected evidence? There's things like that, that certainly you would want to litigate before just rolling over and cooperating with a Grand Jury. Again, from the legal point of view, quite apart from the issues of principle, you know, if you don't, if there's a way to avoid incriminating yourself, you, you know, I would advise you to do it. So, there's a whole kind of litigation to...that happens sort of up front, to try to do what's called "quash the subpoena", right, to nullify the subpoena. That almost universally fails. We are not successful with that litigation that happens early on in the process. And then what what typically happens? Well, sometimes what happens is that the prosecutor gives up, but that's, that's not typical. Although it happens occasionally. Margaret 18:39 We could hope we could pin all of our hopes on that. Mo 18:43 Yes. I wouldn't expect it. Margaret 18:47 No, we should pin all of our hopes on it. That's what'll happen. You heard it here first, there's nothing to worry about. Mo 18:55 Please call my office. If you get a Grand Jury subpoena. Do not lay awake in bed hoping for the prosecutor to let it go. Margaret 19:03 Interesting. Okay. Okay. Mo 19:05 You know, we even have a hotline. Margaret 19:07 Yeah? Mo 19:08 Which I can tell you about later. But yes, we...you can call the office, you can call the hotline. You can call your local chapter of the National Lawyers Guild. Margaret 19:19 Okay. Mo 19:20 Hire a lawyer instead of hoping. Margaret 19:22 Okay. Mo 19:23 Okay. Margaret 19:24 And probably a movement lawyer rather than like one that's just looking out for... Mo 19:28 For sure. Yes. Hope is not a great legal strategy, I guess is what I'm trying to say. Margaret 19:36 It's almost like we should be prepared as individuals and communities for bad things that might happen. Mo 19:42 It's almost like that. Margaret 19:43 Yeah, but that would be crazy. Anyway. Okay. Mo 19:46 Typically, what happens is that you litigate the validity or the enforceability of the subpoena. And then the judge typically says, "The justice demands that we do unfettered investigations, and be allowed to ask whatever questions we want. And, if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't be worried, just go talk to the federal Grand Jury." And they will, the judge, will order the witness to give testimony. But of course, the judge can order you to do something all they want. That doesn't mean you actually have to do it. And so, if you continue to refuse to give testimony before the federal Grand Jury, the way the judge will enforce their order, is to say, "Well, if you won't give testimony, I'm going to hold you in Contempt of Court. And the sanction for being in Contempt of Court is that I will put you in federal prison until you agree to give testimony. And if you don't agree to give testimony, then you are going to stay in federal prison until the Grand Jury expires (Grand Jury is typically at last 18 months). So, I'll keep you in federal prison until the Grand Jury expires." And then the other way that you can sometimes get out without giving testimony is to just demonstrate that you will not be convinced by your confinement to give testimony, right, because the the only permissible reason to put somebody in prison for civil Contempt is to convince them to change their mind. Right? Margaret 21:40 Cause that's coercive instead of punitive. Is that the idea? Mo 21:42 That's right. That's right. So there's... Margaret 21:44 What a weird dumb distinction that the law wants to make. Mo 21:49 There's a distincation that...I would say it's a distinction without a difference, except it does have this very significant meaningful difference... Margaret 21:57 Right, legally. Mo 21:57 Which is as follows: Margaret 21:59 Okay, Mo 22:00 A judge cannot put you in prison to punish you in the absence of due process, in the context of Grand Jury litigation, Contempt of Court is Civil and not Criminal. And so you don't get due process in the way that you would have to, in order for the judge to punish you. And so the judge...the fiction here is that the judge is not punishing you by confining you, the judge is just putting you in an uncomfortable situation with the promise that it will stop if you agree to do the thing the judge wants you to do. So, it isn't punishment. It's coercion. Margaret 22:51 Hooray. Mo 22:52 So it's, it sounds very silly, except what follows there from is that if you can demonstrate to the judge, that it isn't coercive, and it's only punitive, then they have to release you, because it's unconstitutional to punish you. Margaret 23:13 Right. Mo 23:14 And so, being able to demonstrate that the confinement in federal prison has been transformed from a coercion into a punishment is the way that you can eventually after some, usually many months, you can get your client out of prison, which is what happened with Jerry. Margaret 23:43 Okay, I kind of love because it's like, "Look, if you're a badass, and you come from a badass movement, I'm sorry, you just can't put badass is in jail. It's just not allowed anymore", is like the kind of and like, I'm under the impression when you were talking earlier about one of the reasons why anarchists in particular, might want to refuse to speak to Grand Juries is does this build a stronger case for future anarchists basically, to be like, "Oh, it doesn't work. This won't work." Mo 24:13 Absolutely. I dont think it will prevent them from trying to exact a cost. Margaret 24:17 Right. Mo 24:19 They'll still put you in. Margaret 24:20 Right. But I was under the impression this was like part of the way of explaining to a judge like "My you know, my client cannot be coerced into testifying." Mo 24:33 Absolutely. Yes, very much. You know, there's...and it isn't just to be clear, it isn't only anarchists who do this. There's some really great case law that stems from different organized crime people and white collar crime, which is just another kind of organized crime, I guess, people refusing to cooperate. There's a really great case where a Jewish guy says that it's against, you know, It violates the tenets of his faith to to snitch, which I as a Jew, I I would say, "Yes that I would agree with this assessment." And of course the judge said, "No, you... I'm sorry you don't have a religious First Amendment right not to snatch." Morris Simpkin, I think was the was the guy. Rabbi Morris Simpkin. Margaret 25:26 That rules. Mo 25:27 Yeah, no, he's he's a hero. And then there's a guy who basically was released, because he, he said, "I'm not going to...I'm not going to talk. Because, as you know, I have several million dollars waiting for me in an offshore bank account. If I tell you about it, I won't, you know, I wont be able to access it later." Margaret 25:51 Did that work? Mo 25:53 I don't think it actually did work particularly well. I think the Court said something like, "You know, this is a little too venal even for us to deal with." But, so...it isn't just anarchists who refuse to cooperate with Grand Juries. And then there's also people who refuse to cooperate with Grand Juries, because they're in fear for their life, which is, I think, maybe even more common than people refusing on principle. Margaret 26:23 Yeah. So how does this come up in movements? Right, like, you know, the the example that we use at the beginning is a fairly like, it ties into the anarchist movement in New York City at that time, but it's a fairly isolated incident. But I'm under the impression that Grand Juries are used or end up disrupting social movements in a broader sense. Mo 26:45 Yeah, absolutely. Have you ever heard the phrase, "Nobody talks, everybody walks"? That's sort of, I think this is not a legal strategy commentary. But, I think the sort of the goal of anarchist communities is to recognize that the more people talk, the more evidence you are creating, the more information you are providing to the State that can--even if you're providing evidence that has nothing to do with unlawful conduct--providing information of any kind to the State gives the state a toehold that gives them a foot in the door, it gives them something to hang a warrant on for example. It just gives them an entree into your community in a way that makes you more vulnerable. And so, you know, when when we're saying, well, "Nobody talks, everybody walks," the less information the State has, the less effective they will be at intruding into your community, at manufacturing allegations of unlawful conduct of fabricating, you know, conspiracy charges. There's all kinds of ways that federal prosecutions can emerge. I mean, I would say, it's important to recognize the way that State repression is used against vulnerable communities generally. A few years ago, there was this really horrific conspiracy prosecution that involved over 100 people in the Bronx. And, you know, there was a guy who ended up in federal prison because the evidence that he was part of this conspiracy was that he waved to somebody at the bodega. Margaret 28:38 Oh, God. Mo 28:38 You know, so when we're talking about, is it protecting our communities? I'm not suggesting that, that there's a conspiracy to hide. It's that...or that there's even unlawful behavior to hide or to conceal. It's just that it is very disturbingly easy for federal law enforcement to sort of manufacture charges and allegations out of whole cloth that can just devastate a community, you know, with long term consequences. So, not handing over information to federal prosecutors or law enforcement of any kind even if you think the information is harmless, or even if you think the information serves to demonstrate your innocence. Any amount of information that's given to federal law enforcement is dangerous to you, and it's dangerous to your community. Margaret 29:46 So, if you get subpoenaed or you suspect you might be subpoenaed. I'm under the impression that because the subpoena is not a warrant, that It's not illegal to...to not get subpoenaed, to avoid being subpoenaed. Is this is this true? Mo 30:09 It's not...I mean, I know what you're trying to say it's not...you're not going to get like arrested for avoiding service of a subpoena, Margaret 30:19 Right? Which means you think they might come to your door, just don't answer the door or don't be there? Not saying that this is the strategy everyone should take, obviously. But, I'm curious...because this whole thing is so anonamalous, a nominal...is out of the ordinary. It...I'm under the impression that there's like, a lot of history of people...like it's a weird...I'm under the impression is a gray area where you're kind of like allowed to go on the run. Like, it's not illegal to flee a subpoena. It would be illegal to flee after you've been subpoenaed is my impression. I'm not telling people what to do. I'm just merely... it's a very interesting part of this whole thing from my point of view, Mo 30:59 It's not necessarily exactly illegal. You could be arrested on what's called a "Material Witness Order." Because you haven't, you're not being accused of a crime. Right? So running isn't exactly illegal. There are examples of people going underground to avoid subpoena. I'm not sure it's...you know, I wouldn't advise somebody to do it as a lawyer. But, you know, I would tell them what the potential consequences might be. But, largely the consequences would be a lot of discomfort and instability, I think. And if you, you know, I guess it sort of depends on what kind of resources you have, if you feel like you want to, if you want to go underground in order to avoid a subpoena, and you think that's going to be easier than getting a movement lawyer to fight the subpoena. Or, you know, I think it would be very disruptive at one way or another, you are going to get a subpoena. It's going to be disruptive. So I guess, pick your poison. Margaret 32:06 Fair enough. I just, I kind of want to go through, like, what happens if you get a subpoena? And you know, obviously, or if you believe you might get subpoenaed. And so when I imagine the flowchart, like, yeah, one of the options is if you're aware that you might be subpoenaed, and you want to disrupt your own life dramatically... Mo 32:25 Certainly. Margaret 32:26 And it's basically a way of LARPing undergrounder because you'd like on the run from the law, but you're not breaking the law to go underground. Mo 32:34 I don't know if you can LARP underground. I don't know if you can learn being underground. You...because even if you're being underground... Margaret 32:44 Legally, Mo 32:45 Because you have a delusion that you might be subpoenaed, you're still going to be really uncomfortable. Margaret 32:52 That's true. Yep. Okay, Mo 32:55 The consequences are still going to be real. Margaret 32:57 Yeah. Mo 32:58 But sure, one of the...one of your, one of the options available to you is to go underground. And then another option that's available to you is to call an attorney. I'm gonna give you the hotline number, the National Lawyers Guild, federal defense hotline is (212) 679-2811. And if you call that hotline, you will get me, and you can have a privileged, confidential, and secure conversation about your rights, risks and responsibilities. And I will do my very best to connect you with appropriate legal resources in your jurisdiction. And that's a better idea, in my opinion then going underground, but I am not the person who's looking at subpoena. So that is a choice that you get to make. Margaret 33:53 Yeah, I'm not advocating here. I'm just like, you know, laying out options to people. Mo 34:00 It is an option. Margaret 34:01 Okay. Okay. So if you get the subpoena, and you decide to fight it, and they call you, what next? Mo 34:08 I'll take a look at the subpoena, or your attorney will. Your attorney will take a look at the subpoena. They will call the prosecutor who issued the subpoena. Typically, they'll ask for some time to postpone the date of appearance so that they can put together some legal arguments and try to have the subpoena quashed, which as I said before means nullified or withdrawn. They try to look for some way in which the subpoena is unenforceable or invalid. And that can be on the grounds again of the First Amendment. Like, "This subpoena intrudes into First Amendment protected behavior. The subpoena is a Fourth Amendment violation," or "We believe that it that the subpoena was issued on the basis of evidence that was illegally obtained by the prosecution." Or, "This subpoena in some way violates the Sixth Amendment," or, very commonly, "This subpoena violates the Fifth Amendment and testifying in front of this Grand Jury would expose the witness to criminal liability." So, you make all of those arguments. If the federal prosecutor really wants you to give testimony, what they will very frequently do is approach the federal government or they'll approach the Department Of Justice and ask for what's called an "Immunity Order", which undermines your right against compelled self-incrimination, because it involves a promise not to prosecute you. And so, the idea is that they can then compel your testimony, because nothing you say could be self-incriminating, Margaret 35:55 Right. But it's still incriminates everyone else you know, and... Mo 35:59 That's right. Margaret 36:00 Which could lead to them... Mo 36:00 And probably still yourself anyway. Margaret 36:02 Right, because then if they get someone else to talk, they could talk about you, and then their testimony can be used against you. Mo 36:08 And your own testimony can be used against you, it just isn't quite as straightforward as it might otherwise be. Margaret 36:13 Oh, cool. Okay. Mo 36:14 No, Immunity Orders are not meaningful in the way that the government would like to have you believe. So, you know, honestly, testifying before a federal Grand Jury really does...I can't emphasize how dangerous it is, it really does expose you and anyone else, you know, to criminal liability, even if you haven't done anything unlawful, because this is really a situation where your innocence will not protect you. And very often, especially if we're talking about the sort of world of "conspiracy", the very fact that you might be perceived to have information in itself can be parlayed into evidence of culpability. You know, there's there's just a lot of ways in which giving testimony before a federal Grand Jury is very dangerous, and really exposes you and anyone, you know, to criminal liability. And it also perpetuates the cycle of more Grand Jury subpoenas being issued, Margaret 37:31 Right. Because they know it works. Mo 37:34 Well. Because, if one person responds and goes before the federal Grand Jury, and are asked who was at the anarchist meeting in 1998, and then says, "Oh, I think, you know, Jose, Joseph and Joe, were all there." Then Jose Joseph and Joe will get supoenas. Margaret 37:55 You know this is a public show, though, right? You just used their names... Mo 37:59 Oh. Hahah. Margaret 37:59 And I really like interrupting you with jokes, because I feel like a jerk every time I do it. Anyway, I'm sorry. Please continue. Mo 38:12 I love you very much. Margaret 38:13 Thanks. Mo 38:18 Yeah, it perpetuates a cycle of more subpoenas being issued, because anybody who says anything, the prosecutor then takes anything they've said, and you know anybody's name who comes up gets, then that that person gets a subpoena. They also, you know, the more information you give them, the more that they can figure out how to target people who feel isolated and vulnerable, and who are more likely to cooperate, right. So if you...and just to be clear, what the federal government perceives as like "vulnerabilities and weaknesses" are not necessarily things that are vulnerabilities and weaknesses. So for example, they may target people who have children, believing that, you know, someone who has a child will be more willing to cooperate with the federal government, then to potentially risk prison time for a refusal to cooperate. They might target someone who's gender non conforming, you know, on the belief that, you know, a trans person would be less likely to be able to like tolerate the idea of going to prison. They might target someone who has mental health issues, or who has a lot of friction in their community. The belief that a person who has...who's sort of fighting with other people in their community will have an incentive to, I guess, to talk shit about those people, and to give them up and to give the government information. I think the federal government thinks we're a lot less organized and a lot more petty than we are. And, I think the federal government thinks that we have a lot less courage than we have. But yeah. Margaret 40:12 I mean, it's one of the reasons that Grand Juries are scary, right, is that it's one of the things where, as you said earlier, like "Innocence will not protect you," you know, like, there is a level of risk just being socially engaged in activist movements, right, and so, you know what, whether or not you...what...whether or not you like do crimes, doesn't necessarily, like affect the degree to which this particular threat might threaten you? Mo 40:47 Yeah, I mean, I think this is the point where, you know, to return to the story of what happened to Jerry, right? Nobody ever said that Jerry knew anything about the Bicycle Bombing. Nobody ever said Jerry was involved in the Bicycle Bombing. The claim that was made is that he might have been present when a couple of other people were having a casual conversation about it. Margaret 41:11 Right. Mo 41:12 Which is, you know, one of the reasons that we say like, "Don't speculate. Don't make jokes. Don't brag," right? Like, because you're not just exposing yourself to liability. You're exposing anyone who hears you, or who is believed to have heard you to a Grand Jury subpoena, which if they're a principled person means exposing them to prison time, Margaret 41:41 Right. When when Grand Jury stuff hit closer to me, and it started affecting more my friends, and you know, when Jerry went to jail and stuff it, you know, sort of selfishly scared me. I had nothing to do with any of that stuff. I wasn't living in New York, any of that. But just that realization, my that my like, non crime-ness is not enough to keep me safe or whatever. But then, I guess I'm trying to, like, offer this, like note of courage or hope, I guess, which is my legal strategy is hope. But, that's not true. Mo 42:16 When you say it like that, it actually sounds reasonable, though. Margaret 42:19 Well, okay. But so the one of the things that I remember when we were working on on Jerry's campaign, was there's this flowchart of Grand Juries, right? And what can happen to you at each stage. And the end result of that is freedom. Mo 42:38 Yes. Margaret 42:39 Like, the degree to which it sucks before then varies. But, the the end result is that you're out and you're back with people, and everyone knows that you're fucking badass and have their backs. And, and, and I feel like that's a useful thing that like, I hold on to, and that I think other people. I mean... Mo 43:02 That's true. I think that's true. You know, there...it is finite. There's a few really unusual cases where someone has been charged with instead of Civil Contempt, Criminal Contempt. There are, you know, a few very, very specific instances where, you know, really post 9/11 people who were alleged to have been involved in, quote, "terrorism," have done very serious prison time on Criminal Contempt for refusing to cooperate with a Grand Jury. But typically, what we're looking at is a maximum of 18 months, which doesn't have no lasting consequences. Margaret 43:51 Oh, yeah. Mo 43:51 But, but it is finite. Margaret 43:54 Yeah. Mo 43:55 You know, I mean, one of the things about Grand Juries for...in terms of resisting as a community, is that federal Grand Juries are secret, right? No one can talk about what happens in the Grand Jury room, with one significant exception, which is the witness. The witness can disclose that they've been subpoenaed. The witness can say what they said or what they didn't say. They can say what they were asked. And the power of the federal Grand Jury really does very much lie in its secrecy. You know, I said, there's no judge there. There's no defense attorney there. I think even more importantly, there's no public there. Right? And so it functions to isolate the witness. It functions or it is intended to function to isolate the witness. But the fact is, you know, one of the things that, as you know, Jerry did was he stood out on the courthouse steps and he made a statement and he said, "I've been subpoenaed. This is what I think they want to ask me about. I'm not going to talk to them about it." He went into the Grand Jury room, he came out and disclosed what he had been asked very publicly, you know, he made a bunch of statements about his commitment to principle, and people really rallied around him. And that really served to undermine that terrifying power of secrecy, just by making that process more transparent. Margaret 45:34 Yeah. Well, are there any final thoughts about Grand Juries that you want to want to offer the audience? Or did we miss anything major? Mo 45:46 So, you know, we were just talking about how, you know, in Jerry's case, and in many other cases, I've, I've litigated, the witness has been very public about their experience with the Grand Jury with the subpoena with litigation. And this is socially useful and politically useful. I will, I'd like to let your audience also know, it's legally very useful, because at the end of this process, when you're trying to demonstrate to a judge that your client is in-coercible, that they, that the incarceration that has been imposed upon them in order to coerce them, isn't working, and is therefore punitive, but since they haven't been given any due process, they're not allowed to be punished and should therefore be released. The evidence that you put before the judge is evidence of the witness's articulated moral conviction, their psychological makeup, and all of these social incentives that have not wavered or changed over, you know, some not insignificant period of confinement. So, all of those sorts of public statements, and, and those acts of silence before the Grand Jury, those are, in fact, the substantive evidence that will hopefully serve to win their freedom. Margaret 47:09 Yeah. Mo 47:11 And in fact, one part of the evidence is social support. So the more you can educate your community about what a Grand Jury is, why they're dangerous to the community, and really help people to rally around, it sort of...showing that kind of community support, also functions to help the judge understand that it would truly be a loss, a moral loss for the witness at this point to disappoint all these, all these supporters. I want to reiterate sort of the consequences of cooperation with a Grand Jury, because, you know, being confined in a federal prison is terrible, and, and frightening and hugely disruptive. So, you know, I think there are a lot of incentives for people to cooperate. But I think people really need to understand that the consequences of cooperation don't just include snitching about criminal conduct. It includes disclosing information about people and movements, that is totally unrelated to illegal behavior, but can be compromising in other ways that aren't any of the State's business that can cause internal conflict in movements, can chill other people's commitment to movements, their willingness to participate in movements. And, of course, the, you know, the consequence that I keep talking about is the witness themself ending up in prison, which, you know, if you are convicted of a federal criminal offense, as opposed to being civilly confined, because you're refusing to cooperate with a Grand Jury, the sentencing guidelines for federal offenses are typically way longer than 18 months. So you know, when we're talking about going in for being a recalcitrant witness, and saying, I'm not going to cooperate with a federal Grand Jury, it is truly finite, which is may or may not be the case, if you end up incriminating yourself or somehow exposing yourself to criminal liability. And then you're looking at a much longer sentence that, you know, that is punitive. And that that is going to last a lot longer than 18 months likely. Margaret 49:38 So it's kind of a parallel to the whole like, "Shut the fuck up when you're arrested thing," where like, all right, you're going to jail and the difference is whether you're going to jail, like for a couple of days or you know, for a long ass time. Mo 49:53 Right. I mean, I again, I cannot advise someone not to cooperate with a Grand Jury. That's not my role, it would be unethical for me to do that. But what I can do and what my job is to do is to make clear what all the various consequences might be... Margaret 50:15 Okay. Mo 50:16 Of cooperation, or non cooperation. And I'm not going to, I'm not gonna lie, like, if you're subpoenaed before a federal Grand Jury, and it's at all politically motivated, you know, there is a long history of federal Grand Jury abuse in this country that goes back to, you know, prosecuting abolitionists for sedition, and continues through the labor movement, and the 19th century anarchist movement, and the Women's Rights movement and anti-war stuff, and Black Panthers and environmental stuff and the Green Scare. It's a pretty strong through line of using the federal Grand Jury to disrupt, drain, distract, and repress social movements. Margaret 51:07 Yeah. Mo 51:09 And one of the reasons that Grand Jury subpoenas are such a powerful tool is that the government's basically always going to get something that they want, right, they might not get to put all of you in prison, but you know, they're gonna get something. Either they're gonna get the information they want, which has sort of the added consequence of disrupting a whole community, because everyone's afraid. And there are indictments and convictions. Or they can get someone to cooperate and catch them in a perjury trap, and then exploit that person for more information by agreeing not to prosecute them for the perjury, or they can subpoena someone that they absolutely know, for a fact will not cooperate. And then they can do what I would call "coercing Contempt of Court", right? Because they've subpoenaed someone they know is going to...they can be held in Contempt. And then they exact a real cost from that witness, and from the whole community, and they're draining the whole community of time and energy and resources, and distracting from the actual work that that community was trying to do in the first place. Margaret 52:17 Yeah. Mo 52:17 So, you know, I think your exhortation to hope is well taken. But, I also want to be very real about the fact that a Grand Jury subpoena, in and of itself, can be extremely disruptive. That said, I mean, we have been through this a bunch of times. We know how to support each other. We know how to endure the consequences of resistance. We also know how to endure the consequences of people betraying us in cooperating with Grand Juries. Right? And there's people like me, there's lawyers and legal workers and people like you, and people like Jerry, who is now both a former Grand Jury resistor and a lawyer. Margaret 53:05 Yeah! That's cool. Mo 53:07 Yeah, I know, I couldn't yell, any harder. There's, you know, there's a lot of people out there who have already been through this crucible. Margaret 53:16 Yeah. Mo 53:18 You know, and like I said, there's ways to protect each other from subpoena by observing good security hygiene. Margaret 53:24 Yeah. It's a...it's a..it's a...it's a proud lineage to be part of, you know, if you need to hold on to something, like going through the like history of people who've been fucked over by Grand Juries. It's like, you just like listing the high points of American history, you know, like... Mo 53:43 No, I mean, you're gonna be in good company. Margaret 53:45 Yeah. Mo 53:46 I mean, to be clear, not every federal Grand Jury is...I mean, every prosecution is political. Margaret 53:52 Right. Mo 53:53 But, not every Grand Jury investigation is explicitly motivated by political animus against the person who's being investigated. Margaret 54:02 Right. Mo 54:03 But there is, you know, there is a very well documented history of the federal government just using Grand Jury subpoenas to gather information to disrupt, to, to criminalize people who haven't actually done anything unlawful to criminalize people who are doing something that is unlawful, but just. Margaret 54:28 All right. Well, if people want to know more about Grand Juries, is there any resources you could point them to? Or? Mo 54:35 No, there's no resources, sorry. Margaret 54:37 Okay. Wait...are you doing dry sarcasm back at me? I'm supposed to do the dry sarcasm. Mo 54:44 Sorry. No, there are there are resources. There are some zines out there that I think are pretty good. There's one that we put together during Standing Rock. There's...actually, oh no, that's on jury nullification. There's a really great--this is off topic so you can totally feel free to cut it--there's a really great scene on jury nullification that was written and illustrated by the guy who wrote "Go The Fuck To Sleep." Margaret 55:10 Oh, that rules. We're gonna keep that in. Okay, cool. Mo 55:13 Anyway, yeah, there's like there's good zines. There's a--I think it still exists now I gotta google it...Oh well, the CLDC, the Civil Liberties Defense Center, and Lauren Regan have a Grand Jury brochure that's good. Oh, and then here it is the Grand Jury Resistance Project. I think this is what it is. This is at GrandJuryResistance.org. And CLDC.org has a brochure about about Grand Juries. There's also some information from...there's a really great resource that is on SparrowMedia.net. That is a letter that Chelsea Manning wrote to the judge in that case when I was representing her, that goes through sort of the history of Grand Juries in the United States and internationally. And I think it's, if I say so myself, it's a really thorough and really compelling letter. And, I think it was really helpful in educating the judge about, you know, what her reasons were at least, for refusing to participate in the federal Grand Jury system, and what her objections were. So if anyone's interested in that again, that's at SparrowMedia.net. And, they have a search function. Margaret 56:33 Cool. Mo 56:33 And it was the letter that Chelsea Manning wrote to Judge Trenga at some point when we were trying to get her out. Margaret 56:42 Okay, well, thank you so much for taking time out to tell everyone about this terrible thing. Mo 56:49 My pleasure? Margaret 56:52 Do you have any anything else that you want to shout out or ways that people should or shouldn't reach you or anything you want to promote? Mo 56:57 Yeah, I would, I would just like to remind people that there's really never any reason to talk to police officers of any kind. Certainly not prior to consulting an attorney. If cops knock on your door, tell them you are represented by counsel, and to leave their name and number and your lawyer will call them back. Feel free to call me at the National Lawyers Guild Federal Defense Hotline at (212) 679-2811. And just remember, if you are arrested to say, "I am going to remain silent, and I want to speak to a lawyer," and then actually remain silent. Margaret 57:41 Sounds good. All right. Well, thank you so much. Mo 57:45 You're very welcome. Margaret 57:51 Thank you so much for listening. I hope you never need the information that was in this week's episode. But, I feel like it's worth having in your back pocket just in case, like a lot of preparedness. And see this is a preparedness episode, you all were like, "The fuck have to do preparedness?' Well, we want to be prepared for a lot of different threat models. So if you enjoyed this episode, you should tell people about it. You can tell people about it in person. And you can tell people about it on the internet. And you can tell algorithms about it by liking and subscribing and rating and reviewing and all that nonsense that tells robots what to do. And you can also support this podcast by supporting the people who helped make, which it just not just me anymore, it's a whole team of people working at a publisher that I'm part of, an anarchist collective publisher, called a Strangers In A Tangled Wilderness. And if you support us on Patreon, you'll get access to...well, you won't get access to a ton of like unique content. But, what instead is you'll support us making content. And then if you support us $10 A month you'll get a zine in the mail every month, and anywhere in the world. In particular, I would like to thank Mikki, and Nicole, David, Dana, Chelsea, Staro, Jenipher Eleanor, Natalie Kirk, Micaiah, Nora, Sam, Chris, and Hoss the dog. Your support makes this show and so many other projects possible. Alright, well that's it for now. And I will talk, I guess "at" you soon, not really "to" you because it's kind of a one way communication media, which is kind of weird, but it is what it is. I hope you all are doing as well as you can with everything that's going on. Find out more at https://live-like-the-world-is-dying.pinecast.co

Jason and John talk about the relationship between the various Starfinder adventure paths and hardcovers, and how ideas get pitched and developed in the Star Chamber. Listen Now!

I talk about NBA All Star Weekend, the mid/trash Dunk Contest, my Rec league stories this week, The elimination chamber lands on my top 5 takeaways and why skeletons are driving in the state of Washington under DNOTW. It's an All Star festival in a chamber of events.

Welcome to Local Legends! This is a new bonus podcast series focusing not on kings and queens but on people or places that are more local to listeners. Maybe a statue or building (or, indeed, a local legend) you've wanted to know more about or would fancy hearing us talk about. In this first episode, we have Graham's choice of Judge Nicholas Conyngham Tindal.Local Legends will be a reward for Special Episode tier patrons to list to and Star Chamber members to nominate and vote on but for this first episode, we're making it available to everyone. We'll be back with the consorts and Margaret of Anjou in a couple of weeks. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this week's episode, Russ, Andy, and new co-host, Rocio, talk about recent Fort Bragg road name changes. Some of the true history may surprise you. Next, in a more not so serious topic, US troops are paying a recent popular social media duo for shoutouts. Is this the next evolution in Army recruiting? Then, the three hosts talk the Army Combat Fitness Test. People are still debating on what it will look like come April. Lastly, we'll talk to a small arms repairman, Sergeant Desauliners. He'll tell you why the arms room kicks back your dirty weapon.

We discuss polling, the debt ceiling, and forced vaccines for the holiday season.  Our guests are: Matt Gaetz, Dr. Naomi Wolf, Jason Miller Stay ahead of the censors - Join us warroom.org/join Aired On: 12/09/2021 Watch: On the Web: http://www.warroom.org On Podcast: http://warroom.ctcin.bio On TV: PlutoTV Channel 240, Dish Channel 219, Roku, Apple TV, FireTV or on https://AmericasVoice.news. #news #politics #realnews

In this episode I cover:What it was like receiving fan mail from a 12 year old.My thoughts on the movie Fight Club.My thoughts on the American flag.My thoughts on the Steve Bannon situationWhat was the Star Chamber?What is Critical Race Theory? --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/searchingforpoliticaliden/support

Here we are again, folks, with another "We Review the Reviews!" This time we review the reviews of "Purity in Death!" So many BS reviews for this book! We start out with another reviewer who didn't like the book, so therefore they question whether Nora Roberts actually wrote the book. Then there's the reviewer who felt that Nora "made social commentary throughout that was either annoying or incredibly bigoted." We really wish people would give us examples of what they feel is annoying and bigoted. Next, a review that feels the book was a "techno-babble bore" and that it copied the movie "Star Chamber." Although, vigilante movies have been around since movies existed, so, "Star Chamber" didn't invent that genre. Just visit the page on Wikipedia that lists all the vigilante movies that have been made. There's a really pretentious a-hole who writes a really long review about how bad they feel Nora's "mushy, irritating" and writing is. "Purity" in their opinion, is "lame, "boring," and "tiring" with "...very poor plot line, character growth or mystery." Plus, TWO SIMILIES IN ONE SENTENCE?? HOW DARE SHE!!?? Here's some more things we learn about this book in this episode: there is a graphic sex scene in this book. Eve's tragic backstory is leaned on gratuitously in this series. Also there's this thing about a dog that's supposed to be funny but is gross. Roarke is pushy and arrogant Eve just grumped and snarled her way through the book at everyone Eve's never in her own office Eve is starting to resemble Anita from LKH's series Eve is "overly arrogant, abrasive, a bully and uncouth" Eve isn't really solving her own cases "legally," she needs to use Roarke and do it by crossing that line Obviously, since there are no guns with bullets, the right to bear arms for Americans has been taken away On the good side, some reviewers really loved this book and the series in general, not to mention Susan Ericksen and we LOVE those reviews.

I will be discussing the importance of breast cancer awareness. This is part two in a series discussing modesty culture and women's health. Breast cancer is the second biggest killer of women (second to lung cancer). Early detection and awareness are the best defense, but many young women are ignoring the steps they should take to monitor their own health. My guest today is Amanda Tamaccio, a talented, little bombshell of a lady who was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2019. In a year's time, her whole life has changed. I asked to interview her in today's episode so that listeners may hear about how important breast cancer awareness is from someone who knows better than I. Venmo to support Amanda @amandatamaccio Listen to her croon with her band Star Chamber on Spotify. (They are amazing!) @starchamberband (Insta) Check your boobies! https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/breast-exam/about/pac-20393237 --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/jennifer-guess/support

At 30 minutes before puck drop in Vancouver, the Dallas Stars had broken .500 for the first time all season. Mark Zimmerman joins Tyler Mair for a double-secret assessment of what's going on at the quarter pole of the 2019-20 season. What's up: Which stage of slumping are Jamie Benn and Tyler Seguin in right now? How did Justin Dowling get slotted between them, and then manage to be awesome? At one point out of a playoff spot, can the team keep closing in? And how will they look once they're fully healthy? Remember, we reserve the right to reset all of this next week. Discuss. 

Kevin, Matt and Travis discuss the 80's output of director Peter Hyams.