Podcasts about temporary restraining order

There's a lot on the docket today. To pull apart the Iran “deal” framework, Mary and Andrew are joined by Tess Bridgeman, an international law expert who served as a legal advisor in the Obama administration through the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. Tess lays out how President Trump's 14-point memorandum of understanding differs from what was brokered in 2015, and what to watch for as negotiations continue. Before she joins, the co-hosts begin by analyzing several examples of what Mary calls the Trump Justice Department's "consistent effort” to avoid judicial review: their refusal to put into a sworn declaration that they won't move forward with the “Anti-Weaponization” fund and a motion to dismiss a Clean Air Act violation lawsuit against Elon Musk's xAI data center in Mississippi. They also tackle a few instances where, contrastingly, the government has positioned itself “on the offense” this week, including an indictment of 15 protesters on a conspiracy charge against ICE and the DHS' intent to build a border wall through a holy landmark atop Mount Cristo Rey in New Mexico. Further reading: Here is the New York Times piece, Mary referred to about the Las Cruces case: A Diocese Tries to Protect Its 29-Foot Jesus From Trump's Border Wall Here is the Just Security tracker that Mary and Andrew mentioned: Immigration Habeas Tracker: Government Obstruction, Judicial Trust, and Accountability Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

After a week of decisions coming in from all corners, Mary and Andrew begin with a court order issued to remove President Trump's name off the Kennedy Center after a failed, last-minute attempt by the administration to stop it from happening. Mary refers to this as “good news in the fight against revisionist history,” which she ties into their second beat: a preliminary injunction issued to restore changes to National Parks that were made after Trump issued an executive order calling for modifications to monuments, parks and memorials to rewrite and censor American history and science. Then, onto a federal judge in Virginia officially blocking the $1.776 Billion slush fund after mixed messaging from the administration about whether it would be set up, plus a decision by Judge Mehta in DC to overturn the Department of Energy's cancellation of $82.1 Million in clean energy grants to “Blue” states across the country. Mary and Andrew also touch on a Massachusetts District Court decision blocking Ken Paxton's lawsuit against the Democratic fundraising platform ActBlue. And last up, they read and summarize the eyebrow-raising grand jury transcripts of the “Broadview Six” case out of Chicago, so you don't have to.  Further reading: Here is Judge Mehta's order reinstating the clean energy grants: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.296214/gov.uscourts.mad.296214.41.0.pdf   Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Decisions are happening fast — and the consequences are showing. Last week, Trump announced he would nominate Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to the top post at the Justice Department, after Blanche nixed the $1.776 “Anti-Weaponization” fund while keeping the controversial release that shields Trump and his family from any liability. Mary and Andrew highlight the myriad of issues Blanche will need to answer for when a confirmation hearing comes, before moving to the Supreme Court ruling that allows Alabama to adopt a Republican-drawn congressional map eliminating one of only two majority-Black districts in the state. This nullifies a lower court's decision that the map was, in fact, intentionally discriminatory. Next up, the co-hosts review a Rhode Island judge's ruling that invalidated several of Trump's immigration policies, including one that placed a hold on asylum claims globally, causing chaos and uncertainty for many legally trying to obtain asylum claims and green card status.And lastly, a beat on a new executive order stripping job protections from thousands of federal workers, plus continuing litigation over Trump's ballroom. Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

As judges continue to weigh in, President Trump is finding that despite his litigious efforts, he can't always get what he wants. Mary and Andrew begin this week with the latest fallout from his $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund, which is now under judicial review after a group of federal judges filed a motion arguing that the original lawsuit that prompted the fund was “itself a fraud on the court.” This prompted the news, first reported by Axios, that the Trump administration would abandon the fund altogether. Mary and Andrew tie this into another instance in which the administration is losing in the courts, with Judge Mehta's decision refusing to dismiss the indictment of Oath Keepers' leader Stewart Rhodes, among others whose sentences were commuted. They then move to a ruling ordering the removal of Trump's name from the Kennedy Center facade, a setback in his attempt to reshape the renowned preforming arts center. And after an update on the criminal case against the Southern Poverty Law Center, Andrew shares some insight into his recent New York Times op-ed which offers a path to stop vindictive prosecutions altogether. Further Reading: Here is Andrew's recent New York Times op ed: This Is How to Stop Trump's Vindictive Prosecutions Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Mary and Andrew begin this week by tackling a decision by a U.S. District Judge to dismiss criminal charges against Kilmar Ábrego García, calling the administration's case against García a vindictive prosecution for challenging his illegal deportation last year. Mary and Andrew couple this topic with a conversation about the “Broadview Six” case, involving a group of Chicago ICE protesters whose criminal case was dropped, similarly, due to misconduct by the DOJ. Then, Mary and Andrew continue a discussion from last week about Trump's $1.776 billion settlement with the IRS — specifically about an addendum to the settlement which grants Trump and "affiliated individuals" extremely broad protections from future prosecutions. They then talk about Carmen Lineberger, a former federal prosecutor indicted for sending unreleased files from the Jack Smith report to her personal email account. Plus, a conversation about a decision by a federal judge who has ordered the White House to comply with the Presidential Records Act, undermining the DOJ's ability to give the administration a legal way to destroy White House records from the second Trump term. This podcast is also available on YouTube at ms.now/mainjustice.  Further reading: HERE is the 'Broadway Six' case transcript    Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

There's a pattern to Andrew and Mary's focus this week: lies, lies and more lies. They gather in-person to tackle a host of issues and to celebrate the release of Andrew's new book, “Liar's Kingdom.” After digging into the book's thesis, they hone in on the biggest news of the week: the $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” created by the Justice Department as part of a settlement agreement which, according to the Attorney General, would provide a non-partisan “systematic process to hear and redress claims of others who suffered weaponization and lawfare.” But as Mary and Andrew note, the real goal is to compensate Trump allies who claim they were wrongfully prosecuted by the former administration. They then shift to the DOJ's lawsuit against the DC Bar to block punishments for Trump officials, including Jeffrey Clark, the former Acting Assistant Attorney General in the final months of Trump's first term. Next, the co-hosts touch on last week's oral arguments in the government's appeal of the ruling against Trump's attempt to blacklist four law firms, before moving to the ongoing litigation in Judge Boasberg's attempt to hold contempt proceedings.   This podcast is also available on YouTube at ms.now/mainjustice. Be sure to check it out: this week features video of Mary and Andrew in-person together. Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Mary and Andrew recognize it's been a doozy of a week. Starting with the continued fallout from the Supreme Court's Louisiana v. Callais decision, they focus on how much the 6-3 ruling has opened the floodgates for other states like Tennessee, South Carolina, Florida and Texas to pursue similar redistricting efforts. The Justices even allowed Alabama to move forward with re-drawing their congressional maps, despite prior determinations of intentional racial discrimination in the state. Mary and Andrew juxtapose this new landscape with last week's redistricting decision in Virginia, as Democrats submit an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court on that ruling. In addition, a Fulton County decision came in allowing the Justice Department to hold onto the 2020 ballots seized in the FBI's January raid. Plus, the co-hosts unpack the latest from Trump's retribution efforts as James Comey's criminal trial date is set. But in an uplifting end to a rough week, the pair highlight Senator Mark Kelly's argument before the DC Circuit in his case against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over his participation in a video reminding military members of their duty not to obey unlawful orders. This podcast is also available on YouTube at ms.now/mainjustice. Further reading: Here is the Just Security piece on Senator Mark Kelly's case: Lessons from the Pentagon's Empty Case Against Mark Kelly    Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Mary and Andrew begin this week by highlighting another questionable indictment of former FBI Director James Comey over a photo of seashells that he posted on Instagram. The indictment alleges that a “reasonable person” would interpret that the shells in the picture, arranged to spell out “86 47,” represent “a serious expression of an intent to do harm to the President of the United States.” Then, a win for Director Comey's daughter Maurene, after a federal judge cleared the path for her wrongful termination suit against the Trump administration to proceed. Next, Mary and Andrew analyze the latest filings by the Southern Poverty Law Center and why whistleblowers are flagging their concern that the recent indictment was rushed. And before wrapping up, they break down the Supreme Court's consequential ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, which effectively hollows out the last remnants of the Voting Rights Act by striking down a redistricting effort that was aiming to ensure an equal opportunity for representation in the state. This podcast is also available on YouTube at ms.now/mainjustice. Further reading: Here is the SCOTUS 6-3 decision: Louisiana v. Callais Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This week, Mary and Andrew follow the money from Alabama to New York to Southern Florida. They start with an 11-count indictment against the Southern Poverty Law Center alleging financial crimes and defrauding donors — the DOJ suggesting that the center's goal was to give funding to extremist groups rather than to report on them. The co-hosts find the charges dubious at best, with a speaking indictment that seems “weak” and lacks specifics. From there, they analyze another set of charges out of the SDNY against an Army soldier who won over $400,000 in online bets using his classified knowledge of the US capture of Nicolas Maduro. After reviewing the merits of that case, they head to Miami, where President Trump's civil suit against the IRS was put on pause to discern how to handle him being on both sides of the case. As Mary notes, the judge is asking Trump to essentially “show me we really have adverse parties here.”Then to DC, for a look at the charges filed against the alleged gunman in the White House Correspondents' Dinner shooting, and how the administration quickly used that as another reason to build the White House ballroom in an unusual court filing. And last up, Andrew and Mary review the DC Circuit's decision on Trump's asylum ban. This podcast is also available on YouTube at ms.now/mainjustice. Further reading: Here is Andrew's piece on the SPLC indictment: The Poverty of the DOJ Indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Mary and Andrew begin this week by welcoming former Assistant US Attorney Sunita Doddamani. A 20-year civil servant with an impeccable record of service, Sunita is one of the prosecutors who was recently fired as part of the DOJ's report about the prior administration's so-called “bias” against abortion protesters and religious rights in FACE Act cases. She talks openly about the "Article II" termination letter she received from Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, with no warning and like many others, seemingly just for doing her job by taking the cases assigned to her. From there, Andrew and Mary look at the administration's moves to vacate the convictions of four Proud Boys who were convicted of multiple felonies related to the attack on January 6th. Then, on to a significant decision from Judge Mehta in a long-running civil lawsuit brought against Trump, finding that the president's January 6th speech was political rather than official in nature, which would rule out immunity for official acts. And before they wrap up, the co-hosts take up the latest ruling on Judge Boasberg's contempt inquiry into whether government officials violated his court orders around those deportation flights in March of 2025. This podcast is also available on YouTube at ms.now/mainjustice. Further reading: Here is the Just Security piece on the FACE Act report: Separating Fact from Fiction in FACE Act Enforcement Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In the wake of Viktor Orbán's election loss in Hungary—an autocratic leader backed by both Vladamir Putin and Donald Trump—Mary and Andrew call on an expert to give context to Peter Magyar's surprising win: Princeton Professor Kim Lane Scheppele. Kim sheds some light on what led to this moment in Hungary, what it means for Hungarians and the EU moving forward, and what lessons the US can apply here at home. From there, the co-hosts move to a concerning opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel declaring the Presidential Records Act unconstitutional on its face, suggesting that Trump would no longer have to comply with the federal law. Mary and Andrew align on the significance of preserving these archives, before heading to what amounts to, in Mary's words: “a bunch of garbage”out of the DOJ. On the list: Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche's “I love you, Sir” press conference, the firing of immigration judges for ruling in high-profile cases in a way that was unfavorable to the President, and the DOJ's investigation into Cassidy Hutchinson, a former White House aide, about whether she lied to Congress around the events of January 6th. This podcast is also available on YouTube at ms.now/mainjustice. Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Episode 285-Nappen Law Firm Does Hat Trick Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 10 Gun Lawyer — Episode 285 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Appellate Division, firearm licensing, Bergen County, mental health, due process, public health, safety, welfare, falsification, character and temperament, court reversal, pro se, legal representation, gun rights, grassroots advocacy. SPEAKERS Speaker 3, Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen Evan Nappen 00:16 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:19 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:21 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. Well, I’m very proud to report that my firm, particularly my brother Louis, who does our appellate work, has won yet another Appellate Division appeal out of Bergen County. Now, this is the Appellate Court reviewing the trial court in Bergen County, handling firearm licensing. And this is another win that really makes some excellent legal points here that are very significant and also points out what is been going on in that county. I want to get into this case and explain the significance and how it works here in New Jersey. Evan Nappen 01:23 So, this case just came, just got posted online by the Appellate Division and is entitled “In The Matter Of The Appeal Of The Denial Of J.L.B.’s Application For A Firearms Purchaser Identification Card And Permit To Purchase A Handgun”. (https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2026/a0464-24.pdf) So, J.L.B. appealed from an Order denying his appeal from the New Milford Police Department who denied his application for an FPIC and a PPH, a Firearm Purchaser ID Card and Permit to Purchase a Handgun. Now, on this application, J.L.B. answered “no” to the question, Have you ever been attended, treated or observed by any doctor, psychiatrist in the hospital or mental institution on an inpatient or outpatient basis for any mental or physical or psychiatric condition? In denying the application, the New Milford PD cited solely a suicidal comment made by J.L.B.’s daughter several years prior, and their inability to obtain records from the Division of Child Protection Services, the DCPP. Milford PD concluded the issuance of the permits to our client would not be in the interest of “public health, safety, or welfare”, the all inclusive miscellaneous weasel clause. Evan Nappen 03:07 J.B.L., our client, filed an appeal to the law division, which is the Superior Court in Bergen. And he did this pro se. He did that by himself. The Court denied his appeal, and the court found him disqualified, Page – 2 – of 10 pursuant to (N.J.S.) 2C:58-3(c), for knowingly falsifying information on the application pursuant to 2C:58-3(c)(5). and for lacking character and temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm. The Appellate Court, upon careful review, reversed and remanded for a hearing before a different trial judge because they found there is no evidence in the record demonstrating that J.L.B. knowingly falsified information on his application. Further, that J.L.B. was not given notice of the 3(c)(5) disqualifier until after he had already presented his closing argument, in violation of his rights to due process. Evan Nappen 04:18 Additionally, the trial court failed to address whether the alleged falsification was made knowingly, as required by the statute. Very important, folks. Furthermore, with respect to N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5), the Court’s reasoning provided no meaningful explanation as to why the issuance of an FPIC to J.L.B. would be contrary to public health, safety, or welfare. So, one GOFU right out of the box is don’t go Pro Se to Bergen County on an appealable license. Anytime you’re dealing with the courts, you want to have an attorney. Okay? That’s number one. Now, even though he got denied, fortunately, he hired us to do the appeal. And in doing this appeal, the Appellate Court has reversed his denial, sent it back to the court, and required that it be heard by a different judge. Evan Nappen 05:21 Let’s take a look at some of the facts here in this case. It’s very interesting, particularly how the court decided it, because it can have impact on other cases. So, the Court gathered the following facts from the trial court’s hearing. J.L.B. is a certified public accountant with no criminal history. He has primary custody of his seven children, who range from six to 16. In April of 2020, his daughter, who was nine years old, sent a text message to her teacher, saying, “I want to die” and “I spent four days with dad, and four days with my mom, and I keep switching until everything is settled. But I can’t sleep without knowing if mommy is okay and safe.” The message led to the daughter receiving several months of therapy. The DCPP was involved in the family’s life on three different occasions, each time, deeming the allegations “Not Established”. Evan Nappen 06:19 J.L.B.’s ex-wife testified on behalf of the State, describing alleged incidents of verbal and physical abuse by J.L.B. against her and her two children, as well as her struggles with alcoholism, for which she completed inpatient rehabilitation. The wife never testified or obtained a, never filed or obtained a Temporary Restraining Order against J.L.B. The court found her testimony not completely credible and characterized it as totally based on hearsay. J.L.B.’s sister testified as a character witness, describing his demeanor and relationship with his family, expressing no concerns about him owning a firearm. Dr. Richard Cyriacks, a family friend, similarly, testified that he had no concerns about J.L.B. responsibly handling a firearm. J.L.B. testified he had purchased a biometric firearm safe in which he intended to store the firearm if his permits were granted. J.L.B. testified he had seen a psychologist, a Doctor Lenzi, from 2018 to 2022 for marital issues, but he denied ever being diagnosed with a mental health condition or receiving psychiatric treatment or medication. Briefly, at around age 19, he had also seen a therapist following the death of his father. Page – 3 – of 10 Evan Nappen 07:42 Following this testimony, the State moved to compel the release of his mental health records from Dr. Lenzi, which the Court granted. So, keep in mind, folks, if you think you have medical privacy in New Jersey, you don’t! Okay? The Court ordered the records to come in. The Court admitted J.L.B.’s counseling records and a letter from Lenzi into evidence, from the doctor. In her letter, the doctor noted that she first saw him in 2017 for “marital difficulties”. “He presented as concerned about his marriage and stressed but positive and high functioning.” He reconnected for individual therapy in 2020 because of his wife taking the children to Connecticut, causing him distress. He was seen on an as-needed basis. The doctor reported his symptoms were within normal limits of chronic stressors and the family crisis he worked through during the treatment with him. She further reported that she observed no unstable mental health issues, and his treatment focused on implementing stress management strategies, communication, awareness, improvement and relationship building with the children, decreasing internal anxiety and meeting his challenges in an aware and grounded manner as to the records themselves. Lenzi wrote that he had symptoms of anxiety and depression related to marital difficulties, and in 2020 a progress noted that he presented with anxiety and depression and expressed that he was devastated by what he was going through. In 2024, the Court denied J.L.B.’s appeal, finding he was disqualified, pursuant to 2C:58-3(c)(3) for knowingly falsifying information regarding previous mental health treatment, and pursuant to 2C:58-3(c)(5) for lacking the character and temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm. This appeal is what followed. Evan Nappen 09:47 The court, the Appellate Court, says N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3 governs the issuance of FPICs and PPHs which it does. A person may not receive an FPIC or PPH, if they are, “known in the community in which the person lives as someone who has engaged in acts or made statements suggesting the person is likely to engage in conduct, other than justified self-defense, that would pose a danger to self or others.” Or if you’re subject to any of the other disqualifications under 58-3. Pursuant to that law, no FPIC or PPH shall be issued to any person who, and this is underlined in the opinion, knowingly falsifies any information on the application form for a handgun purchase permit or firearm purchaser ID card. Invoking FPIC/PPH disqualification when any falsification is tendered is consistent with the application’s underlying function, which is to provide information to facilitate the police chief’s background investigation. Further an FPIC application that includes, again underlined, a knowing falsehood is disqualified at the moment it is filed and cannot be rehabilitated by an admission made later. Evan Nappen 11:12 The Court then noted initially that J.B.L. did not receive notice of the 2C:58-3 issue, the falsification issue. I mean, the other issue until the State raised it at closing, which was delivered to J.B.L. after he’d already presented his closing statement. And the Court here says, “To comport with due process, a judicial hearing requires notice defining the issues and an adequate opportunity to prepare and respond.” N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(3) was not cited as a basis for disqualification in the New Milford PD’s letter denial letter. It was not cited sorry. As a basis for disqualification, nor was it discussed as a potential ground for denying his appeal until both parties had presented their evidence at the hearing. J.L.B. was therefore denied the opportunity to defend himself on this ground until the hearing was all but completed. Page – 4 – of 10 Evan Nappen 12:20 Moreover, and this is important, the trial court failed to address whether JBL knowingly falsified his response. Now we’ve experienced, folks, in our practice that there are times, many times, as a matter of fact, this trifecta of a win here that we’ve had. Where the court will make any statement that they deem to be a false statement, not even over the application, to be a basis for denial. And here the court is making it clear it takes a knowingly falsified response, and it has to be based on what’s in the application. At the close of the hearings, after both parties have presented their arguments, the court pressed, pressed J.L.B. as to his understanding of the nature of his mental health treatment, his course of therapy with his doctor, and interpretation of the question on the FPIC application regarding mental or psychiatric treatment. Evan Nappen 13:19 Footnote three, and, folks, listen to what footnote three says. This is what happened in that court. Footnote three by the Appellate Court. “We note this line of questioning by the court was improper, as were other lines of questioning throughout the hearings. When presiding over a bench trial, the court may examine witnesses ‘to clarify testimony, aid the court’s understanding, elicit material facts, and assure the efficient conduct of the trial.'” “In this case, the trial court extensively cross-examined J.L.B. on multiple occasions and, in doing so, crossed ‘that fine line that separates advocacy from impartiality’ and substantially prejudiced J.L.B.’s right to a fair hearing.” And I can tell you, folks, that there are plenty of others that have experienced that in Bergen County, the court goes on in the opinion. Teddy Nappen 14:42 If I recall, isn’t Bergen, pretty much the only county where they ever go after people for falsification? Evan Nappen 14:48 No, they’re not the only county, but they are the lion’s den of problems. And this is really great, that this case is shining the light on what went on in this case. And this is now critical, so let me just go on. J.L.B. explained that he had answered “no” because he had been treated by a psychologist who held a PhD, not a psychiatrist or physician. He further stated he never received a clinical diagnosis of any mental health condition, including depression or anxiety. He was never treated with any psychiatric medication. He noted he had not seen the progress notes until they were released during the hearing, and he had begun to address why he would not know what a doctor puts in her notes before being abruptly cut off by the court. Get a load of that, folks. The trial court did not address these contentions. Instead, it relied on the doctor’s progress notes, unknown to J.L.B. at the time he filled out his application, to erroneously conclude J.L.B. suffered from anxiety and depression and he had falsely answered the questionnaire. Whether J.L.B.’s response was false, however, is a question the record before us does not resolve for the following reasons: J.L.B. was not afforded an adequate opportunity to defend himself, given the lack of notice, the record contains no clinical diagnosis of mental health conditions, nor evidence of any mental health treatment, and the doctor did not testify at the hearings. Evan Nappen 16:35 Importantly, the court’s analysis entirely ignores the statutory requirement the falsification be made knowingly. Even if J.L.B.’s response was false, he had no reason to know the contents of the doctor’s notes when he completed the application. These records were not produced until the hearings on his Page – 5 – of 10 appeal, long after the application was submitted. A finding of knowing falsification cannot rest solely on the contents of records J.L.B. had never seen. Additionally, the court also denied the appeal pursuant to 2C:58-3(c)(5), finding that no FPIC or PPH shall be issued “to any person where the issuance would not be in the interest of public health, safety or welfare. “This is the “broadest” of disqualifications for obtaining an FPIC or PPH. “In re Application of Carlstrom”, by the way, is citing another Nappen case. The provision is intended to relate to cases of individual unfitness, even though not dealt with in specific statutory enumerations, the issuance of a permit or identification guard would nonetheless be contrary to public interest. Evan Nappen 17:58 The court’s reasoning in determining J.L.B. was disqualified pursuant to is as follows, and this is from the court hearing. This is the Appellate Court quoting this quote from the hearing in the Bergen County Court. This is the judge’s finding in that hearing. I also find that he’s disqualified pursuant to 58-3(c)(5), to any person where the issuance would not be in the interest of public health, safety, or welfare, because the person was found to be lacking the essential character of temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm. And that’s really due to Mr. (J.L.B.)’s testimony. Particularly his testimony before the court here today, where he minimizes his course of treatment with Dr. Lenzi, and tries to divert attention away from Dr. Lenzi’s Progress Notes, in a very long letter, which states that Mr. (J.L.B.)’s treatment, while focusing on decreasing his anxiety, and the fact that he presented with depression and anxiety, both at Intake and at various times throughout the course of his treatment. The public health, safety, and welfare doesn’t just include the public outside of (J.L.B.) household. It also includes Mr. (J.L.B.) and his children. So, that’s the court’s decision. I do find that the state has met its’ burden by preponderance of the evidence.” Evan Nappen 19:13 Then the Appellate Court says, in response to that, “This reasoning is misplaced. J.L.B.’s discussion of Dr. Lenzi’s progress notes was not an attempt to minimize his treatment or divert the court’s attention, but rather an effort to explain why those notes did not render his answer on the application knowingly false. A self-represented applicant’s attempt to contextualize his counseling records cannot support a finding of unfitness within the meaning of 2C:58-3(c)(5). Indeed, we recently rejected the notion that an applicant’s credibility or dishonesty can serve as a sole basis for disqualification pursuant to 2C:58-3(c)(5). What case are they citing? “See In the Matter of the Appeal of the Denial of Mikhail Polatov’s Application for a Firearms Purchaser ID Card.” Another Nappen win case. They’re using it to win here for our client, in which they say. Teddy Nappen 20:20 Polatov Cocktail. Evan Nappen 20:21 That’s right. That was our last show. It was on that case. Finding no correlation between the applicant’s lack of credibility and the absence of essential character or temperament that would make him more likely than not to be a danger to public health, safety, or welfare if he had a firearm. The court’s reason provides no meaningful explanation for how the record supports a finding that the issuance of a permit would be contrary to public health, safety or welfare. See Weston v. State. In the final analysis for a Page – 6 – of 10 court to sustain an administrative decision, which affects the substantial rights of a party, there must be a residuum of legal and competent evidence in the record to support it. Because the foregoing is dispositive, they declined to address the remaining arguments we made. They reverse and remand the matter for a new hearing before a different judge. This case is a great win, and we’re very proud of it. We’re very glad to have helped our client here, and it is a trifecta of three wins coming out of what goes on in Bergen County, my friends. So, beware. Learn from this and make sure you have good counsel when fighting for your gun rights. Evan Nappen 21:45 Let me tell you about our good friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is a great range in Lakewood, New Jersey. It’s the range where Teddy and I both shoot. It’s where we got our certifications and where we love to shoot. Great range, great pro shop. They’ve got fantastic firearms equipment and great training. Get your CCARE there, your certificate, so you can get your carry. Whether you’re beginner or an advanced shooter, WeShoot is a place for you. WeShoot is just wonderful. All I get is fantastic feedback from everybody that goes there. They treat everyone like family. You will love it. WeShoot is conveniently located in Lakewood, New Jersey, right off the Parkway. Easy to get to, right there in Central Jersey. It is a great resource. We need our ranges, folks. Without our ranges, you don’t have a place to shoot, and this is a great resource that you can take advantage of. Pay a visit to WeShoot. Check out their website at weshootusa.com, weshootusa.com. You will also really enjoy their website. They have the WeShoot girls. They have fantastic top of the line professional photography, and you can learn all about this wonderful experience that awaits you at our favorite range, which is WeShoot in Lakewood, New Jersey. Evan Nappen 22:31 And let me also remind you that you need to get a copy of my book, New Jersey Gun Law. It is the Bible of New Jersey gun law. It is 120 topics, all answered by question and answer in a 500 page book. That book is so big it is a weapon itself. So, get your copy today by going to EvanNappen.com, EvanNappen.com. You will help protect yourself from becoming a GOFU. You don’t want to do that. You need to know the insanity that is New Jersey gun laws. And that’s why I wrote that book, to make it as user friendly as possible for you to know. Hey, Teddy. What do you have for us today in Press Checks? Teddy Nappen 24:07 Well, as you know, Press Checks are always free, and one of the things that is always important is to keep tabs on our opponents, the gun rights suppressionists. I was perusing through EveryTown, and they put out their press release, patting themselves on the back. Everytown Gun Safety Action Fund Announces the Endorsements of Moms Demand Action volunteers for running in the offices of North Carolina and Texas. (https://www.everytown.org/press/everytown-for-gun-safety-endorses-first-round-of-moms-demand-action-volunteersrunning-for-office-in-2026/) And they were, you know, it’s various people seems that are running in these districts because they’re trying to attack there. You notice that they’re trying to hit like North Carolina and Texas, specifically in those areas, because they’re trying to counteract a lot of the fights going on in all the other states. Page – 7 – of 10 Teddy Nappen 24:56 We all know the Democrats, their polling is lower than Trump’s and the entire Republican Party. They’re at the lowest point. You can cut to Harry Enten on CNN, who is just the golden retriever of CNN, freaking out at the numbers every time. But what I love, what actually caught my eye was what was highlighted. They were talking about the Everytown Victory Fund. Back in 2021 they launched a program known as Demand a Seat, an educational program that trains, quote, unquote, grassroots volunteers and gun violence survivors to take next steps in their advocacy efforts by running them for offices and working on campaigns. They highlight 1200 volunteers across 47 states. Operating and trying to claim and move into these positions. Teddy Nappen 25:55 So, stop right there. Here are the sycophants, individuals that are politically driven in removing and taking away our rights and trying to run in small localities. This is the game they play. This is how they chip away at our rights, and this is where they’re targeting elections. And you know their endowment of money, funding by Bloomberg of his actions. Where does this pan out? To see the results, cut to Virginia. If anyone’s been paying attention on that end, the insanity of gun laws that were rolled out by, was it Shinebomb? Of all the insanity that they were trying to pump out through the legislation, that giant omnibus. Remember, they ran a moderate campaign and then what? Evan Nappen 26:47 Well, this is what they do. They make believe they’re moderates, when in fact, they’re extremists. They’re a wolf in sheep’s clothing when it comes to our rights. Teddy Nappen 26:57 Correct. And right here, they’re even bragging about it right on there. DemandASeat.org. On their whole website, 13 Moms Demand Action volunteers elected into the Virginia House. Evan Nappen 27:10 Get a load of that. They got 13 fanatical anti-gunners into the legislature. And why aren’t we running a counter program to get pro Second Amendment rights’ candidates from the grassroots to run? Where’s our candidates? Teddy Nappen 27:34 Here they’re out spending NRA’s 31,000 in the Virginia elections. So, it’s very much we need people. If anyone is out there who has time and ability to run locally, it could be anything on that in the positions. Evan Nappen 27:51 Yeah, anything. Teddy Nappen 27:52 You can be anything. Evan Nappen 27:53 Yes, I agree. Get active. Page – 8 – of 10 Teddy Nappen 27:57 Yeah, what ever it can be in the positions, because I’ll highlight, right now. Evan Nappen 28:02 Well, it’s the old, it’s the old thing. All politics are local, right? So this is critical. Teddy Nappen 28:09 I’ll highlight to you right here from the New Jersey Globe. This is back in 2023. National gun control group, Everytown for Gun Safety endorses five New Jersey municipal races and candidates from their grassroots organizations. (https://newjerseyglobe.com/gun-control/everytown-endorses-five-candidates-for-local-office-in-n-j/) Here we go again. So, they’ve been running this program since 2021. You can go on the website. They’re bragging about it right here. It’s the DemandASeat.org. And they train them up on the lingo that they’re pushing, the language that they need to put in bills. Whatever program they can and will activate in locals, they will do so. Any ordinance they can get away with, they will do so. That’s how you get the air gage knife out of California. They don’t care. It’s whatever. Evan Nappen 28:54 One thing. You’ve got to give the antis credit. Because they’re always conniving some other strategy to try to screw us out of our rights. They are good at it. I give them credit for that. Where’s our counterforce to this? Where is it? Teddy Nappen 29:09 Well, it comes down to this. To all gun owners, who it was. Well, I forget the percentage number that vote. And look, you have to understand this is how they get us. Because I see the U.K. I see California. That is their goal. We talked about in the last episode. If they ever get in power, if they ever find the means to do so, they will take away our rights. They will take away our ability to possess firearms. They will take away our rights to defend themselves. They have already done so in all these other places, and they continue to push for it. They will continue to push otherwise. So, you see, right now, people need to be active locally. This is where they get started every time. Evan Nappen 29:53 It’s critical, and it’s very important. Hey, Teddy, I want to tell you about this week’s GOFU, and it’s a really important one. It is a GOFU that became an epiphany to me. And I want to tell you about this. Because, you know, our GOFU is, of course, the Gun Owner Fuck Up, and it’s important to talk about these things. These are mistakes from actual cases that people make, and it can be very costly to them. Cost them their freedom, their fortune, their family, their careers, everything, and you, the listener, get to learn it for free. Well, I’ve got to tell you, folks. I just recently came across a case that has really shocked me about how this is a GOFU, and I want to tell you why. Because it has to do with the “Duty to Retreat”. Now in terms of self-defense, when it comes to the legal framework of self-defense, which falls under the heading of “justification for use of force”, justification. It’s an affirmative defense. And we talk about justification for the use of force. We can talk about non-deadly force. We can talk about deadly force. Then the law lays out when you can and can’t use force. Page – 9 – of 10 Evan Nappen 31:13 I’m not going to spend a whole, you know, three hours here explain to you the law of deadly force and force. But as all of you should be aware, New Jersey, like many other states, has provisions that even though they can allow and permit the justification for the use of deadly force and/or force, there is built into the law a check that has to be in place called “Duty to Retreat”. So, the Duty to Retreat is put into our self-defense law so that you might be justified in using, let’s say, deadly force. You might be justified in doing it, but the law says that if you can retreat with complete safety, then you’re required to do that. That’s called the Duty to Retreat. Evan Nappen 32:10 Now, what I’ve always thought about this, I’ve always realized that, look, what type of self-defense scenario would you be in where you know you’re in a life and death situation, or something where you feel you need to use force, deadly force, and, or, you know, even non-deadly force, but you’re in this position where you need to use force and you somehow can retreat “with complete safety”. Like, how do you have complete safety? And I always thought, you know, short of “Beam me up, Scotty”, how are you going to have complete safety in any scenario like that? I’ve never encountered a hypothetical until now, where it’s no longer a hypothetical of where Duty to Retreat might actually be applicable. Evan Nappen 33:06 And here’s the scenario, folks. Here’s where it’s a GOFU that you better be aware of when it comes to Duty to Retreat. You’re in a situation. This is based on actual case that I know of. You’re in a situation where you are encountering a threat, a threat to your life, a threat even to possibly others. And you’re, let’s say, outside of your home, encountering such a threat. And then in that encounter of the threat, you retreat into your home. Shut the door. The threat is outside. You’re inside. You arm yourself inside, perfectly lawful at that stage. What should you do? You should call the police. That’s what you do. You call the police. You’re in your home. You’ve gotten away from the threat. Evan Nappen 34:12 Where’s the GOFU? Well, in this case, leaving your home to re-engage the threat. No, no, no. You just retreated with complete safety. You now could even call the police. You now have armed yourself to protect yourself in your home. You go back out there to re-engage a threat. That’s a problem, folks. Potentially a big problem. Potentially an argument that could raise your failure to abide by Duty to Retreat. It’s a possibility, and it’s a strong possibility. So, what’s the GOFU? Once you’ve gotten away from the threat, stay away from the threat! That’s the takeaway. You got away from the threat. Stay away from the threat. Call the police. Do not take it into your own hands. Do not re-engage. You’ve escaped the threat. Leave it at that. That’s the important thing. To do otherwise may, in fact, be a giant GOFU. Evan Nappen 35:32 This is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Page – 10 – of 10 Speaker 3 35:43 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York. New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E285_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

There's a lot to unpack this week, not least of which being the President's open suggestion of committing war crimes against Iran. Mary and Andrew begin by underscoring the Geneva Conventions stipulation limiting the use of force in wartime to military targets – not civilian ones. Then, a major shakeup at the Department of Justice: Attorney General Pam Bondi is out. Andrew compares her ouster to Trump's firing of Jeff Sessions in his first term, and how the “sycophantic” nature of her allegiance to Trump did not save her job. Next, they turn to last week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court over birthright citizenship. Mary, who is steeped in the case, came away thinking that “the solicitor general has a much greater hill to climb” to convince a majority of Justices to uphold Trump's executive order at issue. Last up, the co-hosts look at another of Trump's EO's being challenged that would restrict mail-in voting, despite defending his own use of voting by mail in Florida's Special Election in late March. This podcast is also available on YouTube at ms.now/mainjustice. Further reading: This is the Just Security piece Andrew referred to: When War Crimes Rhetoric Becomes Battlefield Reality: The Slippery Slope to Total War on Iran Here is Mary's MS NOW piece: The embarrassing lesson of Pam Bondi's confirmation hearing. Here is Trump's EO on mail in voting that was immediately challenged: ENSURING CITIZENSHIP VERIFICATION AND INTEGRITY IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

While much of the news is rightfully focused on the ongoing war with Iran, Mary and Andrew pull the threads on some consequential legal news that's not getting as much attention. They start with the Justice Department's settlement with Michael Flynn, paying out $1.25 million over his claim that he was wrongly prosecuted for making false statements to federal agents. And as Mary points out in her recent MS NOW op-ed, this settlement could set a dangerous precedent, by encouraging others “to seek similar windfalls” that support Trump's efforts to rewrite history. Next, they unpack a case brought by Minnesota against the DOJ and DHS for blocking state investigators from accessing evidence in the Renee Good, Alex Pretti, and Julio Sosa-Celis shootings. And last up, the co-hosts break down a disastrous error the Justice Department admitted to this week, using an incorrect written policy to defend actions resulting in a number of arrests at immigration courthouses, as people voluntarily appeared for their immigration proceedings. You can also find us on YouTube at ms.now/mainjustice. Further reading: Here is Mary's MS NOW write up on Michael Flynn: Trump's settlement to Michael Flynn could set a dangerous precedent.  Here is the Anthropic decision:  Anthropic PBC v. U.S. Department of War HERE is the ICE memorandum the government relied on to allow immigration arrests near courthouses. And HERE is the letter from the SDNY to Judge Kevin Castel noting their error. Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

For the rest of the court filings in this adversary proceeding, which is within the BlockFills bankruptcy pending in Delaware, see: https://veritaglobal.net/blockfills/document/list/6505

Amid an unrelenting news cycle, one story really hit hard for both Mary and Andrew this week: the passing of former FBI Director Robert Mueller. Both hosts worked with him: Mary in the DC US Attorney's Office; Andrew as FBI Special Counsel, General Counsel, and ultimately, as a top prosecutor in Mueller's 2016 Special Counsel investigation into Russian election interference. They reflect on Mueller's life and legacy being one dedicated topublic service, which, in Andrew's accounting, “wasn't just a calling, it was a privilege.” Next, they move to a win for journalism and freedom of the press: Judge Paul Friedman's decision in the case brought by the New York Times against the Pentagon regarding press access. And lastly, Mary and Andrew reviewMonday's Supreme Court oral arguments in a case centered on whether mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day should be counted. The co-hosts read the tea leaves on the merits the justices seem to be eyeing and what it could mean for midterm voting this fall. And, a big thank you to listeners as Main Justice celebrates it's 3-year anniversary. Starting today, you can also find us on YouTube at ms.now/mainjustice. Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Last week, Judge James Boasberg checked in the Justice Department by quashing two subpoenas against Federal Reserve Board Chair Jerome Powell, intended to pressure him into "voting for lower interest rates or resigning.” Finding “essentially zero evidence” of criminal behavior, Mary and Andrew explain how these subpoenas were issued as retribution and retaliation against Powell, as Boasberg cited over 100 statements that the president and his deputies made attacking him. Next, the co-hosts dig into the disciplinary proceedings against President Trump's pardon attorney Ed Martin, who, while serving as DC's interim U.S. Attorney, pressured Georgetown Law School to change its curriculum. Last on the agenda, Mary and Andrew highlight the case that AI firm Anthropic filed against the Defense Department over being essentially blacklisted. The case is centered around the Pentagon labeling the AI firm a “supply chain risk” after they asked the Pentagon not to use their “Claude” AI technology to do two things: “deploy lethal autonomous warfare without human oversight” and use it for “mass surveillance of Americans.” Further reading:  Here is the complaint Anthropic filed against the government: Complaint For Declaratory And Injunctive Relief Here once again is the Federal Register if you'd like to enter public comment: Review of State Bar Complaints and Allegations Against Department of Justice Attorneys Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Today's episode begins with a breakdown of the Justice Department's about-face on four cases brought after Trump targeted several law firms through executive action. As Mary and Andrew discussed last week – they initially dropped their appeal of the decisions against sanctioning these firms, only to reverse course the next day, topped off with a new court filing Friday appealing the rulings. Next, the co-hosts review a pair of decisions: one out of Minnesota's district court concerning the state's immigration surge, which determined the stopping and subsequent arrests of the case's plaintiffs was a result of racial profiling. The second decision comes from U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, who ruled Kari Lake's oversight of Voice of America unlawful and illegitimate. Last up, Mary and Andrew detail Attorney General Pam's Bondi's proposed rule that would put any state complaint against a justice department lawyer on hold while the DOJ reviews it, essentially giving the department the power to hold these indefinitely if they so choose. Further reading: Here is Mary's recent piece on MS Now detailing the DOJ's shift on appealing several law firm decisions: What's exposed by the Justice Department's reversal on Trump's campaign against law firms. Every lawyer knows that the federal court rulings were correct and that the president's executive orders are legally indefensible. Here is the Federal Resister: Review of State Bar Complaints and Allegations Against Department of Justice Attorneys Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Why did Marc Diller, the attorney representing the O'Keefe family in their wrongful death lawsuit against Karen Read apologize to Karen Read at the most recent hearing? Why is Diller making mistakes so early in the civil case? Let's talk about it!Show Notes:Boston 25 "WATCH LIVE: Karen Read appears in court for hearing in wrongful death civil case. " - https://www.youtube.com/live/JKpbSV1GcE0?si=VAHl2nNTQATaaf2qO'Keefe V. Read "Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order..." - https://mega.nz/file/xcEmQQDZ#zsW126nBCKi_-Ug5ocuMG5aVthP0Ba2If1jqg__bkF8Show Sponsor - Shelley Levisay "Love Isn't Always the Answer" - https://a.co/d/6KtEaC3Get access to exclusive content & support the podcast by a Patron today! https://patreon.com/robertaglasstruecrimereportThrow a tip in the tip jar! https://buymeacoffee.com/robertaglassSupport Roberta by sending a donation via Venmo. https://venmo.com/robertaglass Become a chanel member for custom Emojis, first looks and exclusive streams here: https://youtube.com/@robertaglass/joinThank you Patrons!Beth, Shelley Safford, Carol Mumumeci, Therese Tunks, JC, Lizzy D, Elizabeth Drake, Texas Mimi, Barb, Deborah Shults, Ratliff, Stephanie Lamberson, Maryellen Sudol, Mona, Karen Pacini, Jen Buell, Marie Horton, ER, Rosie Grace, B. Rabbit, Sally Merrick, Amanda D, Mary B, Mrs Jones, Amy Gill, Eileen, Wesley Loves Octoberfest, Erin (Kitties1993), Anna Quint, Cici Guteriez, Sandra Loves GatsbyHannna, Christy, Jen Buell, Elle Solari, Carol Cardella, Jennifer Harmon, DoxieMama65, Carol Holderman, Joan Mahon, Marcie Denton, Rosanne Aponte, Johnny Jay, Jude Barnes, JenTheRN, Victoria Devenish, Jeri Falk, Kimberly Lovelace, Penni Miller, Jil, Janet Gardner, Jayne Wallace (JaynesWhirled), Pat Brooks, Jennifer Klearman, Judy Brown, Linda Lazzaro, Suzanne Kniffin, Susan Hicks, Jeff Meadors, D Samlam, Pat Brooks, Cythnia, Bonnie Schoeneman-Dilley, Diane Larsen, Mary, Kimberly Philipson, Cat Stewart, Cindy Pochesci, Kevin Crecy, Renee Chavez, Melba Pourteau, Julie K Thomas, Mia Wallace, Stark Stuff, Kayce Taylor, Alice, Dean, GiGi5, Jennifer Crum, Dana Natale, Bewildered Beauty, Pepper, Joan Chakonas, Blythe, Pat Dell, Lorraine Reid, T.B., Melissa, Victoria Gray Bross, Toni Woodland, Danbrit, Kenny Haines and Toni Natalie.

Initial shock has given way to grave concerns as the US and Israel's joint attack on Iran continue, stepping both countries into a war without a clear goal, end date or exit strategy. To help explain where congressional powers lie and the limits of executive authority, Mary and Andrew call upon Tess Bridgeman, international law expert and Co-Editor-in-Chief of "Just Security”. Tess stakes out the scope of the 1973 War Powers Resolution, and why Congress is meant to be the body that decides if, and when the US commits to armed conflict with another nation state. Then, Mary and Andrew turn focus to a few immigration updates, as more judges chastise the government for continually violating court orders, and a Columbia student is detained by ICE under false pretenses. Last up, the co-hosts turn to the decision in the case involving whether a journalist's devices seized while executing a search warrant could be searched. Plus: the Trump administration's decision to stand down on defending Trump's sanctions against law firms— only to do a seeming about face the next day. Further reading: Here is the piece Tess Bridgeman co-wrote on "Just Security": Top Questions the Trump Administration Needs to Answer on War with Iran Here is the opinion Andrew and Mary were referring to out of the Southern District of West Virginia You can pre-order Andrew's book, out May 19th, here: Liar's Kingdom: How to Stop Trump's Deceit and Save America Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Last week, the Supreme Court struck down President Trump's expansive tariffs, ruling that they exceeded the authority given to him by Congress. The 6-3 decision saw conservative Justices Gorsuch, Coney Barrett, and Chief Justice Roberts align with the court's three liberal justices, though as Mary and Andrew explain, through different pathways: the conservative justices using the “major questions doctrine” as their guiding principle, while the liberal justices arrived at the same result through statutory interpretation and good ‘ole “common sense.” The co-hosts spend most of this episode walking through key parts of the ruling, noting Justice Gorsuch's opinion that the legislative process ought to reflect the will of elected representatives, “not just that of one faction or man.” Then, Mary and Andrew turn to a significant ruling against ICE in West Virginia, where a federal judge admonished agents for wearing masks and using unmarked cars, a presence akin to a “secret police force." And last up, a scathing review of Judge Eileen Cannon's decision not to release Jack Smith's report in the classified documents case. Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Last week, a grand jury refused to indict six Democratic lawmakers over a video they made addressing service members' duty to refuse illegal orders. Mary and Andrew hold little back as they discuss the government's attempt to chill free speech and persecute political foes. In an adjacent case, they review Judge Richard Leon's decision to block Secretary Pete Hegseth from demoting Senator Mark Kelly over the video, saying it “trampled on Senator Kelly's First Amendment freedoms.” The co-hosts then dig into the unsealed Fulton County affidavit and what it shows about the basis of the administration's 2020 election fraud claims, before concluding with a couple due process updates: Judge Boasberg's decision ordering the Trump administration to facilitate the return of some Venezuelan migrants unlawfully deported, and Judge Tim Kelly's decision in a case about death row prisoners being sent to a “Supermax” prison on the government's orders without due process, after Biden granted them clemency from the death penalty before leaving office.Further reading:Read Judge Richard J. Leon's Memorandum Opinion on Mark Kelly v. Pete Hegseth HERE  Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Andrew and Mary are often inundated with news out of the Justice Department, but one item that really caught their attention this week was the DOJ's appeal to the Supreme Court to toss out Steve Bannon's contempt conviction. They begin here, highlighting Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche's wry comments on social media about the case. Next, they turn to a reality hitting prosecutors hard, especially in states ICE is targeting—that the push for mass detentions did not include any plan for the infrastructure needed to support the caseload in the courts or in U.S. Attorneys' offices. And it's pushing prosecutors to the brink. Mary and Andrew talk about one of them, Julie Le, who was fired after expressing her exasperation in Minnesota. Next, they explain why Congress was given access to the (mostly) un-redacted Epstein files and Ghislaine Maxwell's choice to plead the 5th in a congressional deposition. And last up, a beat on the Georgia ballot seizures, as Fulton County sues and a judge orders DOJ records to be unsealed in the case.Further Reading:Here is a new piece from Andrew: How Congress Can Give Epstein Survivors the Investigation They Deserve, Starting with Compelling Maxwell to Testify Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Heads were turning over the weekend after Chad Mizelle, a former Justice Department official, put out a recruitment call for Trump-loyal Assistant U.S. Attorneys to hit him up on X. Mary and Andrew begin by highlighting the atypical nature of this outreach, while noting how slim the pool of applicants must be for what have long-been highly coveted and competitive positions. This piled on another DOJ fumble after a huge tranche ofEpstein files was released that unintentionally exposed the personal information of numerous victims. The co-hosts then turn to Minnesota, where a decision came in allowing Operation Metro Surge to continue, while another judge admonished DHS for ignoring over 90court orders. Mary and Andrew also call out the arrests of journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort during an anti-ICE protest in the state. Plus: a beat on a controversial federal search warrant targeting 2020 ballots in Fulton County, with more to come on that issue.Further reading:Here is the Epstein victims' letter: Emergency Request for Immediate Judicial Intervention—Epstein Transparency ActHere is the New York Times guest essay that Andrew mentioned: We Were Top Homeland Security Lawyers. You Can't Wish Away the Fourth Amendment. Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Heads were turning over the weekend after Chad Mizelle, a former Justice Department official, put out a recruitment call for Trump-loyal Assistant U.S. Attorneys to hit him up on X. Mary and Andrew begin by highlighting the atypical nature of this outreach, while noting how slim the pool of applicants must be for what have long-been highly coveted and competitive positions. This piled on another DOJ fumble after a huge tranche of Epstein files was released that unintentionally exposed the personal information of numerous victims. The co-hosts then turn to Minnesota, where a decision came in allowing Operation Metro Surge to continue, while another judge admonished DHS for ignoring over 90 court orders. Mary and Andrew also call out the arrests of journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort during an anti-ICE protest in the state. Plus: a beat on a controversial federal search warrant targeting 2020 ballots in Fulton County, with more to come on that issue.Further reading:Here is the Epstein victims' letter: Emergency Request for Immediate Judicial Intervention—Epstein Transparency Act Here is the New York Times guest essay that Andrew mentioned: We Were Top Homeland Security Lawyers. You Can't Wish Away the Fourth Amendment. Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Mary and Andrew make Minnesota the focal point this week, after the Trump administration's intensified immigration enforcement efforts in the state culminated in the tragic killing of Alex Pretti by federal agents on Saturday. The co-hosts detail several legal cases related to these efforts: one that challenges how ICE and CBP agents treat protestors and observers, another that aims to preserve evidence in Mr. Pretti's death, and a state case arguing that the federal government is violating the 10th Amendment and Minnesota's sovereignty rights by conducting “Operation Metro Surge”. Then, they turn to what Andrew calls an “extortion letter” sent by Attorney General Pam Bondi to Governor Tim Walz over the weekend, implying that compliance of three demands – including handing over Minnesota's voter rolls – could lead to a reduction of immigration forces in the state. Before wrapping up, Mary and Andrew review a memo surfaced by a whistleblower giving DHS officers authority to forcibly enter homes during immigration enforcement operations.Further reading: Here is a new piece Andrew and Ryan Goodman wrote for Just Security: The Top 10 Questions the Trump Administration Needs to Answer About Minnesota. What journalists and Congress should ask. Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Protests continue in Minnesota after the state sued to stop President Trump's surge of immigration agents to a city still reeling from the death of Renee Good. After mulling where we are one year into this administration, Mary and Andrew zero in on Trump's revived desire to invoke the Insurrection Act, as Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey become the targets of a federal inquiry. Adding to the tumult, numerous Minnesota prosecutors have quit over the pretense of an investigation into the wife of Renee Good. The co-hosts then turn to Boston, where Judge William Young rebuked government attacks on free speech, outlining an order he'll issue to restrict deportations of noncitizen scholars. Topping off the episode, Mary and Andrew unpack the alarming FBI raid on a Washington Post reporter's home. Note to listeners: Andrew and Mary will be back later this week to react to former Special Counsel Jack Smith's live testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. Check in Thursday evening to hear their takeaways. Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

#187En este episodio, la abogada Barbara Vazquez del bufete de abogados de inmigración, Vazquez & Servi, P.C.,  explica una orden judicial de emergencia que impacta directamente a miles de familias bajo el Programa de Reunificación Familiar.Una jueza federal en Massachusetts detiene temporalmente la revocación del parole, brindando un respiro crucial a beneficiarios de varios países.¿Qué es una “Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)” y por qué importa ahora? La orden suspende acciones del gobierno por 14 días a partir del 10 de enero de 2026.Países afectados: Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haití, Honduras y El Salvador.La amenaza inicial: DHS anunció que el parole vencería y sería revocado automáticamente el 14 de enero de 2026, exponiendo a miles a la deportación.La única excepción reconocida: Personas con Ajuste de Estatus presentado antes del 15 de diciembre de 2025 y aún pendiente.El punto clave del fallo: La jueza determinó que DHS no notificó adecuadamente a los beneficiarios, como exige la ley.Fallas graves en las notificaciones: Avisos electrónicos tardíos y poco efectivos, especialmente para personas sin abogado.¿Qué significa esto para ti o tu familia? Derechos, plazos y próximos pasos explicados de forma clara.

Today's episode begins with the fatal shooting of Renee Good last week at the hands of an ICE officer in Minneapolis. Mary and Andrew break down the frame by frame of the tragedy and its fallout — pointing to the Trump administration's deflective response, the Civil Rights Division's decision not to investigate, and the inflammatory language used by the Vice President and Trump himself. Joining the conversation next for a deep dive into Trump's actions in Venezuela is international law expert Rebecca Ingber, who explains how the incursion has no clear legal justification under international law. Last on the agenda, the co-hosts turn to news out of D.C. where the U.S. Attorney launched a criminal probe into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, sparking questions about the Fed's independence and government sanctioned retribution campaigns. A Note: In this episode, Mary and Andrew talk about top DOJ officials quitting over their division's refusal to investigate the Minnesota shooting. After recording, the New York Times among others reported the following: Six Prosecutors Quit Over Push to Investigate ICE Shooting Victim's WidowFurther Reading: Here is the Federal Reserve's explanation of the renovations: Federal Reserve's Renovation of Two Historic Buildings Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Jason talks with attorney Joe Tamburino about the state's lawsuit against DHS and their failure to obtain a Temporary Restraining Order today - can they stop ICE wit this suit? Plus, what's his take on the mass resignation at the US Attorney's office yesterday?

In today's deep dive, Illinois and four other Democratic-led states have filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration to block a freeze on federal funding for childcare and family services. A judge has granted a temporary restraining order blocking immediate implementation of the freeze.

Episode 272- Jersey Spreads the Oppression  Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Second Amendment rights, New Jersey gun laws, national firearm licensing, anti-gun oppression, domestic violence restraining order, federal firearms licensing act, gun control measures, gun rights suppression, gun violence prevention, gun rights advocacy, gun rights litigation, gun rights education, gun rights resources, gun rights history, gun rights updates. SPEAKERS Speaker 2, Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen Evan Nappen 00:15 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:17 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:20 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, New Jersey is spreading the oppression. New Jersey is like a cancer when it comes to Second Amendment rights, and it has to metastasize. This is really one of the primary reasons that Gun Lawyer, our show here, has reach that is further than just New Jersey, even though we focus a lot on New Jersey. But New Jersey is where we see the experimenting done at the cost of our rights, where we see the oppression in full force and effect. And we see their newest machinations coming from the Left wing, anti-Second Amendment, anti-American, think tanks getting their origins in New Jersey. Then spreading and then spreading, with an attempt to spread it to all of America. Evan Nappen 01:26 So, of course, we have New Jersey senators, strictly New Jersey senators here, that are now pushing a national gun licensing scheme, which is national Second Amendment rights oppression, to force the entire country into the agenda of disarmament via New Jersey style. And it is why you have to, we have to, keep the fight up here in New Jersey, which is the front line of the battle. We need to get our politics here changed, because the cancer has to stop. Evan Nappen 02:13 And here’s what they’re proposing right now. Granted, it’s not likely to pass in the current climate right now with Republicans in control, barely, but in control of both houses, and with President Trump at the helm. But it is something that tells you where the Democrats will go should they ever regain power again, and this is showing you just how far they will go to oppress our Second Amendment rights. I mean, it’s apparently not bad enough that the Democrats are so-called Democrat socialists, you know, communist light. But even just in terms of the Constitution that they are supposedly sworn to uphold, it is demonstrated as to be a false oath by them over and over again. Page – 1 – of 13 Evan Nappen 03:14 So, here is the current push, and by the way, this is from an article from Bearing Arms, and it’s by Tommy Knighton. It says, “NJ’s Senators Push National Gun Licensing Bill”. (https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2026/01/04/njs-senators-push-national-gun-licensing-bill- n1231085) So, who are the culprits here? Who are those oppressors out of New Jersey? Well, of course, it’s Senator (Corey) Booker and Senator (Andy) Kim. They’ve introduced this legislation, and they’re calling it the Federal Firearm Licensing Act (FFLA). Now, don’t confuse the title. Teddy Nappen 03:43 Doesn’t Cory Booker ever stop talking. Evan Nappen 03:46 Yeah. Don’t confuse this Federal Firearms Licensing Act with the way we traditionally think of an FFL as being a dealer. No, no, no. What they’re doing here, and maybe it’s part of their attempt to fool the public, I don’t know. But it would mandate that every American obtain a Federal Firearms License before purchasing or receiving any firearm. So, if you want to purchase or receive a firearm in America, you’re going to have to get an FFL. Now, this obviously isn’t a dealer FFL. It’s just a private person wanting to exercise Second Amendment rights FFL. This is apparently one of the most comprehensive federal gun control measures, what I prefer to call Second Amendment oppression measures, requiring and establishing a nationwide licensing system. Putting numerous new requirements on every American. Evan Nappen 04:59 Under this proposed legislation, you would need to complete a mandatory firearms training safety that includes both written and hands-on instruction before qualifying for a license. And this is a license just to obtain a firearm. This isn’t to carry a firearm. The Attorney General will then conduct background checks on every applicant, and the FBI would perform regular compliance checks to monitor license holders. So, you’re going to be constantly monitored by the FBI, as well as having to go through this. Each license will expire after five years, requiring gun owners to renew their permission to purchase firearms. And, of course, if the license expires and you don’t renew it, you’re losing your guns and your gun rights. And this is what the oppressionists, what New Jersey’s senators, are putting forward to try to create a national firearm licensing scheme. Of course, it has the end game of utter confiscation and to turn us into, you know, the U.K. basically. Evan Nappen 06:19 The bill will fundamentally alter how Americans can buy and sell firearms privately. Unlicensed individuals could no longer transfer to other unlicensed individuals. Instead, all transactions have to go through dealers, and selling or transferring a firearm without a Federal license issued within the previous 30 days would be illegal. Sellers are mandated to report transactions to law enforcement, etc. So, you can see this is just scratching the surface of this so-called Federal Firearms Licensing Act. It’s designed for the furtherance of their agenda. And this agenda we see come alive in New Jersey. How New Jersey citizens are turned into criminals. Law-abiding citizens turned into criminals by New Jersey Page – 2 – of 13 gun law. I deal with that every day, defending my clients who Jersey has made into law-abiding criminals. And this is something that they want to spread to the entire United States. So, beware. Evan Nappen 07:35 And keep in mind the history of gun rights oppression, beginning with New Jersey, and spreading to the entire U.S. is documented through a number of laws. For example, New Jersey first had the domestic violence misdemeanor and/or restraining order gun ban. New Jersey had it as a state law first, where if you had a domestic violence restraining order, or what New Jersey calls a disorderly person. We can view it as a misdemeanor offense. Concerning domestic violence, then you became a prohibited person to have a firearm. That was not a national law. That was state law. New Jersey was one of the originators of that law. Evan Nappen 08:22 And, of course, it was something that radically departed from what were traditionally prohibited persons. It had to be felons, convicted felons, and originally, it was violent felons, but at least you had to have a felony conviction. But now what you saw was misdemeanant, misdemeanant, a misdemeanant, suddenly having a gun disqualifier. And even less than being a misdemeanant, somebody with a civil restraining order became forfeit, disenfranchised of their Second Amendment rights. And New Jersey did it first to its own people. Then Senator, the corpse, Lautenberg, as you may recall, put it forward federally, and it became federal law by a New Jersey Senator. Creating new disqualifiers for domestic violence restraining order and/or domestic violence misdemeanor. Thereby, retroactively, by the way, because there’s no ex post facto when it comes to a civil disqualifier. Retroactively disqualifying hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people that were lawful gun owners into being unlawful gun owners. And lowering the bar for a loss of Second Amendment rights. Evan Nappen 10:01 This has impacted thousands of people in their gun rights, criminal prosecutions, et cetera. And, of course, no piece of paper ever actually really protected somebody. I mean, that’s a joke. You know, these restraining orders are feel good more than anything. I mean, good luck. I mean, we’ve seen case after case where, yeah, the person had a restraining order, and they still became victimized by the person who was restrained. And even taking away guns from the person who has the restraining order. Yeah, oh, there’s no way that they might get another gun, right? So, that thousands of people get their guns seized. Teddy Nappen 10:49 Or, the classic. He threw pretzels at me! Evan Nappen 10:52 Right! Oh, God. Teddy Nappen 10:53 Or where you get accused of something that isn’t true, that they make stuff up and there’s clear falsification. And then. Page – 3 – of 13 Evan Nappen 11:00 Teddy, you’re so right. As soon as that TRO, Temporary Restraining Order, issues based on the flimsiest of allegations, with you having no say whatsoever. And, you know, it’s harder to get a sandwich at Wawa, than to get a TRO issued against somebody. You now have to go to court. Your guns are going to be seized pursuant to that TRO, and you’re going to have a fight, not only on the allegations, but also on trying to regain your rights. And it’s just a nightmare that can be triggered on the flimsiest of allegations. We see it all the time. And oh, well, that’s not politically correct. Well, it doesn’t matter, folks. I don’t do this show so I can maintain political correctness. Evan Nappen 11:46 I’m telling you what I see as a practicing attorney all the time in this area. I see the abuse, abuse of rights, okay? I see this system being abused against individuals. None of this means that I’m in favor of someone being domestically abused, being violently abused in any capacity. I don’t want to see anybody abused. But that doesn’t mean that we do not talk about the actual effect that we see happen over and over and over again when it comes to the Lautenberg law that started with New Jersey and became federal law by New Jersey senators spreading the cancer, spreading the oppression, to the entire United States. So, that’s why this bill that you may think right now is not a threat, but don’t underestimate how important it is to be aware of it and to know that this very well could become reality. Because other bills in the past that were thought impossible, too, become law have become federal law. So, New Jersey is the state to watch when it comes to the danger to our Second Amendment rights. Evan Nappen 13:08 Now I have a letter here from Ask Evan, and this is from Ron. Ron says, I hope you had a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Well, thank you, Ron. I’m not sure if this is in your area of expertise, but I’m interested on how to handle fish and wildlife officers when hunting with a firearm. With open fields and extended powers granted them, what are we required to do and say to them when approached in the field while hunting,? Are there any recommendations or common issues you encounter how to prevent becoming a gun owner mess up of the week? I like how you call this. It’s a GOFU. You don’t want to be a GOFU, and I appreciate that you don’t want to be a GOFU. Teddy Nappen 13:45 Oh, check every, check every bush. Check every bush when you go out hunting, because you may find a fish and game officer. Evan Nappen 13:50 Hiding behind any bush, right? So, yeah, that reminds me of, I don’t know if I should tell that joke about. The law professor, the appellate judge, and the trial court judge all went hunting. So, they’re out hunting, and in front of the appellate court judge, the bush shook and moved, and out walks a deer. Now the appellate court judge looks at that and says, okay, there’s a three-part test to determine if that deer is a deer. You know, you gotta look at the antlers. You gotta look if there are any. Then you gotta look at the hoofs and the tail. And by the time he does a three-part test of the appellate judge’s determination, the deer is gone. It took off. Next thing you know, in front of the law professor, another little bush shakes and out walks a deer. And the law professor knows it’s a deer, but before he shoots, Page – 4 – of 13 he says, you know what’s the societal impact of me shooting this deer? I wonder how it might affect civil rights and current DEI requirements and all that. By the time he finishes all his social considerations, that deer is gone. Next thing you know, in front of the trial court judge, the bush shakes, and the trial court judge immediately fires into the bush and says, damn, I hope that’s a deer. Anyway, I know if you’re and maybe, maybe you have to be a lawyer to appreciate it, maybe you don’t. Evan Nappen 14:36 Anyway. Well, back to the hunting and fishing question here, Teddy. Sorry to torture people with that. And it’s a really good question. And what it says is, what do you do in this situation. Well, here’s the deal. Law enforcement is law enforcement. Fish and Game Officers are law enforcement officers, and they’re proud to say they are. So, the question is, do you have to talk to law enforcement? And the answer is, no, you don’t. You don’t have to talk to law enforcement. Now, what you do have to do, though, is you have to provide your pedigree information. I mean, if they asked to see your license, I would suggest show them your license and identifying yourself as you would with any officer, your pedigree information. But I would not talk anything about your activities in the field. I would not talk about anything about anything. Evan Nappen 15:40 I mean, if they walk up to you and you have your gun, then they want to make sure that things are safe. So, they may ask to secure your firearm in some manner, and it’s best to cooperate with that. But as far as what you say, you have a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. You have a Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. You have no obligation to speak to them about any other questions they may have about having to do anything that requires you to say something without a lawyer, other than what I would just leave as identification and pedigree as to who you are, but that’s essentially how it is. And you know, if they say, hey, we want to search your vehicle. No, you do not consent to them searching your vehicle. If they’re going to search no matter what, then they’ll do whatever they’re going to do. But you are not going to consent to it, and that’s the difference. Evan Nappen 15:40 The problem is that with Fish and Game violations, you can end up having your gun rights in jeopardy. They will attempt to use your hunting violations as public health, safety, welfare, character assassination type tactics. Where they will say, oh, you didn’t hunt properly, or follow the hunting laws, etc, with firearms. And then they’ll use it to try to then take away your gun rights. So, there is a risk when hunting that hunting charges can jeopardize your gun rights by them using what I call the all- inclusive miscellaneous weasel clause, also known as “public health, safety, and welfare” of the 58-3 licensing requirements. They will take your hunting violations and try to push it into a claim that somehow you’re a danger. So, you have to be careful with having hunting violations, because, yes, it can directly come into conflict and cause problems for your Second Amendment rights on possession of firearms, generally speaking. So, always stand on your rights and be aware that your rights don’t just disappear because the Law Enforcement Officer you’re dealing with happens to be a Fish and Game Law Enforcement Officer. Page – 5 – of 13 Evan Nappen 15:55 Hey, let me tell you about our friends at WeShoot, which is a range where Teddy and I both shoot in Lakewood. We love WeShoot. Well, they’ve been spotlighting some of their instructors, and they have really top notch instructors. They are highlighting about their expert instructor, retired Detective Sergeant Jim Weinberg, aka Rabbi Jim, folks. That’s right, Rabbi Jim is a legendary instructor at WeShoot, and Rabbi Jim is really top notch. He’s had a lifetime of service. Over 30 years in law enforcement experience in both the Union County’s Prosecutor’s Office and as Union County Police Officer. And he spent two decades with SWAT/UCERT operator. He’s trained thousands, and he’s a PTC Certified Instructor as well. That’s for Police Training Commission purposes. And he served as a Fire Instructor at the police academy. And so he is one of their great trainers at WeShoot. He can do the RPO qualifications, and he can do CCARE. And he has a great teaching style. Jim is just one of the great instructors that you can have instruct you at WeShoot. Evan Nappen 20:50 It’s amazing resource that we have right there in Central Jersey, easily accessible off the Parkway. They have a great pro shop, great staff and a great range. I mean it. We love WeShoot, and so will you. Go to weshootusa.com, weshootusa.com. Check out their website. You’ll find they have wonderful photography and, of course, you want to check out the WeShoot girls that have great guns and other things that they display proudly that you will love to see. And you can find those at the pro shop. They often run great sales and deals. So, make sure you check out weshootusa.com. Evan Nappen 21:39 Also, I want to mention our good friends at the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs. Boy oh, boy, things are heating up. We have some major litigation that we’re going to see some major results on in the Third Circuit, where the full panel has agreed on a number of our issues to do the review. We’re cautiously optimistic here about seeing some real important wins in terms of the case law. The Association is there at the forefront on this litigation. Very exciting. Regarding so-called assault firearms and large capacity magazines, which we prefer to call standard capacity magazines and assault firearms. Man, the pejorative terms of the Left. They’re just so ridiculous. Evan Nappen 22:35 Anyway, the bottom line is, it’s not just words. It’s the effect that these wacko definitions that they put into law arbitrarily turn us into criminals, and that’s what has to end. I’m cautiously optimistic that the court is going to do that. The court is going to step up and finally address these key issues in a positive way for our Second Amendment rights. I mean, folks, I know it gets depressing out there with how we’re treated, but the truth is, we are making tremendous progress. We really are. Between President Trump’s administration and with the Supreme Court and with his appointment of judges throughout the federal court system, we are seeing great progress. I’m really excited for it, but we have to stay vigilant. As you know, the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs will help you maintain your vigilance. Go to anjrpc.org, and make sure you join as a member. You’ll get those email updates, and you’ll be glad you did. Page – 6 – of 13 Evan Nappen 23:50 And let me also shamelessly promote my book New Jersey Gun Law, which is the Bible of New Jersey gun law, and you will enjoy it immensely. And you can say to yourself, how does a state like New Jersey even exist with this insane matrix of laws? But at least you’ll know because you have the book on how to safely navigate through them. So, get your copy of New Jersey Gun Law today. The 25th Anniversary Edition is available from EvanNappen.com Hey, that sounds like my name. Well, in fact, it is. Go to EvanNappen.com, and you’ll see the big orange book there. Get your copy today. Make sure you scan the front QR code and join my private subscriber base. I will send you out updates, and you’ll be able to access the archives. And I’m working on what will be the 2026 Comprehensive Update. We’re waiting to see if laws that have passed get signed into law, which I expect any day now they will be. And then I’m going to be putting out the update. So, you want to make sure you have the book and belong on the subscriber base so that you can stay current. Teddy, what do you have for us today? Teddy Nappen 25:03 Well, as you know, Press Checks are always free. And because it’s the new year, we always gotta check in on the gun rights suppressors and what’s the latest of their propaganda. They decided to put out a report card like they’re, like they’re, a teacher scolding the states for failing to apply their gun rights oppression. (https://giffords.org/lawcenter/resources/scorecard/) But New Jersey, who is the teacher’s pet, got an A. Evan Nappen 25:34 Of course, New Jersey got an A. What does the “A” stand for? Teddy Nappen 25:37 “A” stands for anti-gunners. Also, for New Jersey, the Bloomberg check cleared. So, obviously they’re going to push for it. So. Evan Nappen 25:46 I thought a stands for “a holes”. Teddy Nappen 25:49 That works, too. But yeah, they break it down in that. You can go to their website and check it out. They make it very convenient to click and compare/contrast states. By the way, New Hampshire got an F. So, good job. Evan Nappen 26:03 Oh, New Hampshire, good. F for freedom. Teddy Nappen 26:06 F for freedom. Yep. F for freedom. A for anti-gunners. That’s how we look at it. But I love how they tote it. Which is gun law strength rank, number two. Sorry, they lost. I guess California still wins the day. Teddy Nappen 26:19 Really? Wait, who was number one? Page – 7 – of 13 Teddy Nappen 26:24 From pulling up from that, pulling up, I believe it was California. Evan Nappen 26:28 That makes sense. Teddy Nappen 26:30 They went. Yep, California is number one. Yeah, congratulations to California. Good luck. Good luck. How are the fires? Anyways, I love how they tote the gun death rate ranking, one of the lowest gun death rankings. They always love to tote that. And what is gun deaths? Well, anyone who’s been shot by a firearm, regardless. They count and they misconstrue and put a stamp on it. And by the way, a lot of the other states don’t like to report. Evan Nappen 27:05 They push these false statistics. They’re just such liars. They’re unbelievable. They just, you know, they contort the statistics to make it fit their agenda. It’s that simple. Teddy Nappen 27:17 Yeah, it’s what they do. And they highlighted New Jersey’s investment of nearly $34 million in community violence intervention programs. What does that translate into? Oh, the domestic violence programs, all the anti-gun, you know, NGOs to fund our gun right suppression. Basically, when they say that, it’s them saying New Jersey is paying Democrats to take away your rights. Evan Nappen 27:45 Good way to translate it. Teddy Nappen 27:46 Yeah, just from following the money. I do love the comment section. Again, I’m treating this like a teacher going over. Well, you did a very good job. However, for a way to improve, expand your firearm responsibility laws, aka make a law to circumvent the PLCCA so that you can sue gun companies to create gun deserts. They want to require prohibited people to relinquish their firearms, even though prohibited people aren’t allowed to possess firearms. But that’s just, you know, they’re just, they’re just throwing something extra out there. And to raise the minimum age for purchase or carry a firearms to 21. I mean, at this point. Evan Nappen 28:33 Raise the age for guns, but they want to lower voting to 16. It’s amazing how certain civil rights should have high ages, and other civil rights have low ages. But we can’t just say the age of majority for everything, God forbid, right? 18. Teddy Nappen 28:50 I know. I know the you know the age should be 20. You know, I wonder what would happen to the Dems when you hear the age 21 to vote? Yeah. Page – 8 – of 13 Evan Nappen 28:59 Yeah. Right. Just apply anything. Or freedom of speech. That’s the other one. Yeah, before you can say or you can do anything. Before you can voice your opinion, you need to. Teddy Nappen 29:11 After getting approved from the Government to speak. Evan Nappen 29:13 Right. Prior approval and taking training courses with licensure. Teddy Nappen 29:20 Well, they already want to do that. Evan Nappen 29:21 So that every right is registered. Teddy Nappen 29:24 Well, you have to have the safety of language, because words are violence. Also silence is violence. It actually kind of reminds me of when I had to do the ethics. Evan Nappen 29:34 Wait, they said that silence is violence? Teddy Nappen 29:36 Oh yeah, that’s the game the Left play. Either. Either you cannot say those things because those are mean. But also, silence is violence. The only logical thing you can do is agree with us. That is their logic, and it’s quite disgusting how they play that game. Evan Nappen 29:54 I like that. Silence is violence. Teddy Nappen 29:56 Silence is violence but also, don’t use hurtful language. Figure that out. It’s a trap. That is the game they play. Evan Nappen 30:01 Why did you shoot that person? Well, because he didn’t say anything and silence is violence. Teddy Nappen 30:06 It honestly reminds me of when we had to do the ethics course for when you’re when you become a attorney. The certification they do. This woman comes up and then says to everyone, everyone on Zoom. By the way, they said to us in the very beginning, no one make comments to the speakers, Page – 9 – of 13 please. We know there’s disagreements, but this must be said. She gets up on the podium and says, you are not a comedian. Do not make jokes. That is offensive. Evan Nappen 30:06 Do not make jokes? Teddy Nappen 30:12 Do not make jokes. And my first thought was, my God, you are the problem with society. Like you can’t make jokes. I’m like, oh, my God. So yeah, but getting back to the. Evan Nappen 30:14 No jokes. Wasn’t that from Zulu? Remember when he was talking? Teddy Nappen 30:55 No, no, no. He says. Evan Nappen 30:56 What did he say in Zulu? Teddy Nappen 30:57 The sergeant, the Sergeant, Sergeant, yes. They say, no comedian. Evan Nappen 31:02 No comedian. Teddy Nappen 31:05 He’s going through like, he’s going through roles. Evan Nappen 31:08 Right. Because they’re getting ready for battle. Teddy Nappen 31:10 After the battle, he says Hicks? You’re alive. Say your name. Oh, I’m alive. Thank you, sir. No comedians. Yeah, I will give this card one thing important that I like. It basically lays the whole groundwork of them chastising the Trump administration for its very pro-gun activities they’ve done throughout the Government. Evan Nappen 31:42 Criticizing President Trump for expanding Second Amendment rights? Okay, so do they make a list or something? Teddy Nappen 31:48 Oh, they made a wonderful list. And I was like. Page – 10 – of 13 Evan Nappen 31:50 Let’s hear all the terrible things President Trump has done in expanding Second Amendment rights. Teddy Nappen 31:55 Cutting $800 million of public safety grants, and $150 million to the violence intervention and prevention programs. Evan Nappen 32:03 Nice. The propaganda arm. Teddy Nappen 32:05 Yeah, all that. And then going after ending the Office of Gun Violence Prevention. You know, all the horrible laws that we’ve been getting in the SAFE offices? Those were created by the Office of Gun Violence Prevention. Trump ended that office and then created. Evan Nappen 32:24 That was propaganda office of Biden. Teddy Nappen 32:28 Correct. And he ended that. Also the dealer regulation. This is them saying it. Dealer regulation, gun hardware. Trump has considered many cuts to the ATF and removing core ATF policies for penalizing gun dealers. You know. Evan Nappen 32:43 Those were outrageously bad. Teddy Nappen 32:46 One screw up and you lose your license. Evan Nappen 32:49 Yeah. So, that was great that he got rid of all that. Teddy Nappen 32:53 Gun Violence Research Policy cut hundreds of staff to the CDC and, you know, another propaganda department, pumping out false data and oversaw allocation of research grants, you know, to oh, Bloomberg’s college. Evan Nappen 33:07 Yeah. Because they want to make it a health issue so they can regulate it in that manner. And it’s not a health issue. And yet, they want to put it in that context, so then they can Page – 11 – of 13 Teddy Nappen 33:18 Then the big highlight, which I’m laughing that they actually know about this, the One Big, Beautiful Bill where it removes the tax requirement for gun silencers. They were trying to put a short barreled rifles, sawed off shotguns. I know those two. I don’t I don’t know if those two made it. Evan Nappen 33:35 Any other weapon. Suppressors, any other weapons. And by getting rid of the tax, the idea there is now we’re in litigation that the entire NFA needs to go. And, of course, with success with that lawsuit, where if there is no tax, then it loses its justification for existence. Then we can actually legalize machine guns by way of a simple reconciliation bill where we remove the tax through NFA even on machine guns. That’s how we’ll get the job done. Teddy Nappen 34:10 Take me back four years ago and tell me there would have been a bill put forward to effectively kneecap and shatter the NFA. That is the earth shattering power that this administration has done. Evan Nappen 34:26 And think about this. For the first time since 1934 when this was enacted, we’ve actually been able to take a piece out of it, and the piece has been the actual money that’s been collected. And by the way, there’s been a boom since the tax is gone, in people getting suppressors and getting these other things, even with the law still in effect. I have recently seen that the turnaround time on getting suppressors without having to pay the tax is very quick, as quick as one day. Even electronically, I’ve been hearing. So, it’s very fast turnaround, and it’s being done without having to pay the 200 bucks. Now, of course, if you live in the gun right suppression state of New Jersey, the state still bans silencers. But that’s currently being challenged in court as well. At the moment, you can’t have a suppressor because New Jersey is in favor of gun owners damaging their hearing and making sure that it is as unsafe as possible for any gun owner in terms of hearing protection. But we should see that litigation come to fruition shortly. Anything else on the list that President Trump has done? Teddy Nappen 35:43 Oh, they were going after, of course, the forced reset trigger. They’re trying, oh, yeah, that we’re like. No longer will the ATF come breaking down your door or trying to get, you know, going through and, you know, creating their own work by then saying, oh, it’s fine. And no, it’s not. And then going after innocent people who are making a purchase. It’s the level all these things. I just tell these people. This is as pro-gun as we could possibly get with this administration at the moment. And there’s still more to come, because we’re in the second year. We’re just starting the second year. Evan Nappen 36:21 I know. I know it’s just the beginning of our Christmas gift list of fun. So, it’s great. All right, well, so long as we keep making progress, which we are. But let me tell you about this week’s GOFU, which is, of course, the Gun Owners Fuck Up. And it’s important to know this so that you don’t end up having an expensive lesson learned, where you get to learn it on the cheap. You get to learn it free from the show. So, these are based on actual cases, actual clients, actual real GOFUs that I’ve seen. This week’s GOFU has to do with make sure you know the dates of your gun purchases, because New Jersey has Page – 12 – of 13 one gun a month, right? One handgun within a 30-day period. You can’t get more than that. So, I always look at one gun a month as kind of the gun of the month where you have to buy one every 30 days. But whether or not you want to take that approach or not, the problem is, don’t attempt purchase within the 30 days, even by accident, because it’ll have ramifications. It gets picked up on because of how the system is designed. If you even inadvertently end up in that more than one gun within 30 days, you can have serious problems. So, be very cautious. I’ve even had debates over the counting in terms of hours for the difference. Make sure you have a good buffer in there until we knock that law out as unconstitutional, which it really should be. I don’t want to see you have a GOFU in which the purchase within the 30 days triggers an escalation to seizure, revocation and possible criminal charges. The whole nine yards coming down on your head. Keep the count of days accurate and clear. Evan Nappen 37:07 This is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 2 37:30 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Page – 13 – of 13 Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E272_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

This episode of RiskCellar features a deep dive into the psychology behind jury decisions, covering why verdicts have surged 116% in just one year, alongside a breakdown of the shocking 200-person overnight raid by Howden on Brown & Brown's Minneapolis operations.Host Brandon Schuh and co-host Nick Hartmann examine the litigation chaos while interviewing Christina Marinakis, CEO of Verdict Insight Partners, who reveals how jury composition has fundamentally shifted toward anti-corporate sentiment, particularly among millennial jurors. The conversation exposes the data-driven science of jury selection, the rise of polarized deliberation rooms, and what defense counsel must understand about modern juror psychology in an era where median verdicts have jumped from $21 million to $51 million in just four years.Chapters00:00 - Introduction05:00 - The Howden Raid Breakdown: Brown & Brown Story 14:00 - Hayes Companies History & $750M Acquisition Details 15:00 - Jim Hayes' Journey & Relationship with Howden 18:00 - Minneapolis Benefits Exodus & Covenants Discussion 22:00 - Court Victory & Temporary Restraining Order 25:00 - Settlement Values & Account Damages 28:00 - Howden's Strategy Backfire & Client Relationships 35:00 - Guest Introduction: Christina Marinakis 36:00 - Jury Consultant Background & Gene Hackman Comparison 40:00 - Mock Trials vs. Real Trials & Shadow Juries 45:00 - Verdict Inflation Trends: $21M to $51M in Four Years 50:00 - Locus of Control: Core Predictor of Juror Bias 58:00 - Anti-Corporate Millennial Generation & COVID Impact Takeaways1. Nuclear Verdicts Are Accelerating: 135 nuclear verdicts ($10M+) in 2024 represent a 52% increase over 2023, with the median verdict jumping to $51 million from $21 million in 2020, driven by advertising, social media anchoring, and third-party litigation funding.2. Locus of Control Is the Strongest Predictor: The most reliable indicator of a plaintiff vs. defense juror is internal vs. external locus of control, whether jurors believe individuals or external factors determine outcomes, more predictive than demographics or experience.3. Millennials Are the Anti-Corporate Generation: Millennials experiencing economic hardship (home ownership, debt) and exposed to corporate scandals (Enron, Wells Fargo) now dominate juries with significantly higher anti-corporate bias than prior generations.4. COVID Destroyed Government Credibility Defense: Pre-COVID, "FDA/EPA approved" arguments worked; post-COVID, jurors distrust government agencies and dismiss regulatory compliance as a defense strategy due to shifting messaging around masks, vaccines, and guidance.5. Jury Polarization Is Creating Contentious Deliberation Rooms: Hung juries increased from 2-3 annually (pre-2022) to 12 in 2022 alone, with escalating incidents of jurors being excused due to verbal conflict, reflecting broader societal polarization bleeding into the jury box.Connect with RiskCellar:Website: https://www.riskcellar.com/Christina MarinakisCEO, Verdict Insight PartnersEmail: christina.marinakis@verdictinsight.comWebsite: verdictinsight.com LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/christina-marinakis-18328410Brandon Schuh:Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61552710523314LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/brandon-stephen-schuh/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/schuhpapa/Nick Hartmann:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nickjhartmann/

It's been five years since rioters stormed the Capitol in one of the most violent events on U.S soil in recent history. To commemorate the day and remind Americans of the consequences that still reverberate around the nation, House Democrats organized a hearing to “to set the record straight on the violent insurrection carried out by supporters of Donald Trump.” In this bonus episode, you'll hear from Winston Pingeon, a former United States Capitol Police Officer, Brendan Ballou, a former Department of Justice Prosecutor, Pamela Hemphill, a rioter who refused President Trump's pardon, and Main Justice co-host Mary McCord, the Executive Director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP) and Visiting Law Professor at Georgetown.Audio provided by the Office of Leader Hakeem Jeffries.Here is an OpEd on MS Now from Mary that reflects her testimony: Political violence doesn't always look like Jan. 6 Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Just days into 2026, Mary and Andrew dive into a fresh slate of legal questions brought on by the United States' surprise extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife to New York to face criminal charges. Unpacking why the operation is widely viewed as illegal in both Venezuela and here at home, they focus on the Trump administration's pattern of self-excusing questionable tactics under the banner of fighting crime and drug smuggling. Next, as the fifth anniversary of the January 6th insurrection approaches, Mary previews her upcoming testimony in front of House Democrats on the impact the broad swath of pardons for J6 convictions has had, before the co-hosts review Jack Smith's now public deposition before the House Judiciary Committee. Last, Mary and Andrew turn to the newly unsealed order in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case, in which the judge believes DOJ officials may have pushed to prosecute him only after he was wrongly deported to El Salvador.Further reading:Former Special Counsel Jack Smith's testimony transcript is HERE,  the video is HEREHERE is Judge Gary R. Brown's ruling from 12/18 on the awful conditions in an ICE detention facility in Long Island, NY. Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

After a year that saw no shortage of heavy legal news, Mary and Andrew close out 2025 with an episode of positive judicial developments. They begin with the Supreme Court's decision denying President Trump's request to stay an injunction blocking the federalization of National Guard troops in Illinois, concluding that the statute the government used to justify it first requires an attempt to execute federal laws with the military – which would likely require invocation of the Insurrection Act. And nobody seems to want that. At least not yet. The co-hosts then turn to D.C. District Court Judge Jeb Boasberg's decision on the Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act. He wrote that because the U.S. maintained constructive custody over Venezuelans expelled to El Salvador, they are legally owed due process rights. Last up, they note two judges who are demanding proof that the government is not acting vindictively — from the administration's prosecution of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the presidential memo that stripped the security clearance of national security lawyer Mark Zaid.Editors' Note: While Andrew and Mary were recording this episode, an order from Judge Crenshaw in Abrego Garcia's criminal case was unsealed. It confirms the DOJ pushed to prosecute Kilmar Abrego Garcia only after he was mistakenly deported. You can read it HEREFurther reading:Read Judge Boasberg's Memorandum Opinion on due process for Venezuelans deported to El Salvador HERE Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The highly anticipated release of the Epstein files dropped last Friday with a muted thump, as redactions were abundant and files were held back. Mary and Andrew begin there, with the Justice Department's failure to comply with the “Epstein Files Transparency Act”, a congressional law compelling the release of "all unclassified records" with a few exceptions. They break down what the law requires, why the DOJ's redactions raise some concerns, and what new revelations surfaced around Jeffrey Epstein's 2008 plea deal. Turning to several federal cases on their radar, the co-hosts unpack the news that prosecutors had tried but failed to add a third felony charge against Letitia James and the split jury verdict of Wisconsin state court Judge Hannah Dugan. And before wrapping up, Mary and Andrew examine a unanimous DC Circuit decision allowing the National Guard deployment in the city to proceed, emphasizing D.C.'s unique non-state status.Further reading: Read DC Circuit Panel Decision on National Guard deployment HEREAnd a note to our listeners: As Mary and Andrew mentioned, they plan to record a new episode next Tuesday if the news warrants it. Otherwise, they'll take some time to enjoy the holiday season and will be back with a new episode on January 6th. Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Seeking political retribution is far different than prosecuting a winning case, as the Trump administration is coming to understand. Mary and Andrew begin here after a grand jury, once again, refused to re-indict New York Attorney General Letitia James. This comes along with a ruling limiting what evidence could be used in the case against James Comey if the government seeks to re-bring that case. The co-hosts also tee up what may come from Jack Smith's closed-door deposition in front of the House Judiciary Committee, before turning to the latest in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia saga, after Judge Paula Xinis ordered his release. Last up, Mary and Andrew head to the West coast for an update on the National Guard deployment in L.A., and offer some analysis on Judge Bybee's statement on 9th Circuit en banc review over deploying the National Guard to Portland, Oregon.Further Reading: Here is Judge Xinis' opinion regarding the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.  Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing Texas to use its gerrymandered congressional map in the 2026 midterms, handing a redistricting win to Republicans. Mary and Andrew begin here, pointing to this decision as an example of the conservative majority's disregard for opinions made by lower courts. Then, they turn to a Virginia grand jury's refusal to re-indict Letitia James after a federal judge dismissed the initial criminal case against her — showing, in the hosts' estimation, how weak the reasoning must be for this indictment to be declined. This, before turning to the declarations filed by Kristi Noem, among others, in Judge Boasberg's contempt case, and highlighting Judge Beryl Howell's scathing decision barring immigration arrests without a warrant in DC. And before they wrap, Andrew and Mary give a quick nod to the Pentagon's IG report on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's use of the Signal chat app.Further reading:HERE is Judge Beryl Howell's 88-page decision against DHS over warrantless immigration arrests.HERE is the Pentagon's IG report on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's use of the ‘Signal' chat app to communicate war plans. Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

“What was said, when was it said, and who was observing the operation as it was ongoing?” These questions are top of mind this week for Todd Huntley, Director of Georgetown's National Security Law Program and a former active-duty Judge Advocate for the Navy. He joins Mary and Andrew to lend his unique expertise to what the Washington Post reported as a “kill them all” order from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. This order reportedly led to a second strike, killing two remaining survivors and, in Huntley's view, violating the laws of naval warfare and international law, which “give a protected status to shipwrecked personnel.” Mary and Andrew then take a moment to reflect on the tragic shooting of two National Guard members last week and an appellate court ruling affirming a lower court finding that Alina Habba's appointment as acting US Attorney in New Jersey was unlawful.Further reading: Todd Huntley's interview in The New Yorker: The Legal Consequences of Pete Hegseth's “Kill Them All” Order. A former military judge on the Trump Administration's contradictory—and likely unlawful—justifications for its Caribbean bombing campaign.Here is the original reporting on the 2nd strike by the Washington Post: Hegseth order on first Caribbean boat strike, officials say: Kill them all.  Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Amid an abundance of legal issues Mary and Andrew are keeping tabs on, this episode begins with the dismissal of the cases against both James Comey and Letitia James over the unlawful appointment of interim U.S. attorney Lindsey Halligan. The co-hosts work through the judge's decision before reviewing some of the procedural missteps made by Halligan in the Comey case. Next comes the news that the Pentagon is investigating Senator Mark Kelly over a video he and other lawmakers made assuring military personnel they are not obligated to follow illegal orders. As Andrew notes, “Isn't that the law? And isn't that what a president and the head of the Department of Defense want?” And last up, Andrew and Mary touch on a double standard over redistricting efforts, as the Justice Department sues California under a pretense of racial gerrymandering, while notably refraining from leveling similar challenges to Texas' redistricting plans. Further reading/watching:Here is the Washington Post piece Mary and Andrew referred to: White House blew past legal concerns in deadly strikes on drug boats.WATCH: Here is the video from Sen. Kelly and others: We want to speak directly to members of the Military and the Intelligence Community... Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This past weekend — after months of deflection from the Trump administration — came a sudden tone shift from President Trump himself, who urged House Republicans to support a measure compelling the Justice Department to release the Epstein files. Mary and Andrew begin here, noting that Trump could just as easily release the files himself without a vote. Next, they review an order to release all grand jury material in James Comey's case, after the judge blasted the Justice Department for potential misconduct. And before wrapping up, Mary and Andrew head to the latest in the JGG case and Judge Boasberg's contempt proceeding, after a district court ruled to allow the case before him to proceed.  Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The Supreme Court's landmark decision granting presidential immunity for official acts has reverberated in unprecedented ways since its issuance. One consequence, as Mary and Andrew note in their recent New York Times essay, is that rather than “preventing the weaponization of prosecutions, the court has unleashed it.” The co-hosts begin here, offering insights into the ongoing prosecutions of James Comey, Letitia James and the suspension of two assistant U.S. attorneys in DC. Next, they move to some updates on the National Guard domestic deployments, as several cases wind their way through the courts. And rounding out this episode, Mary and Andrew turn to the litigation around SNAP benefits and preview Wednesday's tariff argument before the Supreme Court.Further Reading:Here is Mary and Andrews' New York Times Essay: How the Supreme Court Paved the Way for Revenge ProsecutionsAnd as Mary and Andrew discussed, note the difference between the government's first Sentencing Memorandum in the Taylor Franklin Taranto case compared with the second Sentencing Memo.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The bulldozing of the East Wing of the White House late last week was shocking to much of the nation, Mary and Andrew included. They begin there with concerns, not only about preserving its rich history, but the ethical and legal questions that arise from the president using private donations to fund this ballroom build, and how the Anti-Deficiency Act might apply. Next, an update on National Guard deployments in the California case and the 9th Circuit's issue of a temporary stay in Portland as they consider an en banc review. And last up, the boat strikes keep coming in the Caribbean -- and now in the Pacific, as the president continues to escalate tensions. Mary and Andrew address the thorny legal issues at play when the U.S. military kills suspected traffickers in international waters.A note to listeners: Since this episode was recorded, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced another set of boat strikes in the Pacific ocean that killed 14 people. Further reading: Here is the Letter from several Democratic Senators raising concerns about donations to the ballroom that Mary and Andrew spoke about. Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Mary and Andrew begin this week with the latest in the Trump administration's attempt to send National Guard troops into American cities. From the 9th Circuit comes a 2-1 decision lifting a lower court's temporary block on deployments into Portland, Oregon. Plus: the government has asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on the use of National Guard troops in Chicago. Mary and Andrew analyze the legal repercussions of both, then move to reporting on a Trump administration promise to betray U.S. informants in order to secure a prison deal with El Salvador. And while a week feels like a year these days, the co-hosts review both John Bolton's indictment last Thursday and James Comey's recent motion to dismiss his case based on vindictive and selective prosecution. Before wrapping up this week, Mary and Andrew take a beat on last week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court in Louisiana v Calláis that dealt directly with the Voting Rights Act and whether redrawing districts can be used to remedy disenfranchising voters in Louisiana.Further Listening/Reading: Here is Andrew's conversation with former Special Counsel Jack Smith at an event at UCL in London: The State of the United States: A Conversation with Jack SmithHere is the reporting from The Washington Post Mary and Andrew spoke about: Rubio promised to betray U.S. informants to get Trump's El Salvador prison deal.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Last Thursday, New York Attorney General Letitia James was indicted by a grand jury on two counts. This, on the heels of former FBI Director James Comey's arraignment, where pre-trial motions were granted around vindictive and selective prosecution. Mary and Andrew use these two examples to explain why targeting individuals instead of crimes violates some of the Justice Department's most sacred norms. Next, they walk through the latest court battles around federalized National Guard troops in Oregon and Illinois, with a 7th Circuit ruling in Chicago and oral arguments in the 9th circuit over the Portland deployment. Last comes a notable article from Professor Caleb Nelson, one of the nation's foremost originalist legal scholars, who questions granting increasing executive authority to the presidency.    Further reading:Here is Professor Nelson's article written for NYU Law's Democracy Project: Special Feature: Must Administrative Officers Serve at the President's Pleasure?Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Military action is a stark theme this week, as Oregon and Illinois sue the Trump administration over its attempts to federalize National Guard troops for deployment into both states. Mary and Andrew break down not one, but two temporary restraining orders that block deployments to Oregon, as Trump appointed Judge Karin Immergut cites Trump's own words to show the facts don't support what he alleges about “war ravaged” cities. Then, they dig into the administration's fourth deadly boat strike on alleged drug traffickers near Venezuela, highlighting how the lack of apparent legal authority might play out, as Attorney General Pam Bondi answered questions from the Senate Judiciary committee Tuesday. Last up, Andrew and Mary turn to two consequential decisions that don't bode well for the Trump administration: one decision out of Boston, barring efforts to deport non-citizen activists; and a second finding of a “likelihood of vindictive prosecution” from a Nashville judge as it relates to the seeming retaliatory charges against Kilmar Abrego-Garcia.Further reading: MSNBC's Carol Leonnig and Ken Dilanian report: Top prosecutor is rejecting Trump pressure to charge New York AGMary And Tess Bridgeman's piece for Just Security:  What the Senate Judiciary Committee Should Ask A.G. Bondi on Drug Cartel StrikesJudge Karin Immergut's two decisions in Oregon:Immergut's First TRO blocking federalization of the Oregon National Guard. Immergut's Second TRO blocking deployment of any “federalized members of the National Guard” to the state.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.