Podcasts about third circuit court

The Trump Administration files a motion to dismiss the Abrego Garcia case based on jurisdiction. Judge Xinis denies two government motions requesting delays.The government asked the Supreme Court for an emergency stay of their own request to do credible fear hearings on the ground in Djibouti for the men unlawfully flown to South Sudan.Law enforcement continues to struggle under pressure from the White House to increase immigration arrests.Trump nominates his private attorney turned Deputy Attorney General to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.Plus listener questions…Questions for the pod?  Follow AG Substack|MuellershewroteBlueSky|@muellershewroteAndrew McCabe isn't on social media, but you can buy his book The ThreatThe Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and TrumpWe would like to know more about our listeners. Please participate in this brief surveyListener Survey and CommentsThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at the Justice Enforcers level and above:https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr when you subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3YNpW3P

Another day, another danger as an heiress finds herself in double trouble, but a minor medical emergency is nothing compared to the tax man.September – October 1933, Doris Duke finds herself in the hospital only weeks before her tax case heads to the Supreme Court. In both instances, more attention is given to her vast fortune in the press.Other people and subjects include: Nanaline Duke, James “Buck” Duke, Walker Inman, E.T. Stotesbury, Eva Stotesbury, James H.R. Cromwell aka “Jimmy,” Mdivani brothers (Serge Mdivani), tonsillectomy, President Franklin Roosevelt - FDR, New Deal, Chief Justice Hughes, George Allen, William Perkins, Uncle Sam, tax commissioner, Bureau of Internal Revenue – Internal Revenue Service – IRS, Supreme Court, Board of Tax Appeals, Third Circuit Court of Tax Appeals, levy, tax exile, tax evader, first richest list, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, J.P. Morgan, Vincent Astor, public fascination with millionaires, robber barons, breeder bureaucracy, trusts, Duke Foundation, Sixteenth Amendment, Revenue Act of 1924, tariffs, sales tax, Gilded Age, Prohibition, World War I, World War II, St. Luke's Hospital, President Donald Trump, Ferdinand Pecora, Wall Street investigation, J.P. Morgan Jr. Al Capone, biographies, missing information, uncovering new details, story restructure, empathy, Los Angeles fires, empathy, Heraclitus, tax audit, divorce, cancer, home loss, trauma, anger, phishing scam, Matt Taibibi, rich people problems, problems, Hurricane Helene, Carolinas, envy, bitterness, poison,…--Extra Notes / Call to Action:Check out and answer polls for As The Money Burns via social mediaX / Twitter – https://x.com/asthemoneyburnsInstagram – https://www.instagram.com/asthemoneyburns/Share, like, subscribe--Archival Music provided by Past Perfect Vintage Music, www.pastperfect.com.Opening Music: My Heart Belongs to Daddy by Billy Cotton, Album The Great British Dance BandsSection 1 Music: Temptation Rag by Harry Roy, Album The Great British Dance BandsSection 2 Music: Ain't She Sweet by Piccadilly Revels Band, Album Charleston – Great Stars Of the 20sSection 3 Music: Swingin' The Blues by Benny Carter & His Orchestra, Album Perfect BluesEnd Music: My Heart Belongs to Daddy by Billy Cotton, Album The Great British Dance Bands--https://asthemoneyburns.com/X / TW / IG – @asthemoneyburnsX / Twitter – https://x.com/asthemoneyburnsInstagram – https://www.instagram.com/asthemoneyburns/Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/asthemoneyburns/

This episode unpacks the latest developments in crypto markets as corporates like Intesa Sanpaolo and Genius Group join the Bitcoin buying wave, with MicroStrategy's premium holding steady at 1.91. We also highlight Tether's move to El Salvador and the growing traction of IBIT options, now capturing 50% of Deribit's open interest, signaling surging institutional demand. An ETF flow update and client strategies reveal how the big players are positioning themselves for 2024.We analyze funding rates, the Ondo unlock, and how to interpret these trends in relation to market dynamics. Recent aggressive crypto acquisitions reflect growing confidence in the new regulatory environment, paired with an update on Coinbase's Third Circuit Court of Appeals filing.On the macro front, we discuss last week's CPI, PPI, and employment data and we explore fiscal policy outlooks, debt sustainability, and potential policy shifts shaping the economic landscape. Additionally, we discuss China's 10Y yield dropping from 2.1% to 1.65% and it's potential impact on global liquidity.In the on-chain segment, we break down stablecoin borrow rates, with Aave at 10-11% and Sky peaking at 12.5%, alongside a surge in USDS growth (25% in the past week). Finally, we examine Sony's L2 launch on the OP stack, signaling a shift in how corporates leverage blockchain for Web3 adoption, and the interplay between public and permissioned chains.Topics Covered:Corporate Moves: New entrants into BTC buying, MicroStrategy premium analysis.Institutional Trends: IBIT options, ETF flows, and client strategies.Funding Rates & Unlocks: How market dynamics shape strategies.Regulatory Environment: Crypto acquisitions and Coinbase court updates.Macro Update: Key data reflections, China's stimulus, and fiscal policy outlook.On-Chain: Stablecoin borrow rates, USDS growth, and Sony's L2 launch for Web3 corporates.Host:Ben Floyd, Head of Execution ServicesPanelists: David Duong, Head of Institutional Research David Han, Research Analyst Georg Toropov, Senior CES Sales Trader

Thursday, December 19th, 2024Today, the House Ethics Committee voted in secret December 5th to release the Matt Gaetz report; how we lost an incredibly qualified judge to a broken judicial nomination process; the infamous paper that popularized hydroxychloroquine has finally been retracted; current secretary of the interior and former New Mexico Congresswoman Deb Haaland is eyeing the governor's race in 2026; the Fed cut rates but the market plummeted on the news they'd make fewer rate cuts next year; and Allison and Dana deliver your Good News.Thank You To DeleteMe Get 20 percent off your DeleteMe plan when you go to JOINdeleteMe.com/DailyBeans and use promo code Dailybeans at checkout.Stories:House Ethics Committee set to release investigation report on Matt Gaetz (Jacqueline Alemany and Marianna Sotomayor | The Washington Post)Infamous paper that popularized unproven COVID-19 treatment finally retracted (CATHLEEN O'GRADY | Science.org)The Judge We Could Have Had (Joyce Vance | joycevance.substack.com)Deb Haaland planning run for governor, but could face competition from Martin Heinrich (Dan Boyd | Albuquerque Journal)Follow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote, Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewroteDana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/From The Good NewsPotash facts (natural-resources.canada.ca)Silent heart attack: What are the risks? (Mayoclinic.org)Flow: Nominated for Best International Film (filmindependent.org)Laine Swanson - Floral Anatomy Artist (laineswanson.com)Biden-Harris Administration Outlines “America the Beautiful” Initiative (doi.gov)Threatened Species Status with Section 4(d) Rule for Monarch Butterfly and Designation of Critical Habitat (regulations.gov) Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote, Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewroteDana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

On this episode of Conduct Detrimental: THE Sports Law Podcast, Dan Lust (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@SportsLawLust)⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠and Mike Kravchenko (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Find him on YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠) are joined by Bobby Hartwick (@BobbyHartwick) to bring you the latest updates in sports law as we find ourselves with yet another a jam-packed week across the board. The trio dives into the NBA-TNT matching rights drama. Warner Bros., the parent company of TNT, recently exercised its matching rights on one of the deals proposed for the NBA's broadcasting rights. This move has sparked a debate about whether TNT can truly match the streaming services like Amazon Prime. Dan explains the potential legal and contractual hurdles, including the possibility of arbitration, and the implications for the NBA's broadcasting landscape. Next, they cover the new lawsuit filed by the Olympic and Paralympic Committee against PRIME, the energy drink owned by Logan Paul and KSI. The lawsuit claims PRIME infringed on the committee's trademarks by using phrases and symbols associated with the Olympics, such as "three-time Olympic gold medalist" and "repping Team USA." The trio discusses the legal intricacies of trademark enforcement and the potential repercussions for Prime. Odell Beckham Jr.'s recent legal battle with Nike also gets attention. Despite Beckham's celebratory social media post claiming victory, Nike's statement asserts that all of Beckham's claims were decided against him without any monetary award. This confusing narrative underscores the importance of clear legal communications and the broader implications for athlete endorsement deals. The conversation then shifts to a humorous yet important trademark dispute between Lamar Jackson and Troy Aikman over the word "eight." Jackson blocked Aikman's attempt to trademark "eight," claiming potential consumer confusion with his own trademarks like "Era 8" and "You 8 Yet." The group discusses the complexities of trademark law in sports and the likelihood of a coexistence agreement. Bobby shares his insights into the Johnson vs. NCAA case as Trey Johnson, a former Villanova football player, along with other student-athletes, filed a class action lawsuit against the NCAA and several universities, arguing they should be classified as employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that student-athletes could potentially qualify as employees, which could have major financial and compliance implications for colleges. The case was remanded to the district court to apply the new economic realities test, setting a precedent for evaluating student-athletes' employment status. Mike shares his excitement for Netflix's upcoming "Untold" documentary series, which includes episodes on the Michigan sign-stealing scandal and other intriguing sports stories. Bobby recommends watching the Giants' "Hard Knocks" series for its in-depth look at front office operations and player evaluations, wrapping up a packed episode of sports law updates and insights. Have a topic you want to write about? ANYONE and EVERYONE can publish for ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ConductDetrimental.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Let us know if you want to join the team. *** As always, this episode is sponsored by Themis Bar Review: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.themisbarsocial.com/conductdetrimental⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  Host: Dan Lust (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@SportsLawLust⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠)  Featuring and Produced by: Mike Kravchenko (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch on YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠) Guest: Bobby Hartwick (⁠@BobbyHartwick⁠) Connect with us:⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠TikTok⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠Website⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠Email --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/condetrimental/support

On this episode of Conduct Detrimental: THE Sports Law Podcast, Dan Lust (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@SportsLawLust)⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠and Mike Kravchenko (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Find him on YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠) are joined by Bobby Hartwick (@BobbyHartwick) to bring you the latest updates in sports law as we find ourselves with yet another a jam-packed week across the board. The trio dives into the NBA-TNT matching rights drama. Warner Bros., the parent company of TNT, recently exercised its matching rights on one of the deals proposed for the NBA's broadcasting rights. This move has sparked a debate about whether TNT can truly match the streaming services like Amazon Prime. Dan explains the potential legal and contractual hurdles, including the possibility of arbitration, and the implications for the NBA's broadcasting landscape. Next, they cover the new lawsuit filed by the Olympic and Paralympic Committee against PRIME, the energy drink owned by Logan Paul and KSI. The lawsuit claims PRIME infringed on the committee's trademarks by using phrases and symbols associated with the Olympics, such as "three-time Olympic gold medalist" and "repping Team USA." The trio discusses the legal intricacies of trademark enforcement and the potential repercussions for Prime. Odell Beckham Jr.'s recent legal battle with Nike also gets attention. Despite Beckham's celebratory social media post claiming victory, Nike's statement asserts that all of Beckham's claims were decided against him without any monetary award. This confusing narrative underscores the importance of clear legal communications and the broader implications for athlete endorsement deals. The conversation then shifts to a humorous yet important trademark dispute between Lamar Jackson and Troy Aikman over the word "eight." Jackson blocked Aikman's attempt to trademark "eight," claiming potential consumer confusion with his own trademarks like "Era 8" and "You 8 Yet." The group discusses the complexities of trademark law in sports and the likelihood of a coexistence agreement. Bobby shares his insights into the Johnson vs. NCAA case as Trey Johnson, a former Villanova football player, along with other student-athletes, filed a class action lawsuit against the NCAA and several universities, arguing they should be classified as employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that student-athletes could potentially qualify as employees, which could have major financial and compliance implications for colleges. The case was remanded to the district court to apply the new economic realities test, setting a precedent for evaluating student-athletes' employment status. Mike shares his excitement for Netflix's upcoming "Untold" documentary series, which includes episodes on the Michigan sign-stealing scandal and other intriguing sports stories. Bobby recommends watching the Giants' "Hard Knocks" series for its in-depth look at front office operations and player evaluations, wrapping up a packed episode of sports law updates and insights. Have a topic you want to write about? ANYONE and EVERYONE can publish for ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ConductDetrimental.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Let us know if you want to join the team. *** As always, this episode is sponsored by Themis Bar Review: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.themisbarsocial.com/conductdetrimental⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  Host: Dan Lust (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@SportsLawLust⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠)  Featuring and Produced by: Mike Kravchenko (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch on YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠) Guest: Bobby Hartwick (⁠@BobbyHartwick⁠) Connect with us:⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠TikTok⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠Website⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠Email --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/condetrimental/support

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, a leading judicial authority, recently upheld a significant ruling on Pennsylvania's absentee ballot procedures, underscoring the continued importance of election integrity. Their decision turned down a review en banc, thereby maintaining the significance of the date requirement for absentee voting. The brisk 9 to 4 vote strongly signals the judicial approval of stringent election laws, which proponents argue defending the sacred democratic process. The Pennsylvania case was originally brought to the court by various voter advocacy groups, including the prominent League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania State Conference of NAACP branches. These groups challenged the discarding of absentee ballots not correctly dated per the state's regulations, arguing that this requirement was unjust and exclusionary. The defendants of the case, which included the Secretary of the Commonwealth and multiple county election boards, advocated for the necessity of the date requirement. They viewed it as a critical cog in the machine of preserving the structured process of voting. They argued that issues connected to elections often generate from undated or incorrectly dated absentee ballots. The dismissal of a ballot due to non-compliance with regulations — such as missing a postmark date or the voter's signature, or not dating an enclosed envelope — can lead to its disqualification. These stipulations are frequent among the legal prerequisites for a valid ballot. Laws in different states and localities vary, although this ruling brings Pennsylvania's procedures in line with many other jurisdictions.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Nominated by Biden for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Adeel Mangi has a Harvard education and years as a prominent corporate litigator under his belt. But during his Senate confirmation hearing, the main thing Republican lawmakers wanted to talk about were Hamas's October 7th attacks. Now, Democrats are weighing filling a seat in the federal judiciary against giving in to Islamophobia. Guest: Nate Raymond, reporter covering the federal judiciary and litigation for Reuters. Want more What Next? Subscribe to Slate Plus to access ad-free listening to the whole What Next family and across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Sign up now at slate.com/whatnextplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Nominated by Biden for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Adeel Mangi has a Harvard education and years as a prominent corporate litigator under his belt. But during his Senate confirmation hearing, the main thing Republican lawmakers wanted to talk about were Hamas's October 7th attacks. Now, Democrats are weighing filling a seat in the federal judiciary against giving in to Islamophobia. Guest: Nate Raymond, reporter covering the federal judiciary and litigation for Reuters. Want more What Next? Subscribe to Slate Plus to access ad-free listening to the whole What Next family and across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Sign up now at slate.com/whatnextplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Nominated by Biden for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Adeel Mangi has a Harvard education and years as a prominent corporate litigator under his belt. But during his Senate confirmation hearing, the main thing Republican lawmakers wanted to talk about were Hamas's October 7th attacks. Now, Democrats are weighing filling a seat in the federal judiciary against giving in to Islamophobia. Guest: Nate Raymond, reporter covering the federal judiciary and litigation for Reuters. Want more What Next? Subscribe to Slate Plus to access ad-free listening to the whole What Next family and across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Sign up now at slate.com/whatnextplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: Andrew Johnson is a Scoundrel On this day in legal history, March 27, 1866, President Andrew Johnson enacted one of the most consequential vetoes in American history. Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Bill, a pivotal piece of legislation intended to extend full U.S. citizenship to all former slaves and to fundamentally reshape the landscape of civil rights in the aftermath of the Civil War. This bill was a direct response to the Black Codes, laws passed by Southern states that severely restricted the rights of newly freed African Americans.Johnson, a Southern Democrat who ascended to the presidency after Lincoln's assassination, argued that the bill encroached upon states' rights and would lead to federal overreach. His veto underscored a profound political and ideological rift between the President and the Radical Republicans in Congress, who advocated for more stringent Reconstruction policies and greater protections for former slaves.The veto of the Civil Rights Bill did not mark the end of the struggle for equality; rather, it galvanized Congress to action. In a rare and historic move, Congress overrode Johnson's veto in April 1866, marking the first time in U.S. history that a major piece of legislation became law over a presidential veto. This event signaled a shift in the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches and underscored the growing commitment of the federal government to civil rights.The passage of the Civil Rights Bill set the stage for the 14th Amendment, which would be ratified two years later in 1868. The amendment enshrined in the Constitution the principles of birthright citizenship and equal protection under the law, fundamentally transforming the nature of American citizenship and laying the groundwork for future civil rights advancements. Johnson's veto, and the legislative response it provoked, remain a testament to the turbulent and transformative nature of the Reconstruction era, highlighting the enduring struggle for justice and equality in the United States.The U.S. Justice Department strategically filed its significant antitrust lawsuit against Apple Inc. in New Jersey, aiming to leverage the Third Circuit Court's history of plaintiff-friendly rulings in monopoly cases. This move is part of the broader Biden administration effort to regulate the dominance of Big Tech through antitrust law, targeting practices Apple uses to maintain its smartphone market monopoly. The Third Circuit, known for its openness to cracking down on monopolistic behavior, contrasts with other circuits perceived as more defendant-friendly in antitrust matters.Legal experts point out the Third Circuit's precedents in supporting the government's stance against monopolistic practices, citing past rulings against companies like Dentsply and 3M Co. for violating the Sherman Act. These precedents underline the court's stricter standards for monopolists, relevant to the DOJ's allegations against Apple for Section 2 violations of the same act. The choice of New Jersey also reflects tactical considerations regarding subpoena power and the desire for a court that might approach the case with fresh eyes, avoiding circuits like the Ninth, where Apple has previously secured favorable rulings.The DOJ's lawsuit, joined by New Jersey and other states, underscores the strategic legal and geographic considerations at play in selecting a venue. This reflects a deliberate effort to position the case advantageously within the U.S. legal landscape, aiming for a fresh judicial examination of Apple's business practices and their impact on competition and consumers.DOJ's Apple Suit Filed in New Jersey for Friendly Third CircuitThe 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals has temporarily halted a Texas law, SB4, which authorizes state officials to arrest, detain, and deport individuals entering the U.S. illegally, pending an appeal. This decision represents a temporary victory for the Biden administration in a legal battle with significant ramifications for U.S. immigration policy. The court's 2-1 ruling maintains the suspension of the law, following a lower court judge's determination that it conflicts with federal immigration statutes.Chief Judge Priscilla Richman, writing for the court, underscored that immigration enforcement predominantly falls within federal jurisdiction, despite Texas' efforts to address what it perceives as a failure by Congress to fund adequate responses to increased illegal entries into the United States. She emphasized that Texas cannot assume the federal government's role in immigration matters according to the Constitution and laws.The contested law has caused considerable confusion and uncertainty in Texas, especially regarding its potential enforcement mechanisms. Texas officials argue that SB4 is necessary to mitigate the border crossing influx, criticizing federal inaction. Conversely, the Biden administration contends that the law unlawfully encroaches on federal authority to manage immigration policy and could hinder border management efforts.The appeals court noted that the Texas statute would likely disrupt the federal government's established processes for managing the removal of individuals in the country illegally, pointing out the federal system's complexity and national scope. The 5th Circuit is set to further review the state's appeal of a February ruling by US District Judge David Ezra, who blocked the law on grounds that it would effectively nullify federal law and authority. Oral arguments for the appeal are slated for April 3, as the broader legal challenge to SB4's enforceability continues, with the federal government, a Texas border county, and immigrant rights organizations seeking its permanent injunction.Texas Deportation Law Stays Blocked Until Appeal Is Resolved (1)Disney has settled a lawsuit with the state of Florida, marking the end of its dispute with Governor Ron DeSantis. This resolution came about after a board, appointed by DeSantis to manage the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District which oversees Disney's operations in the region, accepted Disney's settlement offer. The conflict, lasting nearly a year, stemmed from Disney's implementation of certain changes that diminished the municipal authority's powers, specifically limiting the new board's oversight on theme park expansions and billboard advertising.These changes were enacted just before the takeover by the DeSantis-appointed board, leading to a significant legal and public relations battle between the state and Disney, one of Florida's largest employers. Under the terms of the settlement, Disney has agreed to withdraw these controversial changes, thereby restoring the authority of the municipal board.Jeff Vahle, president of Walt Disney World Resort, expressed satisfaction with the settlement, highlighting that it not only concludes the ongoing litigation in Florida's state court but also initiates a period of positive engagement with the district's new leadership. He emphasized that this agreement facilitates further investments and job creation in Florida, benefiting both the state's economy and its workforce. This settlement represents a significant step towards resolving the tensions between Disney and the Florida government, opening the door to future cooperation and development.Disney Ends Fight With Ron DeSantis by Settling Florida LawsuitFlorida governor, Disney reach settlement | ReutersA consumer lawsuit accusing Apple of anti-competitive practices related to cryptocurrency transactions in its App Store was dismissed by a federal judge in San Francisco. The lawsuit, filed in November 2023, claimed Apple's restrictions on cryptocurrency technology stifled competition and increased transaction fees for services like Venmo and Cash App. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria criticized the lawsuit as "speculative," identifying several critical flaws, but allowed the plaintiffs 21 days to amend their complaint. Apple, which has faced various antitrust challenges, including a notable lawsuit from the U.S. Justice Department over smartphone market monopolization, denied any wrongdoing. This dismissal adds to the ongoing debate about Apple's influence on app market competition and its regulatory compliance amidst growing legal scrutiny.Apple defeats consumers' crypto-payment antitrust case for now | ReutersHunter Biden is set to request the dismissal of tax evasion charges against him, claiming the case is politically motivated. His legal team will argue before a Los Angeles federal court that the prosecution was influenced by Republican scrutiny of his father, President Joe Biden. Hunter has pleaded not guilty to charges of evading $1.4 million in taxes from 2016 to 2019, despite having repaid the amount. His trial is scheduled for June, ahead of the contentious November presidential election. Additionally, Hunter faces separate charges in Delaware related to the alleged purchase of a handgun while using illegal drugs, to which he has also pleaded not guilty. His defense includes claims of selective prosecution and challenges the appointment of Special Counsel David Weiss, asserting the case should be dismissed due to an earlier plea deal that fell through.Hunter Biden to ask judge to dismiss tax charges as politically motivated | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Kiryas Joel, a chartered municipality in New York State functions as a religious community and American village. Nomi M. Stolzenberg holds the Nathan and Lilly Shapell Chair at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law. She is a legal scholar whose research spans a range of interdisciplinary interests, including law and religion, law and liberalism, law and feminism, law and psychoanalysis, and law and literature. After getting her J.D. at Harvard Law School in 1987 and clerking for the Honorable John Gibbons, chief judge of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, she joined the faculty at the USC Gould School in 1988. There, she helped establish the USC Center for Law, History and Culture, one of the preeminent centers for the study of law and the humanities. She is the co-author with David N. Myers of American Shtetl: The Making of Kiryas Joel, a Hasidic Village in Upstate New York (Princeton, 2022), and the author of numerous articles on law and religion, including the widely cited “He Drew a Circle That Shut Me Out: Assimilation, Indoctrination, and the Paradox of a Liberal Education,” published in the Harvard Law Review, “Righting the Relationship Between Race and Religion in Law,” and “The Return of Religion: Legal Secularism's Rise and Fall and Possible Resurrection.” She is spending the 2022-2023 academic year as a visiting professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and as a fellow at the Katz Center for Advanced Judaic Studies at the University of Pennsylvania, where she will be working on a new project on religious exemptions and the theory of “faith-based discrimination.”   David N. Myers is Distinguished Professor of History and holds the Sady and Ludwig Kahn Chair in Jewish History at UCLA, where he serves as the director of the UCLA Luskin Center for History and Policy. He also directs the new UCLA Initiative to Study Hate. He is the author or editor of more than fifteen books in the field of Jewish history, including, with Nomi Stolzenberg, American Shtetl: The Making of Kiryas Joel, a Hasidic Village in Upstate New York (Princeton, 2022), which was awarded the 2022 National Jewish Book Award in American Jewish studies. From 2018-2023, he served as president of the New Israel Fund.

Former President Donald Trump's "bloodbath" comment sent the corporate media into a tailspin. Join Federalist Editor-in-Chief Mollie Hemingway and Senior Editor David Harsanyi as they analyze corporate media's 2024 election interference, revisit the elevation of Christine Blasey Ford's lies about Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and discuss the nomination of Adeel Mangi to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Mollie also reviews Chris Fleming's and Ryan Long's comedy shows and David shares his culture picks for the week including the book Why The Bible Began: An Alternative History of Scripture and its Origins.If you care about combatting the corrupt media that continues to inflict devastating damage, please give a gift to help The Federalist do the real journalism that America needs.https://surfshark.deals/FEDERALIST

Former President Donald Trump's "bloodbath" comment sent the corporate media into a tailspin. Join Federalist Editor-in-Chief Mollie Hemingway and Senior Editor David Harsanyi as they analyze corporate media's 2024 election interference, revisit the elevation of Christine Blasey Ford's lies about Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and discuss the nomination of Adeel Mangi to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Mollie also reviews Chris Fleming's and Ryan Long's comedy shows and David shares his culture picks for the week including the book Why The Bible Began: An Alternative History of Scripture and its Origins.If you care about combatting the corrupt media that continues to inflict devastating damage, please give a gift to help The Federalist do the real journalism that America needs.https://surfshark.deals/FEDERALIST

Intro: In today's episode, Karen Rands has a lively and informative conversation with her esteemed guest Dr. Tonya Evans, a law professor and expert in intellectual property and blockchain technology.  Listen as they delve into the cutting-edge world of blockchain, cryptocurrency, and NFTs.  Together, they unravel the complexities of “tokenization of assets”, “Operation Choke Point 2.0”, and the transformative potential of #NFTs and “smart contracts”. Dr. Evans shares her journey from initial skepticism to advocacy, emphasizing the importance of understanding and mitigating risks in the crypto space. With insights into the legal landscape, educational opportunities, and the future of digital innovation, this episode provides a comprehensive look at how blockchain technologies are reshaping industries and investment strategies. Whether you're an investor, a tech enthusiast, or simply curious about the future of finance, this conversation is sure to broaden your horizons.  Listen now as we explore these groundbreaking topics and more, offering a glimpse into the evolving world of blockchain with one of its foremost thought leaders. Key TakeAways from this episode are:  Tokenization of Assets - Tokenization of stocks, bonds, and deeds - Potential to reduce friction in public records - Impact on property ownership and power dynamics 2. Operation Choke Point 2.0 - History and purpose of the original Operation Choke Point - The informal nature of Choke Point 2.0 targeting crypto industries - Constitutional concerns raised by Dr. Evans - Approval of 11 Bitcoin ETFs indicating a changing financial landscape 3. Legal Considerations for Blockchain and Cryptocurrency - Role of blockchain forensics in law enforcement - Warrant requirements for tracing phone numbers - Accessibility of public blockchain records for tracking - Adapting legal discovery processes for digital currencies and the need for transparency, specifically pseudonymity in cryptocurrency transactions - Fourth Amendment concerns regarding private vs. public information - User information disclosure on crypto exchanges - Cryptocurrencies relative to traditional currency in illicit activities and the use of coin mixers to obscure transactions 4. Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) - Explanation of NFTs as unique digital assets - Various potential uses, including digital ownership and event tickets and the potential to reduce fraud in ticketing and identity verification - Comparison of NFTs to physical deeds - Use in secure identity verification without disclosing personal details - Evolving intellectual property concerns in digital media with a look back at the historical impact of Napster on the entertainment industry - Empowerment of creators through NFTs - Combating identity fraud and scams with unique identifiers 5. Blockchain, Cryptocurrency, and NFTs Impact - Basic explanation of cryptography in cryptocurrency and Bitcoin as the first cryptocurrency and its characteristics - Focus on market losses in 2022 and regulatory actions - Guest background: Dr. Evans' expertise and advocacy for balanced investment - Interest in blockchain for intellectual property and technology applications - Misconceptions about different technologies, including crypto and NFTs 6. Digital Ownership and Real-World Applications - Impact of smart contracts on authenticity verification and automation - Significance of smart contracts, particularly with Ethereum blockchain - Examples like real estate management and micro payments for artists - Tokenization of assets forecasted to grow significantly by 2025 - Digital replication concerns and the "double spend" problem and Cryptocurrencies as a solution for digital value exchange Dr. Tonya Evans, a seasoned attorney and a distinguished alumnus of Howard University School of Law, celebrated her 25th reunion from the esteemed institution in 2017. She began her illustrious career clerking in the Third Circuit Court, subsequently joining major law firms where she specialized in trust and estates, focusing on sophisticated planning for high-net-worth individuals. Trained rigorously in risk management and fiduciary responsibility, Dr. Evans was initially skeptical upon entering the cryptocurrency space in 2017, perceiving it through a lens of caution and prudence owing to its association with "magic Internet money" and the darknet. Despite her reservations, her expertise in risk mitigation has greatly informed her progressive steps in the evolving digital financial landscape. Dr. Evans' courses on blockchain, crypto, and law- Identifying how legal frameworks interact with emerging technologies.  Dr. Evans'  book "Digital Money Demystified".   For more information and to connect with Dr. Tonya Evans visit http://AdvantageEvans.com  Karen Rands is the President of Kugarand Capital Holdings where her extended team offers coaching and services to small business owners providing capital strategy and investor acquisition through the Launch Funding Network.  As a thought leader in Angel and Crowdfund Investing, Karen offers investors decision tools, education, screening, due diligence, and syndication services through the National Network of Angel Investors.   Karen wrote the best selling primer for new Angel Investors  - Inside Secrets to Angel Investing and now offers digital beginner and advanced courses covering  Angel and Crowdfunding Investing on the Compassionate Capitalist Academy financial education platform. More information can be found at http://karenrands.co   When you subscribe on the contact page you will receive her Compassionate Capitalist short video tips by email, her ebook 12 Secrets of Innovation and Wealth and have an opportunity to schedule time to chat with Karen directly. Please help us build the Compassionate Capitalist community by subscribing, liking, and sharing this podcast.    The Compassionate Capitalist Show is also on Youtube @angelinvesting with a library of over 280 episodes.  Keywords: Tokenization of assets, cryptocurrency regulations, NFT, Operation Choke Point, blockchain technology, Bitcoin, ETFs, smart contracts, digital identity verification, intellectual property in crypto, digital money demystified, coin mixers, privacy and technology, fourth amendment concerns, legal considerations in crypto, criminal activities with crypto, digital and intellectual innovation, non-fungible tokens, Ethereum blockchain, peer-to-peer file sharing, supply chain identity, automated micro-payments, sound money, tax implications of crypto, public blockchain records, blockchain forensics, Napster, entertainment industry, crypto market losses, venture capital, angel investing, DRM, Digital Rights Management

I've spoken repeatedly about the unconstitutionality of most mask mandates. Recently, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals was asked to review two cases where people were punished for attending school board meetings while refusing to wear masks. Sadly, the cases, as described in the Circuit Court opinion, seem poorly founded, thus leading to decisions against the plaintiffs. I think a closer look will not only show the flaws in the case, but help others build better ones in the future.

NJ Second Amendment Headline News for Monday, February 5th, 2024Breaking News out of Federal District Court in NY, and New Jersey makes filings in both Federal District court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It's Tuesday, January 23rd, A.D. 2024. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Kevin Swanson Chinese Communists sentence pastor to 14 years in prison A Chinese pastor with a large online presence has received a sentence of 14 years in prison. Kan Xiaoyong, his wife Wang, and four other church members all received prison sentences at the hands of the despotic communist government, reports Bitter Winter Magazine. Pastor Kan has supported the House Church movement with what he called the Home Discipleship Network for the last four years.  Both the pastor and his wife were tortured for two to three hours by Chinese authorities, reports Radio Free Asia.  Indian prime minister doubles down on Hinduism India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi is moving more nationalist and more committed to a Hindu state. That will mean more persecution for Christians and those of other minority religions. His enthusiastic support for the false god “Lord Ram” and a new Hindu temple in northern India's Ayodhya is an attempt to create what Modi has called “The New India.” Hindus for Human Rights is protesting, calling this an attempt to “weaponize Hinduism in the name of the BJP's repressive nationalist ideology, ahead of national elections in May.” Brazil floods kill 32 Torrential rains in Brazil led to severe flooding last week, resulting in the deaths of at least 32 persons and the displacement of 5,000 others, according to The Brazilian Report. And The Christian Daily reports that the Rio de Janeiro flood left 12 dead. The Brazilian Evangelical Alliance is calling for prayers and volunteers to help with the clean up efforts for church communities affected by the flooding — reported to be the worst in 90 years.  Brazil critical of Israel Also, in relation to the Israeli-Hamas War, Brazil has joined South Africa and other Arab nations to bring charges of genocide against Israel in the International Court of Justice for Israel's defending itself after being attacked by the Muslim terrorist group on October 7th. The United States, Canada, and Germany have criticized the motion. Ron DeSantis withdraws from presidential race Ahead of today's first-in-the nation primary in New Hampshire, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has pulled out of the presidential race, and he's putting his support behind former president Donald Trump. Listen. DeSANTIS: “I can't ask our supporters to volunteer their time and donate their resources if we don't have a clear path to victory. Accordingly, I am today suspending my campaign. “It's clear to me that a majority of Republican primary voters want to give Donald Trump another chance. They watch his presidency gets stymied by relentless resistance, and they see Democrats using lawfair to this day to attack him. While I've had disagreements with Donald Trump, such as on the coronavirus pandemic and his elevation of Anthony Fauci, Trump is superior to the current incumbent, Joe Biden. “He has my endorsement because we can't go back to the old Republican Guard of yesteryear.” Trump leads Haley, 50-39%, in New Hampshire   A CNN poll finds that Trump's lead over second place Republican candidate Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina Governor, is now 50-39% in the New Hampshire primary today, where Haley has her best shot.  Real estate market hitting recession The real estate market has hit recession levels. Existing-home sales waned by 1 % in December to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 3.78 million, reports the National Association of Realtors. That's the lowest level since the 2010 recession. Court: 18 to 20-year-olds can carry guns The U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the rights of 18 to 20-year-olds to carry arms.  The court ruled that a Pennsylvania law, which prohibits the right of these young adults from carrying firearms in public during a state of emergency, was unconstitutional.  U.S. Circuit Judge Kent Jordan wrote, “It is undisputed that 18 to 20-year-olds are among ‘the people' for other constitutional rights such as the right to vote, freedom of speech, peaceable assembly, government petitions, and the right against unreasonable government searches and seizures.” March for Life in D.C. and across America Pro-lifers held their March for Life events around the country over the weekend, connected to the January 22, 1973 date of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision which effectively legalized abortion. As The Worldview reported yesterday, thousands braved snowy weather in Washington DC, to march and attend a rally with speakers including NFL player Benjamin Watson and House Speaker Mike Johnson – both of whom we quoted. Other speakers included Republican Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey, Focus on the Family President Jim Daly, and Pastor Greg Laurie of Harvest Christian Fellowship. Abortion rate up despite overturn of Roe Despite the reversal of Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022, the number of abortions appears to still be on the increase in America. The Guttmacher Institute reports that in the first 10 months of 2023 there were an estimated 878,000 abortions in the formal US health care system. That's a rate 12% higher than 2020's numbers. And that doesn't include the number of abortions produced by the Day After Pill, the IUD, and the unrecorded Abortion Kill Pill by Mail program.  Hear the Word of the Lord, for America,  from Isaiah 1:15-17. God said, “When you spread out your hands, I will hide My eyes from you; Even though you make many prayers, I will not hear. Your hands are full of blood. Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; Put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes. Cease to do evil,  Learn to do good; Seek justice, Rebuke the oppressor; Defend the fatherless, Plead for the widow.” Wrestler Hulk Hogan rescues teen after witnessing car accident And finally, famed wrestler Hulk Hogan has recently been in the headlines for getting baptized and speaking about his newfound Christian faith, reports FaithWire.com. But the former World Wrestling Entertainment star is now making headlines for “playing real-life superheroes” alongside one of his friends. A week ago Sunday night, Hogan was in Tampa, Florida when he witnessed a horrific crash and jumped into action. The accident reportedly involved a 17-year-old girl, whom Hogan rescued. After news of the incident broke, the wrestling icon's wife, Sky Daily Hogan, shared details of the event on her Facebook page. She said, “Last night, after we left dinner in Tampa, we saw a car flip in front of us! I truly admire my husband, @hulkhogan, and our good buddy, @jakerask, for springing into action, puncturing the girl's airbag, and getting her quickly out of the car.” According to Hogan, the victim was “unscathed,” though rattled. In the end, she called the entire ordeal “an absolute miracle.” The wrestler also confirmed the story on his Twitter feed, explaining how he was able to pop the airbag without a knife. He wrote, “The crazy part about the teenager that flipped her car was that, without a knife to puncture the airbags to get her out, an Indian Rocks Christian ballpoint pen came in really handy. Thank you, God, all is well.” Close And that's The Worldview in 5 Minutes on this Tuesday, January 23rd in the year of our Lord 2024. Subscribe by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Or get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

This Day in Legal History: Nixon Nominates a White Supremacist On January 19, 1970, President Richard Nixon's judicial appointment landscape was forever altered when he nominated Judge G. Harrold Carswell to the U.S. Supreme Court. This decision marked a pivotal moment in legal history, steeped in controversy and intense political debate. Carswell, a member of the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, was initially seen as a suitable candidate. However, this perception rapidly changed following a profound revelation.The nomination's controversy ignited when a tenacious reporter unearthed a speech from 1948 in the Wilkinson County courthouse basement in Georgia. This speech, delivered by Carswell during a political campaign and preserved as the lead story in The Irwinton Bulletin, a weekly newspaper he edited, contained a statement that "segregation of the races is proper." This declaration, in itself contentious, was not the only incendiary element. Far more striking was Carswell's avowed "firm, vigorous belief in the principles of white supremacy."The discovery of these remarks set the stage for a heated debate in the Senate and across the nation. The context of Carswell's speech was significant; it not only reflected the then-prevailing legal norms, which were later overturned by Brown v. Board of Education, but also revealed a deeper, more troubling ideological stance. The revelation of Carswell's explicit support for white supremacy principles proved to be a turning point in the nomination process.Despite the legal backdrop of the era, which often upheld segregationist policies, the Senate could not overlook Carswell's explicit statements. This led to a rare instance where a Supreme Court nominee was rejected primarily due to their expressed views on race and equality. On April 8, 1970, the Senate rejected Carswell's nomination with a vote of 51-45, marking a significant moment in the history of judicial appointments in the United States.The aftermath of Carswell's failed nomination highlighted the importance of thorough vetting in judicial appointments and the evolving standards of what was acceptable in the public and legal spheres. It also underscored the role of investigative journalism in shaping national discourse and decision-making processes. This event remains a poignant reminder of the intersection between law, societal values, and the enduring impact of past statements on public and professional life.In a recent legal development, archivists seeking records about President John F. Kennedy's assassination received a partial victory in their lawsuit against the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The Northern District of California court ruled that the plaintiffs could proceed with claims under the Federal Records Act (FRA) regarding documents they allege were destroyed, but not those merely missing.The plaintiffs, including the Mary Ferrell Foundation Inc., Josiah Thompson, and Gary Aguilar, sued NARA under the FRA, asserting the agency's failure to request the U.S. Attorney General to recover records tied to the assassination. Judge Richard Seeborg of the US District Court for the Northern District of California, in his ruling, acknowledged that the plaintiffs could pursue claims for destroyed records. They argued that recovery might be possible, including through computerized versions of the documents.However, the judge stated that NARA is not obligated to track down missing records, clarifying that this aspect of the lawsuit was essentially a reiteration of the plaintiffs' unsuccessful attempt to compel NARA to complete outstanding record searches. He reiterated a previous ruling that NARA is not required to finish searches initiated by the Assassination Records Review Board, which ceased operations in 1998.The Assassination Records Review Board, established by the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, was an independent agency tasked with overseeing the identification and release of records related to Kennedy's assassination. The plaintiffs' lawsuit, filed on October 19, 2022, and amended on September 11, 2023, also alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the JFK Act.The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim that NARA acted arbitrarily in violation of the APA and largely denied their motion to compel agency action under the APA, except for the claim regarding NARA's failure to maintain identification aids for each assassination record and to release legislative records. The lawsuit, represented by Lawrence Schnapf of New York and William Morris Simpich in Oakland, California, continues to be a significant case in the ongoing quest for full disclosure of records related to the JFK assassination.JFK Assassination Records Suit Gets Partial Green Light (1)The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has overruled a Delaware judge's decision and mandated an independent examination of the FTX Group's collapse. This ruling requires US Bankruptcy Judge John Dorsey to appoint an external examiner to investigate the downfall of the FTX crypto exchange, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in November 2022 amid allegations of widespread fraud. The US Trustee, a federal entity overseeing corporate bankruptcies, had contested Dorsey's original ruling, emphasizing the necessity of an independent investigation for the public to gain a comprehensive understanding of the circumstances surrounding FTX's failure. This decision ensures that the findings of the investigation will be made public, providing transparency in the case.Third Circuit Orders Independent Examiner in FTX BankruptcyThe Supreme Court's recent hearings suggest a potential shift away from the Chevron doctrine, a cornerstone of administrative law, towards the older Skidmore doctrine. This change, primarily supported by the court's conservative majority, emerged during arguments in cases involving the FTX crypto exchange's bankruptcy. The Chevron doctrine, established in 1984, mandates judicial deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, while the 1944 Skidmore doctrine suggests deference only if the agency's interpretation is persuasive. The court's inclination to favor Skidmore, which grants less deference to agencies, aligns with conservative criticism that Chevron gives excessive power to executive agencies.By way of very brief background, Skidmore deference, a principle within administrative law, allows federal courts to defer to a federal agency's interpretation of statutes it administers based on the persuasiveness of the agency's reasoning. This form of deference was developed in the U.S. Supreme Court case Christensen v. Harris County in 2000 and named after the 1944 decision in Skidmore v. Swift & Co. Unlike Chevron deference, which requires courts to defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute, Skidmore deference grants courts the flexibility to determine the level of deference based on the agency's ability to justify its interpretation convincingly. In practice, Skidmore deference is applied to interpretations like those in agency manuals, policy statements, and enforcement guidelines, which do not go through the formal rulemaking process. This approach reflects a judicial attitude that respects agency expertise while maintaining a critical review of its interpretations.This debate highlights differing judicial philosophies on agency power. Some justices, like Elena Kagan, argue that Skidmore offers minimal support to agencies, while others, such as Neil Gorsuch, view it as providing agencies with significant interpretative weight. The transition from Chevron to Skidmore could lead to agencies winning fewer cases, as Skidmore's threshold for deference is lower. This shift would also require agencies to present more thorough, persuasive reasoning for their actions, potentially reducing their ability to enact broad policy changes. This change is seen as a move to balance the power between branches of government and increase judicial oversight of agency regulations.Overall, the Supreme Court's leanings suggest a future where administrative agencies may face greater scrutiny and have reduced regulatory power, a development aligned with the broader conservative goal of diminishing the so-called "administrative state." This evolution in administrative law will likely affect how agencies regulate various aspects of American life and business, underscoring the ongoing debate over the balance of power between different branches of the federal government.Supreme Court Eyes World War II Era Doctrine for Agency RulesBinance, the world's largest crypto exchange, is set to confront the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in a Washington courtroom next week. This high-profile hearing follows a lawsuit filed by the SEC against Binance in June, alleging the exchange of artificially inflating trading volumes, misusing customer funds, failing to restrict U.S. customers, and misleading investors about its market surveillance controls. Central to the case is the accusation that Binance facilitated the trading of crypto tokens that the SEC classifies as securities.The hearing, originally scheduled for Friday but postponed due to snow, will now take place on Monday, Jan. 22. This case, along with the SEC's ongoing lawsuit against rival U.S. exchange Coinbase, is expected to significantly shape the regulatory landscape for cryptocurrencies in the U.S. The SEC has consistently argued that most crypto tokens are similar to securities and fall under its regulatory purview, a stance largely contested by the crypto industry.Binance and BAM Trading, the operator of Binance.US, have countered in court filings, arguing that the SEC hasn't proven its allegations of fraud and overstepping its regulatory authority over crypto assets. Additionally, Binance Holdings agreed to a $4.3 billion settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice and Commodity Futures Trading Commission last year, with its CEO, Changpeng Zhao, admitting to violating U.S. anti-money laundering laws. The outcome of this upcoming hearing is poised to have a substantial impact on how crypto firms operate in the U.S. and the SEC's authority over the sector.Binance to face off against US securities regulator in court | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

FPC Action Foundation vice president and general counsel Cody J. Wisniewski joins the show to talk about the Fourth Circuit's premature "en banc-inization" of the Bianchi case, while Cam has details on a big FPC/SAF win in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Insurance Fraudsters Convicted of Other Crimes INSURANCE CRIME DOES NOT PAY In my experience those who commit property or casualty insurance fraud are seldom arrested, even more rarely are they tried and convicted. Roberto Torner was an insurance criminal who avoided arrest for his insurance fraud activities but, because he was a serious criminal and dangerous, was arrested, tried and convicted of violent crimes. He filed a motion to vacate his conviction and sentence in United States Of America v. Roberto Torner, CRIMINAL No. 3:17-343, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (November 1, 2023) and the USDC kept Torner in Prison. BACKGROUND In June 2015, the Luzerne County Drug Task Force commenced an investigation into Roberto Torner after receiving information about his heroin trafficking and firearms activity from a confidential informant (C.I.). Investigators subsequently used the C.I. to conduct a controlled purchase of approximately five grams of heroin from Torner, his girlfriend Liza Robles, and his associate David Alzugaray-Lugones. The controlled buy and conversations leading up to the event were captured in a series of recorded phone calls and body camera videos obtained by the C.I. The ATF commenced an investigation into Torner, Robles, and Alzugaray-Lugones involving suspected arson, insurance fraud, and firearms offenses. On August 28, 2017, after obtaining information about Robles's historical firearms purchases and activities, and after interviewing witnesses who reported recent instances of Torner possessing firearms, the ATF executed search warrants at Torner's properties. During the execution of those warrants, the ATF recovered multiple firearms and ammunition.  The ATF interviewed additional witnesses, who relayed accounts of Torner possessing firearms. Torner was granted pretrial release after being charged in a criminal complaint and subsequent indictment. Thereafter, the ATF obtained information from witnesses that Torner possessed C-4 explosives while on pretrial release. On January 5, 2018, law enforcement officials executed a search warrant at one of Torner's properties, where they recovered approximately 1.5 pounds of stolen U.S. military C-4 plastic explosives. Following a 12-day trial, Torner and his codefendants were convicted of all counts and Torner was sentenced to 270 months of imprisonment, five years of supervised release, and a $20,000 fine. Torner challenged his conviction and sentence on direct appeal, only to have Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirm his conviction and sentence. Torner alleged that counsel provided ineffective assistance at trial for failing to seek suppression of recordings. DISCUSSION A review of the motion and the government's brief, as well as the law and the claims make it clear that Torner's claims are without merit.  Torner has not shown either the denial of a constitutional right nor that jurists of reason would disagree with this court's resolution of his claims and  the court denied Torner's motion to vacate. ZALMA OPINION I have spent the last 55 years working to help insurers and police authorities to defeat those who commit insurance fraud and disabuse authorities of the fact that insurance fraud is a non-violent crime and a crime without victims. Judges have been known to say from the bench that an insurance company can't be a victim. In this case the ATF took on an insurance fraudster and convicted him of crimes of violence and possession of weapons and stolen explosives. His activities defrauding insurers and dealing drugs were ignored and his other criminal conduct stopped the fraud by putting Torner and his co-defendants in prison and stopped his work as an insurance fraud perpetrator. A small victory for the defrauded insurers. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support

This week, join us as we revisit our episode on Liability and the Online Marketplace: Taking on the World's Most Valuable Retail Company as a refresher! Original Air Date: October 8, 2019 Can an online marketplace be liable for damages caused by a third-party vendor's product?  The answer is, maybe.  Join Rebecca and Steve as they discuss the recent court decisions that are calling into question Amazon's immunity from liability for damages caused by products they sell on their site, and what these cases mean for the future of products liability cases in the world of online retailers. You can read the courts' opinions here: Fox v. Amazon.com Inc., 2019 WL 2896326 (6th Cir. No. 18-5661, 2019) Oberdorf v. Amazon.com Inc., 2019 WL 2849153 (3rd Cir. No. 18-1041, 2019) (Note that on August 23, 2019, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals granted a petition for rehearing.  The Court vacated this July 3, 2019 Opinion, and will rehear the matter at a later date.  We will release an update once the Third Circuit enters a new opinion.)  

Should NJ firearms retailers and wholesalers have insurance? Will they be able to afford it? We bring back our friend, Rick Lindsey from XInsurance to discuss the current situation in the People's Republik of New Jersey. Who will protect your children while they are in school from evil monsters? During our SOTG Homeroom from CrossBreed Holsters, we consider who is best suited to be dangerous on demand. What is a “doober” and how should you secure one to your rifle? For our Brownells Bullet Points segment, we will consider the importance of properly securing add-ons and accessories to your guns. Thanks for being a part of SOTG! We hope you find value in the message we share. If you've got any questions, here are some options to contact us: Send an Email Send a Text Call Us Enjoy the show! And remember… You're a Beginner Once, a Student For Life! TOPICS COVERED THIS EPISODE Galco SLC Strap available on ShopSOTG.com Huge thanks to our Partners: Brownells | Crossbreed Holsters | FrogLube | Hi-Point Firearms [0:02:30] Brownells Bullet Points - Brownells.com TOPIC: Hardware Discussion: Loctite your Doobers or they will fall off at the worst possible time [0:24:45] SOTG Homeroom - CrossbreedHolsters.com TOPIC: Christian School Security: Volunteers or Hired-Guns?  Knights of St. Nicholas: https://amzn.to/3sI8Rxv [0:51:18] Should NJ gun companies have Insurance? Featuring Rick J. Lindsey New Jersey can sue gun companies under public nuisance law, federal appeals panel rules www.politico.com/news XINSURANCE Official Website - www.xinsurance.com FEATURING: Rick J. Lindsey, Xinsurance, Politico, Madison Rising, Jarrad Markel, Paul Markel, SOTG University PARTNERS: Brownells Inc, Crossbreed Holsters, FrogLube, Hi-Point Firearms FIND US ON: Juxxi, MeWe.com, Gettr, iTunes, Stitcher, AppleTV, Roku, Amazon, GooglePlay, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, tumblr SOURCES From www.politico.com/news: New Jersey can sue the gun industry under a “public nuisance” law, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday, handing a major victory to the state after last year's U.S. Supreme Court decision loosening public carrying restrictions. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals' dismissal of a challenge brought by the National Shooting Sports Foundation last year comes as New Jersey and other states look for novel ways to balance public safety with gun rights under the high court's June 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. New Jersey's public nuisance law, signed by Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy a month later, may offer a template to other states following Thursday's ruling, which said the shooting foundation “jumped the gun” in its challenge and did not justify the court's intervention. Other blue states, such as Delaware and California, have enacted similar measures designed to open the gun industry to legal action. (Click Here for Full Article)

The People's Republik of New Jersey has attacked lawful commerce again with a backdoor gun control scheme that allows them to sue gun companies when criminals use guns. Will the firearms industry fight this or just lie down and comply? During our Brownells Bullet Points, we will consider more hardware; rifles and optics. The Professor installed an MPO scope onto a .260 Remington chambered rifle. Also, for your SOTG Homeroom from CrossBreed Holsters, we will consider a new organization; The Rittenhouse Foundation. What is that all about? Thanks for being a part of SOTG! We hope you find value in the message we share. If you've got any questions, here are some options to contact us: Send an Email Send a Text Call Us Enjoy the show! And remember… You're a Beginner Once, a Student For Life! TOPICS COVERED THIS EPISODE [0:03:00] YEET Cannon is Out of Stock! Huge thanks to our Partners: Brownells | Crossbreed Holsters | FrogLube | Hi-Point Firearms [0:09:46] Brownells Bullet Points - Brownells.com TOPIC: MPO on a Savage Model 11 .260 Remington - Geeking Out with Rifle Cartridges [0:30:46] Good Reading: AK47 Survival and Evolution of the World's Most Prolific Gun amzn.to/3sd0qK7 [0:56:33] SOTG Homeroom - CrossbreedHolsters.com TOPIC: Kyle Rittenhouse Starts Up a New Gun Rights Org Focused on Supporting Individuals Who Have Defended Themselves www.thetruthaboutguns.com [1:06:23] New Jersey can sue gun companies under public nuisance law, federal appeals panel rules www.politico.com/news/2023/ FEATURING: The Truth About Guns, Politico, Madison Rising, Jarrad Markel, Paul Markel, SOTG University PARTNERS: Brownells Inc, Crossbreed Holsters, FrogLube, Hi-Point Firearms FIND US ON: Juxxi, MeWe.com, Gettr, iTunes, Stitcher, AppleTV, Roku, Amazon, GooglePlay, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, tumblr SOURCES From www.politico.com/news/2023: New Jersey can sue the gun industry under a “public nuisance” law, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday, handing a major victory to the state after last year's U.S. Supreme Court decision loosening public carrying restrictions. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals' dismissal of a challenge brought by the National Shooting Sports Foundation last year comes as New Jersey and other states look for novel ways to balance public safety with gun rights under the high court's June 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. New Jersey's public nuisance law, signed by Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy a month later, may offer a template to other states following Thursday's ruling, which said the shooting foundation “jumped the gun” in its challenge and did not justify the court's intervention. Other blue states, such as Delaware and California, have enacted similar measures designed to open the gun industry to legal action. (Click Here for Full Article)

Andy and Larry discuss a gun case from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that connects to registry issues. Bryan Range, who pleaded guilty to a nonviolent misdemeanor in 1995, was prohibited from possessing a firearm due to federal law. Range challenged the law’s constitutionality, claiming it violated his Second Amendment rights. The District Court […]

Breach of Contract is not an Occurrence In American Home Assurance Company v. Superior Well Services, Inc., No. 22-1498, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (May 31, 2023) American Home Assurance Co. ("American Home") appealed the District Court's order grant of summary judgment for policy holder Superior Well Services, Inc. ("Superior"). BACKGROUND The Underlying State Law Claim U.S. Energy contracted with Superior for hydraulic fracking services to extract natural gas from wells owned by U.S. Energy. In November 2007, Superior notified its insurance provider, American Home, about the potential claim for damage to wells. In February 2008, American Home agreed to provide Superior with defense counsel, but it also sent Superior a letter reserving its right to contest insurance coverage. U.S. Energy sued Superior in New York state court, alleging that Superior had damaged 97 of its wells. After trial the jury found that Superior breached the contract by failing to perform services with reasonable care, skill and diligence.  The jury found Superior had damaged 53 of the 97 wells and specified that Superior "fail[ed] to perform its contract with U.S. Energy in a workman like manner" and that this "failure" was "a substantial factor in causing damage to the U.S. Energy wells[.]" Accordingly, it awarded U.S. Energy $6.16 million, a figure that was increased to approximately $13.18 million after the state court tabulated interest. THE DISPUTE BETWEEN SUPERIOR AND AMERICAN HOME Superior's policy provided coverage for "property damage" arising out of an "occurrence." The policy defined "property damage" as both "[p]hysical injury to tangible property, including all resulting loss of use of that property." Superior also purchased an "underground resources and equipment coverage" ("UREC") endorsement that amended the CGL policy to provide additional coverage "against risks associated with well-servicing operations[.]" Specifically, the endorsement "added" coverage "with respect to 'property damage' included within the 'underground resources and equipment hazard' arising out of the operations performed by [Superior] or on [Superior's] behalf[.]" American Home sued seeking a declaratory judgment that Superior's policy does not indemnify Superior for any damages that might be awarded to U.S. Energy and which were caused by Superior's breach of contract. THE DISTRICT COURT'S OPINION The District Court granted summary judgment for Superior and, by extension, for U.S. Energy, and it ordered American Home to indemnify Superior for the state court judgment. The Court concluded that each of the 53 damaged wells gave rise to a separate occurrence, triggering an independent coverage limit for each respective well. DISCUSSION The definition of "accident" required to establish an "occurrence" under the policies cannot be satisfied by claims based upon faulty workmanship. Such claims simply do not present the degree of fortuity contemplated by the ordinary definition of "accident" or its common judicial construction in this context. The Third Circuit Court of Appeal concluded that the endorsement does not displace the underlying policy's occurrence requirement and reversed the District Court's summary judgment order and remanded the case to the District Court with instructions to enter judgment for American Home. ZALMA OPINION The key to every liability insurance policy is that for coverage to apply the loss must be fortuitous, that is neither expected nor intended by the insured, and must fit within the generally understood meaning of the term "accident." Under no definition of fortuity is faulty workmanship by the insured. Since the jury found the insured responsible for its breach of contract by means of faulty workmanship there was no occurrence and no coverage (c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support

Judge Carolyn T. Carluccio shared the story behind her title with us on April 19, 2023.Carolyn T. Carluccio is a Republican candidate for Pennsylvania's Supreme Court. The incumbent Common Pleas Judge from Montgomery County will bring unmatched experience, proven temperament, and unquestioned impartiality to Pennsylvania's highest Court.Judge Carluccio was elected to the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court in November 2009,where she has served with distinction as the Court's first female President Judge in the County'shistory. As a common pleas judge, Carluccio was assigned to sit in the Criminal, Family and Civil Court Benches, and as an alternate Judge to Juvenile Court.Judge Carluccio began her legal career as a Federal Assistant United States Attorney prosecuting large-scale drug dealers, bank robbers, and money launderers. Her work earned her recognition from the United States Secret Service and United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.Judge Carluccio served as the first-ever female Chief Public Defender for Montgomery County, where she managed a team of 35 staff and attorneys.A registered republican, Judge Carluccio intends to pursue the endorsement of the Pennsylvania Republican Party. Judge Carluccio has earned the endorsement of Republican committee people in prior campaigns.Judge Carluccio earned her Bachelor of Arts from Dickinson College and her Juris Doctor Degree from the Widener University School of Law. Carluccio's Court Admissions include: Pennsylvania, Delaware, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, District of Delaware, Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and United States Supreme Court. Click here to read Judge Carluccio's full resume.A life-long resident of Montgomery County, Judge Carluccio is married to her husband with three adult children: Andrew, Charlie and Joseph.SUE SAYS"Growing up in the Tornetta household, nothing was more important than family values and doing what was right. Manners and respect were paramount in the family. While Judge Carluccio may have been a bit shy as a little girl, she learned the art of performing from her Grandmother which led to her love of being a trial attorney. That led to the confidence and courage it took to become the very first female President Judge in the history of Montgomery County Court."Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/women-to-watch-r/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

ep222:  The 9th Annual AAIM Leadership Conference is coming up, and on today's program, our keynote speaker, Jack Becker, joins Phil and Burt as we discuss process improvements in your organization. Jack Becker is the leading speaker on process improvement. After a distinguished career as a combat proven F/A-18 Super Hornet Fighter Pilot, Jack has now merged the aviation skills of Crew Resource Management (CRM) and the Top Gun process to provide Supersonic Success in Business! Jack not only inspires daily improvement, but just like fighter pilots, equips his audiences with the strategy and tactics to get better every day! Lawyer on the Clock: 4:03 – The job status of gig workers is making the rounds through California courts again, this time related to Proposition 22. The high-stakes results could up-end the gig economy. This becomes relevant in the Midwest because former California Labor Secretary Julie Su has been nominated as the new Secretary of the Department of Labor. 8:26 – Out of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, it was decided that PTO is not a part of an employee's salary under the Fair Labor Standards Act. 10:38 – The Illinois Paid Leave for All Workers Act will go into effect January 1, 2024, which will allow most Illinois employees up to 40 hours of paid leave per year for any purpose. 13:57 – North Carolina recently upheld an employee's termination due to a failed drug test. We have a program coming up at the end of the month, which you can find on AIMMea.org, on investigating impairment in the workplace and providing some good resources as well. The Employer's Lounge 19:26 - Jack Becker reviews our poll results on what first comes to mind when discussing process changes, and why it's important to focus on continuous improvement. 24:07 - Human factors that go into continuously monitoring and improving processes are soft skills that allow the more technical factors to improve. 26:06 - The wingman mentality grows trust and confidence in each other, which allows us all to achieve peak human performance.    Host(s):  Phil Brandt, President & CEO, AAIM Employers' Association Burt Garland, Shareholder, Ogletree Deakins Guest(s): Jack Becker – former combat fighter pilot, process improvement consultant, and keynote speaker at the upcoming AAIM Leadership Conference Powered by AAIM Employers' Association and Ogletree Deakins, a Feature Group USA production 

The Gun Control Act of 1968's ban on gun ownership for those convicted of felony of felony offenses is facing renewed legal scrutiny in light of the Bruen decision, with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals agreeing to hear the case of a Pennsylvania man barred from exercising his 2A rights because of a decades-old conviction for welfare fraud.

December 20th Court Leader's Advantage Podcast Episode Courts have committed to the advancement of diversity, equity, and inclusion particularly in recruiting and selecting court employees. This commitment however has not been without controversy. One criticism has been that personnel recruitment and selection should be entirely objective and merit based. An evaluation format often cited as an example is the NFL Combine. The Combine measures prospective professional football players by a number of objective skills: How fast and far can one run? How high can one jump? How much weight can one lift? How far and how accurately can one throw a football? How often can one catch a football and then run with it? How effectively can one block another player? In addition, there are physical attributes that can be objectively measured including height, weight, percentage of body fat, lung capacity, and previous injuries. This month we ask the questions can and should hiring criteria be objective? Are there measures that we can use to hire managers and supervisors that are devoid of personal or institutional bias? Today's Cohost Stacy Worby, State Jury Coordinator for the Alaska Court System Today's Panel · Zenell Brown, Executive Court Administrator for Michigan's Third Circuit Court in Detroit · T.J. BeMent, District Court Administrator for the 10th Judicial Administrative District in Athens Georgia · Elizabeth Rambo, Trial Court Administrator for the Lane County Circuit Court in Eugene, Oregon and · Stacey Fields, Court Administrator for the Municipal Court in Crestwood, Missouri

Aaron Sibarium is a recent graduate of Yale University (2018) and journalist who writes for the Washington Free Beacon. He joins the podcast to discuss his work covering identity politics issues from a conservative perspective, along with his dream of eventually synthesizing his reporting with his own opinion writing. Aaron and Richard share many of the same frustrations with right-wing media and conservative journalism. They discuss the problems of the conservative movement, including it being prone to misinformation, a lack of interest in policy specifics, mindless tribalism, and the role of differences in intelligence between conservatives and liberals who go into activism and reporting. Aaron argues that the Republican Party might be suffering from an excess of democracy through its primary system, which warps the incentive structures politicians face.Listen in podcast form or watch the video on YouTube.Links:* Richard Hanania, “Liberals Read, Conservatives Watch TV.”* Richard Hanania, “Conservatism as an Oppositional Culture.”* Richard Hanania, Tweet on liberal institutions rallying around removing a school dress code in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.* Aaron Sibarium, “Food and Drug Administration Guidance Drives Racial Rationing of COVID Drugs.”* Institutionalized Podcast with Aaron Sibarium and Charles Fain Lehman. (Apple) Get full access to Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology at www.cspicenter.com/subscribe

ZIFL Volume 26, Issue 23 The December 1, 2022 issue contains articles and reports of insurance fraud convictions for every insurance claims professional, SIU investigators and everyone interested in the efforts to defeat or deter insurance fraud. The December 1, 2022 issue includes: It Doesn't Pay to Try to Cheat Your Insurance Company Sigismondi Foreign Car Specialists, Inc. appealed the U. S. District Court's summary judgment in favor of State Auto Property and Casualty Insurance Company on State Auto's declaratory judgment action and statutory insurance fraud claim. In State Auto Property And Casualty Insurance Company v. Sigismondi Foreign Car Specialists, Inc., No. 21-2435, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (November 18, 2022) the Third Circuit Court of Appeal dealt with the allegations of the insurer that Sigismondi attempted insurance fraud. Read the full article at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/ZIFL-12-01-2022.pdf New California Law Means New Obligations for Insurance Agents & Brokers California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed into law Senate Bill 1242, written by the Senate Insurance Committee and aimed at protecting California consumers by imposing a variety of requirements upon producers. Reporting Fraud At the start of the year, agents and brokers will be required to report fraud to the California Department of Insurance (CDI). More specifically, SB 1242 amends the California Insurance Code to require producers who suspect or know a fraudulent application for insurance is being made to submit to the DOI Fraud Division Read the full article at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/ZIFL-12-01-2022.pdf Crime Doesn't Pay - It Leads to Bankruptcy North Carolina's Wake County Superior Court judge ordered the liquidation of two life insurance companies in rehabilitation operated under billionaire insurance and finance executive Greg Lindberg. Read the full article at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/ZIFL-12-01-2022.pdf Good News From the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud A pain doc stuck patients with unneeded injections for knees and other body parts in a $240M scheme in San Antonio, Tex. Area. Dr. Jorge Zamora-Quezada falsely diagnosed patients with degenerative diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis. Read the full article about multiple insurance fraud convictions at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/ZIFL-12-01-2022.pdf --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma/support

IT DOESN'T PAY TO TRY TO CHEAT YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY Legitimate Claim Destroyed by Creating Fake Invoices Sigismondi Foreign Car Specialists, Inc. appealed the U. S. District Court's summary judgment in favor of State Auto Property and Casualty Insurance Company on State Auto's declaratory judgment action and statutory insurance fraud claim. In State Auto Property And Casualty Insurance Company v. Sigismondi Foreign Car Specialists, Inc., No. 21-2435, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (November 18, 2022) the Third Circuit Court of Appeal dealt with the allegations of the insurer that Sigismondi attempted insurance fraud. FACTS State Auto issued a commercial insurance policy that provided coverage for Sigismondi's car repair shop. Sigismondi requested an insurance payment for water damage, but State Auto denied the claim, citing fraud. The misrepresentations asserted as a defense by State Auto occurred during the claims-adjustment process. Sigismondi and State Auto retained adjusters to value the damaged inventory. The adjusters first created a joint inventory-a list of all the damaged items for which Sigismondi sought insurance proceeds. State Auto's adjuster, Chad Foster, then researched prices of the same or similar products to determine either a "replacement value" (if Sigismondi replaced the item) or an "actual cash value" (if not). Sigismondi's adjusters, or Sigismondi itself, likewise valued the items. Sigismondi valued certain items higher than Foster estimated or could verify. Sigismondi presented what appeared to be original invoices from various vendors trying to convince State Auto to pay more than its adjuster calculated. In truth, a Sigismondi employee had scanned at least some of the invoices into the computer and then used editing software to change the items and prices listed by the vendors. After Foster alerted State Auto to this issue, State Auto sent Sigismondi a reservation of rights letter, requesting further documentation and highlighting a policy provision stating the policy would be void if any insureds "intentionally conceal or misrepresent a material fact concerning . . . [a] claim under this policy." --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma/support

In this podcast, James Paul and Michael Eckard discuss recent developments with regard to religious accommodations in the workplace, and how employees use these accommodations as both swords and shields in the workplace. Our speakers discuss recent litigation regarding religious accommodation requests—both those related to COVID-19 and those that are unrelated to the pandemic. James and Michael also delve deep into the recent disparate treatment Third Circuit Court of Appeals case (brought by an employee who asked to not be scheduled on Sundays), which provided insights on what constitutes an undue hardship.

This episode is also available as a blog post: https://tcpaworld.com/2022/06/15/nihlism-third-circuit-court-of-appeals-holds-everything-is-an-atds-but-that-it-doesnt-really-matter-anyway-chaos-ensues/

Intrusion on seclusion is one of the four privacy torts created under U.S. common law. Intrusion on seclusion is commonly thought to be the bread-and-butter claim for an "invasion of privacy". Seclusion is defined as the state of being private and away from people. Elements. The elements of an intrusion on seclusion claim are: The defendant intentionally intruded upon the plaintiff's seclusion or private concerns. The intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. The intrusion caused the plaintiff anguish and suffering. There is no requirement that the defendant disclosed any facts about the plaintiff, as in a public disclosure claim. Liability attaches to the intrusion itself. Intent. Someone "commits an intentional intrusion only if he believes, or is substantially certain, that he lacks the necessary legal or personal permission to commit the intrusive act." For example, the Veterans Administration did not intrude on a patient's seclusion when it believed that it had the patient's consent to disclose his medical records. The intent element is subjective, based on what the defendant actually knew or believed about whether it had consent or legal permission, whereas the offensiveness element is judged under an objective standard, based on whether a reasonable person would consider the intrusion to be highly offensive. Seclusion. In order to intrude on someone's seclusion, the person must have a "legitimate expectation of privacy" in the physical place or personal affairs intruded upon. To be successful, a plaintiff "must show the defendant penetrated some zone of physical or sensory privacy" or "obtained unwanted access to data" in which the plaintiff had "an objectively reasonable expectation of seclusion or solitude in the place, conversation or data source." For example, a delicatessen employee told co-workers that she had a staph infection. The co-workers then informed their manager, who contacted the employee's doctor to determine if she actually had a staph infection, because employees in Arkansas with a communicable disease are forbidden from working in the food preparation industry. The employee with the staph infection sued her employer, the deli, for intruding on her private affairs. The court held that the deli manager had not intruded upon the worker's private affairs because the worker had made her staph infection public by telling her two co-workers about it. The court said: "When Fletcher learned that she had a staph infection, she informed two coworkers of her condition. Fletcher's revelation of private information to coworkers eliminated Fletcher's expectation of privacy by making what was formerly private a topic of office conversation." Offensiveness. In determining whether an intrusion is objectively "highly offensive," a court is supposed to examine "all the circumstances of an intrusion, including the motives or justification of the intruder." Websites' Data Collection. A website may commit a "highly offensive" act by collecting information from website visitors using "duplicitous tactics." A website that violates its own privacy policy does not automatically commit a highly offensive act. But the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has held that Viacom's data collection on the Nickelodeon website was highly offensive because the privacy policy may have deceptively caused parents to allow their young children to use Nick.com, thinking it was not collecting their personal information. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

Chastity Youngblood shares who she is, her professional background schooling and education. She is campaigning to get on the election ballot for Third circuit court. Yes this young lady is running is for judge. be sure to listen to the interview you can also see the interview by clicking on the youtube link below, and also be sure to like follow and subscrible https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpxuTvLTps4https://www.instagram.com/lavishtwilliams/

"Trip" Riley represents clients who are facing complex civil litigation filed by a single plaintiff, as well as class actions, arising from commercial and consumer financing, consumer-facing services and product sales, and business-to-business transactions and competition. He prides himself on understanding his clients' unique businesses and partners with them to help achieve results in line with their goals in the often highly-charged setting of civil litigation. However, when a difficult dispute cannot otherwise be resolved, Trip and his team are prepared to go to trial. Trip is admitted to practice law before the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, District of New Jersey and Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, as well as the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit Court of Appeals and U.S. Supreme Court. https://www.saul.com/attorneys/francis-x-riley-iii Follow us on Instagram: @TheMorningSpotlight Email us at: themorningspotlight@gmail.com www.themorningspotlight.com For title insurance inquiries contact Mike at michael.ham@ctt.com Buy Mike a Coffee!

Ana Pujols McKee, M.D., a nationally-prominent physician executive whose Puerto Rican parents cherished her as a person of color, and The Honorable Theodore (“Ted”) McKee, a Black Chief Judge of the federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals, share how their respective education and career paths overcame discriminatory obstacles and how discriminatory practices continue to impact their respective professions.

On December 19, 1991, Hazel Show received a phone call from a woman claiming to be her daughter, Laurie's guidance counselor, who scheduled an early morning meeting for Friday, December 20, 1991. Laurie's family had been sticking close to her due to several violent encounters with 19-year old Lisa Michelle Lambert, who wanted revenge on Laurie because she'd dated Lawrence “Butch” Yunkin while Yunkin and Lambert were “on a break.” Join Lisa O'Brien and Michael Carnahan on Sunday, June 27, 2021, at 8:00 p.m. for Episode 15 of Clear and Convincing, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Lisa Michelle Lambert. We'll talk about the Laurie Show's 1991 murder, the evidence implicating Lambert, her trial and conviction and her 1997 release from custody after a federal judge granted habeas relief, finding Lambert actually innocent and barring a re-trial by the Commonwealth. We'll also talk about the reversal of that decision by the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals and Lambert's subsequent post-conviction claims. We are a live show and, as always, calls are welcome at (347) 989-1171.

A federal appeals court denied the Trump campaign's effort to revive a federal lawsuit challenging the election results in Pennsylvania, ruling "the claims have no merit." A panel of three judges for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied the request by the Trump campaign, led by Rudy Giuliani, to amend its lawsuit, which had been previously rejected. Publish Date: Friday, November 27, 2020 – 2:12 ETTo learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

Dr. Angela Celeste May is a clinical, organizational, and forensic psychologist. Her master's degree is in clinical and humanistic psychology, and she has a subspecialty under her doctorate training in forensic psychology and she was a forensic examiner for the Third Circuit Court, Dr. Angela Celeste May's Ph.D. is in clinical and organizational psychology, and a lot of her consulting work over the years has called on her psychology skills. In this episode of the Kim B. Davis Show Dr. Angela Celeste May discusses the Strength of a Lady: Femininity is not a weakness. Tune in and reconnect.  Support the show (https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/my/profile)

When we think of nuns, there comes to mind the vision of good ladies in habits, easily identified as special members of the Roman Catholic Church, and of course doing good deeds of mercy and kindness to others, and especially to the poor. Perhaps we also think in stereotypic terms that nuns are passive, always ready to turn the other cheek, even nonconfrontational and certainly not political. Perhaps a nun is best represented by that very special one MOTHER TERESA. What she did in her life achieved worldwide notoriety, well deserved. But by no means all of them fit this stereotype. There came the AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, which we know as OBAMACARE which required all medical insurance to cover women's “preventive care.” The anti–religion Barack Hussein Obama and the Obama Administration immediately and progressively defined preventive care as all manner of birth control. That meant that any insurance plan, whether private or governmental was required, forced to offer and pay for birth control no matter any religious ramifications. There were indeed exemptions, such as churches, granted a full exemption. But ironically so called employers like the LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR were not. That organization, to be sure, was indeed religious in nature but the LITTLE SISTERS were required to offer and pay for birth control items in any medical insurance offered. They stood up and fought back. And they took on the government yet a second time.In 2017 and 2018, the Trump Administration expanded the exemption to employers who sincerely objected to paying for contraceptives. Good for you, Mr. Donald John Trump, good for you. But then, as the Wall Street Journal so well states, “in a dreary example of liberal intolerance, Pennsylvania and New Jersey sued to have the Trump exemption declared invalid, illegal and unconstitutional.” Not to be intimidated by the liberal, legal moves of these two states, the Little Sisters of the Poor, headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania moved to intervene. The case made its way through the lower courts, including the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and it was finally recognized by the Supreme Court as a supreme legal example of constitutional importance, and a Supreme Court recognized and consolidated with other cases for review and decision:         THE LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR V. PENNSYLVANIAThis case is one excellent example of the conflict which now exists between competing rights of the First Amendment of the Constitution, namely the CLASH between FREEDOM OF RELIGION and the extent of the power and control of the federal government. Can, this case argues, religious organizations not churches, which again are exempt, which have sincerely held religious beliefs that the use of contraceptives and birth control measures are immoral and against their religion and conscience be required to offer such and even pay for these items as medical insurances offered. Can the government? Pennsylvania and New Jersey argue that the Trump Administration exceeded its power when it granted this broad exemption to private employers. The states claim that the RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT (RFRA) and Obamacare do not authorize the creation of these exemptions to the birth control mandate. The Little Sisters of the Poor, God bless them, fought back and forcefully reminded the Supreme Court that the RFRA clearly states that if the government wants to “substantially burden” religion against its conscience, which the birth control requirement would clearly do, the government must have a compelling interest in doing such and it must also do so by the least restrictive means. Is it, the nuns ask, governmentally COMPELLING that the government require and be so involved with the enforcement of birth control no matter the unconscionable burden to religious organizations and, is requiring all such organizations to offer and pay for such the least restrictive way the government can enforce this COMPELLING INTEREST as a national requirement. The nuns say no way and so do thousands of other such organizations and entities and so many private business owners as well.By the way, the government tried to avoid the matter, the lawsuit by offering the Little Sisters a fig leaf. That is, an opt–out for them as a compromise. That might indeed solve the problem for the nuns and their organization, but it would leave undecided the much larger issue of governmental interference to religion generally and the constitutional rights of freedom of religion of so many other entities, paving the way for more litigation. Up they stood, these strong defenders of and believers in the constitution and freedom of religion and refused to be bribed. They did then and do now intend to FIGHT THE FIGHT OF FAITH. And all of us who are religious – Christian and otherwise applaud them and stand with them.The states Pennsylvania and New Jersey responded to the Supreme Court that the nuns were unreasonable, guilty of OBSTINACY. Their attorneys immediately responded saying it is not obstinacy on their part but:         CONSTANCY OF BELIEF. Good for them. It is such a pleasure to witness a religious organization standing firm, unintimidated by government and willing to do whatever is required to protect their constitutional rights and especially freedom of religion. All of us religionists, whether Catholic or not, should support this effort and watch with great expectancy the actions and critical decision making of the United States Supreme Court, which will occur this year 2020. Pay attention to this case my fellow Americans, and especially my fellow Christians:         LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR V. PENNSYLVANIA.You know which side to root for!The Supreme Court stated in the landmark case BURWELL V. HOBBY LOBBY that the burden of proof rests with government which must show that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion. In so many cases, whichever party has the BURDEN OF PROOF has the more difficult duty to produce such evidence in order to win the case. In the Hobby Lobby case the Supreme Court held that the government had not shown that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion. In short, it lost. In that ruling, and perhaps facetiously, the court suggested that the “feds” could “assume the cost of the insurance as an alternative means to achieve the governmental end which would be a FEDERAL BURDEN of billions of dollars.” Obviously, that went nowhere with the Obama Administration and the governmental agencies supporting his policies. The Hobby Lobby case unfortunately left any number of serious and critical constitutional issues undecided and now, THE LITTLE SISTERS, bless them, and their judicial fortitude will require the Supreme Court to decide the issue once and for all. And that is, the extent to which the government has a compelling interest in requiring “all manner of birth control” for any and all medical insurance plans, including and especially those offered by employers. We should all hope and pray that these stand–up nuns win the case. And of course, enter groups like PLANNED PARENTHOOD. This aggressive and essentially government–funded organization, federal and state, say that all women would be harmed if their employers can object to paying for contraceptives – birth control. But such an argument is really specious indeed. Surely, if a man or a woman engaging in sexual acts wishes to utilize any form of contraception, he or she can personally pay for that protection. Any form of government, federal, state or local should not have the arbitrary power to require anyone or any entity to do so. In the hearts and minds of tens of millions, that is governmental overreach, abuse of authority and power, and most clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL.The Wall Street Journal reminds us that our great country America and WE THE PEOPLE have long been a beacon of light and hope for:         RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.Move on, governments, and fight the fight of the CORONAVIRUS and other things medical that really matter and affect all of us equally. We have always accommodated, we American's religion and religious freedom whether Christian, Jewish or Muslim, or any other for that matter, whether or not we agree with such others. We understand no matter our beliefs that religious freedom applies to every American citizen, EVERY ONE! Any differences are settled or debated with words and deeds, but not FORCE, especially governmental. We the people accommodate the Amish so that they are exempt from social security. We accommodate pacifists like Quakers and Brethren who will not go to war. Not only are we not intolerant to religion and the free exercise of religion as the constitution guarantees, but we the people encourage real religion in every way we can. When there are those who have SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS that something is wrong, and inconsistent with and compromising of their legitimate faith, those deeply held religious convictions should be honored. THE LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR do not believe in and are against contraceptives and the use of birth control. They and all like them should be exempt from offering and paying for such in the health plans they offer. That is our belief and that is what the constitution requires in our opinion. WHAT DO YOU THINK?Whether Catholic or not, all of us should applaud the courage, the STAND–UP of THE LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR. They and their attorneys take on the great states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey who at least in this matter have lost their way. It is really so interesting, so American that ladies of mercy and charity take on the constitutional fight when other organizations have not. Let us who believe in religious freedom support them, and watch anxiously, hopefully and prayerfully that the Supreme Court will do the right thing, make the right decision and authenticate and prioritize freedom of religion and freedom of religious conscience. THE FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION DEMAND THAT.

All nine judges on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently denied the FCC’s request for a rehearing on its many-times rejected media ownership rules. Prof. Christopher Terry calls this the Commission’s “Legacy of Failure.” But it begs the question, what does success look like? Prof. Terry, who teaches media law at the University of […] The post Podcast #224: How the FCC Could Support Diversity, Localism & Competition in Radio & TV appeared first on Radio Survivor.

The FCC lost in court for the fourth time on September 23, in what’s become a really bad habit in the case known as Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals keeps sending the Commission back to do homework to justify with evidence the changes it wants to make in loosening […] The post Podcast #213: Four Strikes for the FCC’s Media Ownership Policy appeared first on Radio Survivor.

As most debt collectors know, sending any collection notice into Delaware, New Jersey or Pennsylvania (the States with Federal Courts in the Third Circuit) will likely result in an FDCPA class action lawsuit against the debt collector.  Typically these lawsuits assert that the validation language used in the collection letter does not require the consumer to communicate disputes in writing only allegedly in violation of the FDCPA.  While several appeals on this issue are pending and consolidated before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, a decision from the Third Circuit in 2017 may provide guidance on how it will rule in favor of the debt collectors.   In the most recent episode of the Debt Collection Drill podcast, Moss & Barnett attorneys John Rossman and Mike Poncin are joined by their colleague, attorney Aylix Jensen, to discuss the Third Circuit validation issues, including the Jewsevskyj case, compliance with the new California privacy law (the CCPA) and credit reporting accounts in bankruptcy (see recent article on this issue http://www.insidearm.com/news/00044941-credit-reporting-debts-bankruptcy-deluge-/)

Collectors frequently point to contradictory language among the FDCPA and other statutes as proof that standardized debt collection rules are needed in this industry.  However, even in an industry where consumer attorneys frequently make "creative" arguments, it is rare to see a claim that the FDCPA itself contains contradictory language. In a number of recent cases, consumer attorneys are arguing that the validation language from the statute – the same language collectors have been using since the FDCPA was enacted in 1977 -- is now somehow unclear and confusing.   Specifically, consumer attorneys argue that the first sentence of the validation notice (relating to disputes), which does not contain an "in writing" requirement, contradicts the second sentence of the notice, which does require a written request from the consumer to receive verification.  Unfortunately, two Courts in New Jersey within the past year sided with the consumers in denying debt collectors' motions to dismiss on this issue.  Two more cases on the issue – on which the debt collectors prevailed – are pending before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.  In this episode of the Debt Collection Drill podcast, Moss & Barnett attorneys John Rossman and Mike Poncin examine the recent cases alleging that the standard validation language violates the FDCPA and provide guidance for debt collectors seeking to avoid liability on this issue. 

Consumer attorneys subjected debt collectors to a barrage of FDCPA lawsuits, especially in New York and New Jersey, on collection letters in 2017.  This trend will continue, and likely accelerate, in 2018.  Debt collectors hoping for relief from the Courts on the latest consumer attorney claims regarding collection letters may get some clarity in the near future.  The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently considered oral arguments on the issue of whether a debt collector must disclose when interest is not accruing on an account in the Taylor case.  A decision is expected in the Taylor case within the next year.  Also, a recent decision from New Jersey held that validation language in a collection letter that tracks verbatim the wording of the FDCPA somehow violates the FDCPA.  An appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in that case is expected.  In addition, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion on whether use of the word "settlement" in a collection letter violates the FDCPA. In the latest episode of the Debt Collection Drill podcast, Moss & Barnett attorneys John Rossman http://www.lawmoss.com/john-rossman/ and Mike Poncin http://www.lawmoss.com/michael-s-poncin/ discuss these recent cases affecting debt collection letters and specific strategies that agencies can implement today.  

The FCC just released its long-awaited revision to media ownership rules. After years of back-and-forth with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals there are very few changes. Prof. Christopher Terry, of the University of Minnesota School of Journalism, argues this represents a monumental failure that places all media ownership rules at grave risk. He joins […] The post Podcast 62 – The FCC’s Legacy of Failure & CMJ’s Uncertain Future appeared first on Radio Survivor.

The FCC has made nearly zero progress in its Congressionally mandated review and revision of media ownership rules for more than a decade. Instead the Commission has been dragging its feet for 13 years by failing to comply adequately to the ruling of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Prometheus v. FCC, which challenges […] The post Podcast #50 – Prometheus v FCC and a Generation of Gridlock appeared first on Radio Survivor.