Podcasts about United States Code

god jesus christ spotify culture hollywood discover impact llc apple podcast klein toxic masculinity combatting biblical manhood christ how supp united states code jukin media equals three fair use doctrine

Play Episode Listen Later May 27, 2025 39:59

Our culture is confused about what it means to be a man. From Andrew Tate to Hollywood stereotypes, masculinity is either mocked or twisted into toxic extremes. But what does God's Word say about true manhood?In this video, Christian Barrett dives deep into: • Why culture emasculates men • The dangers of toxic masculinity • What Andrew Tate gets wrong • A biblical vision for masculinity rooted in Christ • How the church, homes, and culture thrive when men follow Jesus00:36- Why you should watch this video01:02- Our Cultural Moment: Emasculation or Toxic Masculinity06:01- The Impact of Emasculating Men08:02- Why did the emasculation happen?09:40- The Impact of Pornography14:25- Toxic Masculinity15:11- Andrew Tate21:30- What Toxic Masculinity is all about24:39- What is a Biblical Man?Whether you're a young man, a parent, a wife, or a disciple-maker, this conversation is for you. Discover how real men lead, love, sacrifice, and live with conviction.Comment below: What do YOU think biblical manhood looks like?Subscribe for more on faith, culture, and following Christ. Turn on notifications so you don't miss the next video.@eads/2024/11/18/us-women-are-outpacing-men-in-college-completion-including-in-every-major-racial-and-ethnic-group/@h/teens-and-pornography Make sure to subscribe on YouTube: @nistryFor more resources, visit @ Follow us: on Instagram @istries/profilecard/ Fair Use Disclaimer:on Spotify:⁠ @ast/the-four-fold-disciple/id1505547928on Apple Podcast: @ast/the-four-fold-disciple/id1505547928my reading list:⁠ @ow/74696644-christian-barrettThis video may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. All clips used are protected by the Fair Use Doctrine within Title 17 of the United States Code. This doctrine safeguards the use of copyrighted material for transformative purposes, such as commentary, criticism, review and news reporting. Under Title 17 U.S.C. § 512(f), any person who makes a false, bad faith, or misleading copyright claim or uses a copyright takedown to infringe on free speech, criticism, or commentary can be held liable for damages to the content creator.Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).#BiblicalManhood #AndrewTate #MasculinityCrisis #ChristianManhood #ToxicMasculinity #JesusIsBetter #Manhood #ChristianMen #Discipleship #CultureWars #datingadvice d#dating

What is the Papacy? | What every Protestant should know

church scripture rome llc catholic pope klein invention pope francis protestant protestants critiquing papacy supp united states code jukin media equals three fair use doctrine

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 29, 2025 35:41

What is the Papacy? Is there really an unbroken chain from Peter to Pope Francis and to whoever the next Pope will be? How is the next Pope selected? Why should Protestants care about who the next Pope is? In this video, I explore the origins, history, and lasting significance of the papacy—from Scripture to today's headlines. Whether you're Protestant, Catholic, or just curious, this is essential context for understanding the Church and its leadership as I break down some of the biggest questions around the papacy today. 00:36- Pope Francis Is Dead03:09- What is the Papacy?05:37- Critiquing the Papacy08:29- Is there an unbroken chain? 12:18- Pope Honorius I's Taught Heresy?!14:27- The Anti-Popes of the 14th Century 18:31- How was the Papacy Developed?24:17- The Legacy of Pope Francis27:56- How is the next Pope selected? 28:59- Why should Protestants care? Rome and the Invention of the Papacy: https://www.amazon.com/Rome-Invention-Papacy-Pontificalis-Lectures/dp/1108836828 Topics:What is the papacy?The unbroken chainThe anti-PopesA Protestant perspectiveTags:#Papacy #PopeFrancis #SaintPeter #Christianity #CatholicChurch #Protestant #ApostolicSuccession #ChurchHistory #BibleTeaching #ChristianApologeticsFair Use Disclaimer:This video may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. All clips used are protected by the Fair Use Doctrine within Title 17 of the United States Code. This doctrine safeguards the use of copyrighted material for transformative purposes, such as commentary, criticism, review and news reporting. Under Title 17 U.S.C. § 512(f), any person who makes a false, bad faith, or misleading copyright claim or uses a copyright takedown to infringe on free speech, criticism, or commentary can be held liable for damages to the content creator.Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).

The Truth About Cliffe & Stuart Knechtle's Ministry...

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 27, 2025 20:01

The Truth About Cliffe And Stuart Knechtle's Ministry...

She Thought She Was Safe Until This Happened...

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 26, 2025 17:34

She Thought She Was Safe Until This Happened

They Searched for Noah's Ark… and Found This

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 25, 2025 20:04

They Searched for Noah's Ark… and Found ThisSubscribe to Artur From Apologia Center channel @ApologiaCenter

The End Times Lie Most Christians Are Falling For

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 24, 2025 15:38

They're Brainwashing You to Believe This Lie About End Times

We Need A Deeper Faith: 15 Resources for Thinking Christians

spotify bible thinking christians christianity harvard llc apple podcast evangelism stuart klein roman catholic ray comfort supp deeper faith united states code jukin media equals three fair use doctrine

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 22, 2025 25:41

Many Christians are trying to defend their faith with surface-level answers as one dimensional Christians, but that's not enough in today's world. In this video, we examine a recent Q&A at Harvard as a case study in why we need a deeper, more thoughtful Christian faith. If you're searching for the best Christian YouTube channels to help you grow in theology, apologetics, Bible study, evangelism, and church history, this video is for you. I'm recommending trusted YouTube channels that can help you build a stronger, more rooted Christian worldview.✅ Whether you're a student, new believer, or just exploring deeper faith, these channels will help you understand Christianity more deeply and engage tough questions with confidence.

10 Things Every Christian Should Remember This Easter

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 15, 2025 30:26

What is Easter really about? In this video, we walk through 10 life-changing truths every Christian must rememberduring Holy Week. From the cross to the empty tomb, these truths are meant to ground your faith, encourage your heart, and push back against cultural confusion.We also respond to common critiques and Easter controversies:⛔ Is Easter just a pagan holiday?

jesus christ spotify truth scripture llc apple podcast truths klein holy week 10things every christian bart ehrman supp united states code is easter jukin media equals three death isn fair use doctrine

Think Like a Christian: Why the Culture Shouldn't Shape the Church

god jesus christ spotify culture church christians scripture llc shape avengers apple podcast kendrick lamar klein supp united states code jukin media equals three fair use doctrine

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 8, 2025 38:36

In this video, I unpack why only 1 in 10 Christians actually hold a biblical worldview — and what we must do to change that.From worship trends that look more like concerts than Christ-centered gatherings to sermons quoting Kendrick Lamar and Avengers-themed Easter services… it's clear the culture is shaping the church more than the Word of God, and this MUST change. The change starts with us renewing our minds and thinking biblically. In this video, I talk about resisting cultural lies and thinking like a Christian by forming a solid, gospel-centered worldview rooted in Scripture. Plus I provide practical tools, a a resource list, and a challenge to take your discipleship seriously.Resources Mentioned:Knowing God by J.I. PackerKnowing Christ by Mark JonesRenewing Your Mind podcast- R.C. SproulAsk Pastor John podcast- John PiperGospel in Life podcast- Tim KellerLeave a comment on how you think the church can impact the culture!Make sure to subscribe on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@EmetMinistryFor more resources, visit emetministry.org Follow us: on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/emetministries/profilecard/?igsh=Z2c5NnA1dTJhN20y on Spotify:⁠ https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-four-fold-disciple/id1505547928on Apple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-four-fold-disciple/id1505547928my reading list:⁠ https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/74696644-christian-barrett Fair Use Disclaimer:This video may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. All clips used are protected by the Fair Use Doctrine within Title 17 of the United States Code. This doctrine safeguards the use of copyrighted material for transformative purposes, such as commentary, criticism, review and news reporting. Under Title 17 U.S.C. § 512(f), any person who makes a false, bad faith, or misleading copyright claim or uses a copyright takedown to infringe on free speech, criticism, or commentary can be held liable for damages to the content creator.Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).Avengers Crucifixion Musical- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYibxBYWZ44Mike Todd's Full Sermon- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By_w5yrjwSIBrandan Robertson Debate- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBx1S_NKLDE&t=9837s

The JFK Files Exposed This Horrifying Cover Up By the CIA...

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 5, 2025 13:29

ADL still trying to pardon Leo Frank

Anti-Neocon Report

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 30, 2025 55:04

Many of you know that a B'nai B'rith organization gave birth to the ADL while defending its Atlanta chapter president Leo Frank. Frank raped and murdered a 13 year old girl who he was also employing along with many other teens, against child labor laws. Leo Frank ran a pencil factory sweatshop and often flirted with his illegal underage employees. The ADL was formed to defend him when he murdered and raped Mary Phagan. The details were disgusting. Her underwear was ripped and bloody and she was strangled to death with a wire. Her head had also been pummeled with a pipe. She went to get her paycheck of a meager $1.20 and never returned home. She was raped and murdered and then her body was dragged to the basement. Police found strands of her hair and blood on the floor above right across from Frank's office. Frank nervously revealed the victims name in front of police before they had given him any such details. The ADL was going to get him released based purely on the fact that He was Jewish and a high profile crime made Jews look bad. Arguably a Jewish organization trying to get a child murderer off the hook, makes Jews look worse. They would like one to believe that he was innocent with fake news history and will tell you so on Wikipedia which has Israelis paid to edit it. Leo admitted on the witness stand to the jury that he was “unconsciously” at the scene of the crime when the murder occurred. What we don't know, is if he raped her before or after killing her. The grand jury voted 21 – 0 for indicting him. Four of those jurors were Jewish. That shouldn't matter, but it does because later the ADL would try to argue that the jury wrongly convicted him because of antisemitism rather than because all the evidence showed that he did it in everyone's eyes. He was convicted. After the Judge, Leonard Roan, rejected all the appeals, he ordered Leo to be hanged on his birthday April 17, 1913. However Frank who was unanimously elected president of the B'nai Brith Chapter again even after being convicted of rape and murder had one last method to weasel out. He with Jewish pressure groups, appealed to the Governor. The lame-duck governor, John M. Slaton, in a very Clinton-esk move, commuted Leo's sentence his last week in office. He changed it from the death penalty to life in prison.Frank was knifed in prison by an inmate who took justice into their own hands. William Creen used a butcher knife and cut Leo's throat severely injuring him. On August 16th a mob broke into the prison captured Leo Frank and took him 2 miles away and hanged him. Although they took photographs no one in town would identify them. Of course the ADL twisted the story to say that these men were motivated by antisemitism and not that they hated him for raping and murdering a child. To see Southern Justice click hereThe ADL would fight to have him given a posthumous pardon which he got in 1986. Fred Grimm of the Miami Herald said in response to the pardon, “A salve for one of the South's most hateful, festering memories, was finally applied” showing his own prejudice towards the South rather than admitting a well known exploiter of child labor, who raped and killed a young girl and was unanimously convicted for the crime and sentenced to death was killed even after weaseling a pardon by an outgoing governor. Fred Grimm is constantly chasing down and doing stories about “Neo-Confederates” and “Neo-Nazis” as if either one are some huge bane and influence in modern society. Ironically it is groups like Antifa who act like ISIS tearing down American Statues and assaulting people. Despite having entire cities burned civilian homes and all by Lincoln's terrorists, not once in 150 years has a Southerner attacked a Union monument. Yelling racism at everything is fun though because it exercises safe moral indignation. That the US recently invaded Libya and have caused a country to be run by Al Qaeda terrorists who have revived the institution of slavery, selling humans for $400 in the market, doesn't seem to bother these same people so much as statues of Confederate generals. Apparently the Union military generals like Custer who rode west and committed genocide on Native Americans immediately following the Civil War, or enslaving the Chinese to build railroads, doesn't count as racism either.The ADL itself was created with Jewish mafia money. With connections to Meyer Lansky, Moe Dalitz, Bugsy Siegal, and illegal arms trafficker Hank Greenspun. The ADL gave Jewish gangster Moe Dalitz the Torch of Liberty Award. Dalitz was partnered with Galvastan's Sam Marceo and his brother Rosario of international narcotic trafficking fame. Dalitz and Sam began with a bootlegging gig. And it was the Maceo brothers who with Dalitz financed the Desert Inn Casio (where Frank Sinatra got his first Vegas gig). Interesting note, Sam's sister Olivia married Joseph Fertitta. You probably know the famous former owners of the UFC Frank III and Lorenzo Fertitta. They're all “family”. Maceo died only a year after purchasing the casino and it quickly went into the Fertitta side of the family. Dalitz not only did business with Maceo, he ran with the Mayfield Road gang in Ohio who had a branch dubbed the Collinwood Crew nicknamed the Young Turks. This is a very fitting name considering that the ADL denies the Armenian genocide. They even fired a New England Director Andrew H. Tarsy because he broke rank and called it a genocide. See killing 1,500,000 people isn't genocide because nothing is allowed to compete with the Holocaust victimhood.Moe Dalitz at Desert InnDalitz was an early business partner with Abe Berstien of the murderous Purple Gang. They used to murder motorists for sport. That didn't bother the ADL. In 1985 they gave Moe an award. Moe would become the Mob Boss of Cleveland, even tough most of his operations would move and center on Vegas. His businesses however were all over the United States. Dalitz was not only a close confidant of Meyer Lansky, the two co-owned the Frolic Club in Miami. (p.6)The Desert Inn casino also took investments from convicted illegal arms smuggler Hank Greenspun, who was not only invested but became the publicist as well. He owned the Las Vegas Sun and pulled a money laundering scheme with advertising that was similar to what Boris Berezovsky repeated in Russia. Prior to that, he had been the publicist for another Mafia Casino, the Flamingo, which was run by Lanksy's childhood friend and murderer Bugsy Siegal. Greenspun's wife was given top honors by the ADL. Her husband attempted to smuggle 42 Pratt and Whitney R2800 LOW airplane engines to Palestine when the Haganah terrorist group was creating the state of Israel through ethnic cleansing.After jury tampering, with the sole Jewish Juror meeting with the defense, Greenspun and two of his cohorts William Sosnow, and Samuel Lewis were acquitted, but his other partners Adolph Schwimmer, Leon Gardner, Renoyld Selk, and Abraham Levin, were convicted.But Greenspun would be found guilty of smuggling the machine guns that would go with the planes as well as artillery and ammo. He stole 30 and 50 cal machine guns from Hawaii and shipped them to the Haganah in Palestine through Mexico. When he was indicted Greenspun tried to bribe his way out. He offered $25,000 to Seth Solomon Pope “or anyone else designated by Pope” to “quash” a second Neutrality Act indictment against him. Solomon worked in Hawaii at the War Assets Administration, in charge of decommissioning and selling off WWII surplus. He was most likely the original contact for the smuggling. The man was investigated three time for fraudulent sales. They also stole over 500 machine gun barrels. Reportedly Hank took an addition 10% Kickback from arms sales he made. A Grand Jury in Los Angeles indicted Hank and six other of violating the Neutrality Act and Export Control Law, Title 50 United States Code section 701 and Title 22 United Stated Code, section 452. However he got only a 10k fine and no jail time. Greenspun was paid through the SSE. The SSE was a front for the AJDC's Lishka which financed communist and Bricha illegal immigration. The Jewish Agency which was the government in waiting that organized the terrorist groups that formed Israel, facilitated the cash flow to gun runners like Hank. In “Concealed in the Open: Recipients of International Clandestine Jewish Aid in Early 1950s Hungary” Zachary Paul Levine, of Yeshiva University Museum writes.“The JDC-Israeli collaboration that formed around clandestine emigration to Israel and welfare to migrants filled the vacuum with the creation of two institutions. The first was created in 1952 by the Israeli government's Liaison Bureau of the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or Lishka by its Hebrew acronym, which collected information and administered individual aid. The second was created in Switzerland in 1953. Known as the Society for Mutual Aid (SSE by its French acronym), this organization directed AJDC funds to the Lishka and represented Jewish aid providers' interests to communist governments” …”However, as an American organization at the height of the McCarthy “Red Scare,” AJDC administrators could hardly justify the appearance of sending cash or material into a state with which the U.S. was technically engaged in “economic warfare.” In March 1953, the AJDC and Lishka together established the SSE, a “paper organization” that “covered” the AJDC-Israeli partnership, and provided a means for regularized AJDC funding for Lishka from the Joint's Relief-in-Transit budget that funded activities that might have contravened U.S. law (Beizer 2009: 117). The SSE's Swiss chairman, Erwin Haymann, had years of experience channeling money from the U.S. for Bricha and other clandestine activities. Funds traveled through the SSE and on to Lishka agents who received U.S. dollars or another western currency and exchanged them into Hungarian forints on the black market in Vienna. Subsequently, these forints traveled via diplomatic pouch or in the suitcase of an apparent traveler to the legation in Budapest, whose staff distributed the cash around the country.”We learned from declassified FBI documents that Erwin Haymann, the same man aiding communist on behalf of the JA is who made three transfers of 1.3 million dollars to Greenspun. Greenspun would later become the Western Director of bonds for Israel. Haymann sent the payments to Banco del Ahorro, Mexico by cable.Interesting, because 1.3 million is exactly how much Moe Dalitz sank into the Desert Inn Casino, which Greenspun was a publicist for and invested in, what a coincidence. If you are into Kennedy Research here is a cookie for you. Hungarian Jew Tibor Rosenbaum is the bridge between Meyer Lansky, Erwin Haymann, and heavy Florida-Cuba crime syndicate. …But I will leave that tangent alone. Greespun was known for having blackmail on political candidates, Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy even plotted to raid on the Vegas Sun vault in order to gain access to blackmail that Hank had on Howard Hughes. Hughes by the way bought Mafia properties like the Desert Inn Casino using millions in cash. They credit him with cleaning Vegas up from the mob, it was more like the mob took him to the cleaners. Dalitz ironically started out with a cash only dry cleaning business.Kennedy whose father was involved with the Outfit and the East Coast mob and who had a love affair with his friend Frank Sinatra's ex-girlfriend Judith Exner while she was also involved with Chicago mob boss Sam Giacanna. Sinatra introduced her to JFK. Kennedy gave Greenspun a pardon his first year in office. I wonder why. LBJ likewise was sleeping with Mathilde Krim who was also part of the Swiss connection who help Irgun terrorist. Johnson did all this while she was married to his campaign advisor Athur Krim, a willing cuck. It makes you rethink Monica Lewinsky doesn't it. Well Clinton did give Jewish Billionaire Marc Rich a pardon, after Rich donated $100,000 to the ADL. Rich was yet another crook in the Swiss connection.These are the founders and reward recipients of the ADL. The ADL was given defacto powers of an intelligence agency in the United State and it gathers intel on who it pleases. It is anything but an Anti-Defamation League. They defame people themselves. The ADL under the cover of fighting Anti-Semitism, simply uses this cry as a club to chase down and censor anyone critical of Zionism or the Israeli state. If you point out that Israeli snipers are shooting children in Palestine from across the border, then the ADL can get you removed. Vimeo stole $5,000 in profits from me and erased six years worth of my work because of my criticism of Israel. When the ADL partnered with YouTube December of 2008, my channel was gone the first day, and over a thousand videos were erased. No justification was needed, simply the accusation of antisemitism. When I made a complaint in my appeal I learned that the ADL would oversee the case. Of course I never had my channel restored nor was I even given an explanation from YouTube. Another wing of the ADL is the SPLC and they too have been granted censorship powers across social media. The ADL used the SPLC as both an attack dog and a buffer to separate itself from ramifications of its constant chicken little censorship. In the rare case of actual antisemitic groups online or otherwise the ADL has been busted reacting to its own creations as the “Nazis” they screech about turn out to be their own provocateurs.Birthed to defend a murdering child rapist, financed by mass murdering terrorists and organized crime, narcotic peddling, gun running, psychopaths formed the pro Zionist organizational bully called the ADL. They have been caught spying through American police departments, spying on American citizens, and even coaching American police on what they should be on the look out for and how Hate Crime means anything Israel doesn't like. And this is their great online weapon. The Zog Media already refuses to report on what Israel is doing to Palestine, the Israeli role in orchestrating the Iraq War, and the Proxy War on Syria. People have been giving the information online. Naturally the ADL has been censoring such journalist all while screaming antisemitism. AIPAC bribes congress and the ADL censors the media. It is a one two punch to protect criminal Zionists interest. And now you know its criminal origins. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.ryandawson.org/subscribe

united states american chicago israel los angeles las vegas mexico french society miami russia chinese rich ohio south police hawaii jewish judge world war ii fbi nazis jews union cleveland civil war switzerland native americans governor pope wikipedia israelis syria john f kennedy naturally east coast holocaust relief hebrew palestine clinton mafia swiss hughes joint pardon frank sinatra funds budapest ironically antisemitism confederate antifa rosario hungarian libya vimeo transit al qaeda banco pratt torch foreign affairs outfit lyndon baines johnson iraq war armenian yelling flamingos subsequently zionism neo nazis zionists hate crime grand jury monica lewinsky miami herald kickback ahorro southerners adl custer howard hughes anti defamation league young turks birthed aipac still trying splc sse maceo proxy war mob boss jewish agency meyer lansky las vegas sun gordon liddy fertitta leo frank united states code israel ministry purple gang haganah mary phagan lorenzo fertitta boris berezovsky

We Didn't Uncover Who Built the Pyramids, We Uncovered Something Much Worse

code cleanup seeks prescott goldmine forest service national forests federal regulations united states code

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 26, 2025 15:14

Prescott National Forest Seeks Comments on Gold Mine Clean-Up

CAST11 - Be curious.

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 26, 2025 3:06

Send us a text and chime in!A Draft Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) for the Gold Bullion Mine (Site) in the Prescott National Forest and the Administrative Record upon which it is based, are available for public review and comment. The EE/CA was prepared under the Forest Service's authority derived from Section 104 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA; Title 42, United States Code, Section 9604) and Federal Executive Order 12580, and is consistent with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) as found at Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 300. The Gold Bullion Mine is an abandoned... For the written story, read here >> https://www.signalsaz.com/articles/prescott-national-forest-seeks-comments-on-gold-mine-clean-up/Check out the CAST11.com Website at: https://CAST11.com Follow the CAST11 Podcast Network on Facebook at: https://Facebook.com/CAST11AZFollow Cast11 Instagram at: https://www.instagram.com/cast11_podcast_network

Redeeming Protestantism: The Need for Healthy Churches

spotify church llc apple podcast klein redeeming roman catholic protestants john calvin protestantism eastern orthodox supp healthy churches united states code jukin media equals three fair use doctrine

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 18, 2025 47:10

Can Protestantism be redeemed? In this video, I explore some of the significant issues within Protestantism and some of the external critiques brought by Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. Make sure to subscribe on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@EmetMinistryFor more resources, visit emetministry.org Follow us: on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/emetministries/profilecard/?igsh=Z2c5NnA1dTJhN20y on Spotify:⁠ https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-four-fold-disciple/id1505547928on Apple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-four-fold-disciple/id1505547928my reading list:⁠ https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/74696644-christian-barrett00:25:00- Protestantism today02:23:00- Why is there a conversation happening?02:45:00- Romans Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Critic 08:43:00- Protestants need to know their church history09:33:00- Issue 1: A Lack Reverence12:31:00- Issue 2: An over emphasis on emotions14:45:00- Issue 3: Easy Believism 19:17:00- Issue 4: Church is more than a place you go to21:51:00- Issue 5: A lack of theological depth and biblical worldview 28:23:00- People are leaving the church32:05:00 Protestantism needs healthy churches32:58:00- what is the church?34:09:00- what does the church do?38:44:00- who makes up the church? 39:47:00- John Calvin on a what a healthy church is41:26:00- The IX Marks of a healthy church44:37:00- Can we redeem Protestantism? Fair Use Disclaimer:This video may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. All clips used are protected by the Fair Use Doctrine within Title 17 of the United States Code. This doctrine safeguards the use of copyrighted material for transformative purposes, such as commentary, criticism, review and news reporting. Under Title 17 U.S.C. § 512(f), any person who makes a false, bad faith, or misleading copyright claim or uses a copyright takedown to infringe on free speech, criticism, or commentary can be held liable for damages to the content creator.Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).

I went to Jordan Peterson's ARC Conference | Is there hope for the West?

spotify gospel west christians christianity llc apple podcast klein arc jordan peterson douglas murray os guinness supp united states code jukin media equals three arc conference fair use doctrine

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 11, 2025 54:50

I recently attended Jordan Peterson's ARC Conference, where key thinkers like Os Guinness, Baroness Philippa Stroud, Douglas Murray, Jordan Peterson, and more discussed the challenges of our cultural moment. In this video, I reflect on what Christians can learn from this conference for cultural engagement, public faith, and how the Gospel speaks to today's societal issues.How should Christians respond to cultural shifts?What role does Christianity play in shaping the future? How can we engage without compromising biblical truth?I'll break down major themes from ARC, including:Os Guinness on freedom & faithThe need for us to have more childrenJordan Peterson's vision for cultural renewalThe importance of truth, responsibility, and biblical wisdom as we tell the Better StoryIf you're interested in Christian cultural engagement, apologetics, and the intersection of faith & society, this video is for you!Let's discuss in the comments: How should Christians engage with today's culture?Key Topics: #Christianity #JordanPeterson #OsGuinness #CulturalEngagement #ARCConference #DouglasMurray #FaithAndCulture #Apologetics #GospelInCulture #ChurchAndSociety

It Took Me 30+ Years To Realise What I'll Tell You In 16 Minutes

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 5, 2025 16:23

Christian Ranks Top Atheist Arguments that Disprove God - Tier List

Wrestling With The Future

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 4, 2025 27:46

Freedom of Speech & Censorship: The Trump Agenda Moves Ahead

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 25, 2025 0:20

Freedom of Speech & Censorship: The Trump Agenda Moves Ahead There's a new sheriff in town and he's changing the rules, back to the way the founding fathers have intended. READ THE FULL UNREDACTED ARTICLE HERE DIRECT FROM THE WHITE HOUSE https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/restoring-freedom-of-speech-and-ending-federal-censorship/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE ORDER By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, an amendment essential to the success of our Republic, enshrines the right of the American people to speak freely in the public square without Government interference. Over the last 4 years, the previous administration trampled free speech rights by censoring Americans' speech on online platforms, often by exerting substantial coercive pressure on third parties, such as social media companies, to moderate, deplatform, or otherwise suppress speech that the Federal Government did not approve. Under the guise of combatting “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “malinformation,” the Federal Government infringed on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens across the United States in a manner that advanced the Government's preferred narrative about significant matters of public debate. Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society. Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to: (a) secure the right of the American people to engage in constitutionally protected speech; (b) ensure that no Federal Government officer, employee, or agent engages in or facilitates any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen; (c) ensure that no taxpayer resources are used to engage in or facilitate any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen; and (d) identify and take appropriate action to correct past misconduct by the Federal Government related to censorship of protected speech. Sec. 3. Ending Censorship of Protected Speech. (a) No Federal department, agency, entity, officer, employee, or agent may act or use any Federal resources in a manner contrary to section 2 of this order. (b) The Attorney General, in consultation with the heads of executive departments and agencies, shall investigate the activities of the Federal Government over the last 4 years that are inconsistent with the purposes and policies of this order and prepare a report to be submitted to the President, through the Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, with recommendations for appropriate remedial actions to be taken based on the findings of the report. Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. THE WHITE HOUSE, JANUARY 20TH 2025 DONALD J. TRUMP PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Intrum chapter 11 bankruptcy ruling, read by the bankruptcy judge on the record 12-31-2024, appealed by creditors via notice of appeal filed 1-13-2025

International Bankruptcy, Restructuring, True Crime and Appeals - Court Audio Recording Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 14, 2025 55:40

1UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASHOUSTON DIVISIONIn re:INTRUM AB, et al.,1Debtors.Chapter 11Case No. 24-90575 (CML)(Jointly Administered)NOTICE OF APPEALPursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a) and Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002 and 8003,notice is hereby given that the Ad Hoc Committee of holders of 2025 notes issued by Intrum AB(the “AHC”) hereby appeals to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texasfrom (i) the Order Denying Motion of the Ad Hoc Committee of Holders of Intrum AB Notes Due2025 to Dismiss Chapter 11 Cases Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b) and Federal Rule ofBankruptcy Procedure 1017(f)(1) (ECF No. 262) (the “Motion to Dismiss Order”) and (ii) theOrder (I) Approving Disclosure Statement and (II) Confirming Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11Plan of Intrum AB and Its Affiliated Debtor (Further Technical Modifications) (ECF No. 263) (the“Confirmation Order”). A copy of the Motion to Dismiss Order is attached as Exhibit A and acopy of the Confirmation Order is attached as Exhibit B. Additionally, the transcript of theBankruptcy Court's oral ruling accompanying the Motion to Dismiss Order and ConfirmationOrder (ECF No. 275) is attached as Exhibit C.Below are the names of all parties to this appeal and their respective counsel:1 The Debtors in these Chapter 11 Cases are Intrum AB and Intrum AB of Texas LLC. The Debtors'service address in these Chapter 11 Cases is 801 Travis Street, Ste 2101, #1312, Houston, TX 77002.Case 24-90575 Document 296 Filed in TXSB on 01/13/25 Page 1 of 62I. APPELLANTA. Name of Appellant:The members of the AHC include:Boundary Creek Master Fund LP; CF INT Holdings Designated Activity Company; CaiusCapital Master Fund; Diameter Master Fund LP; Diameter Dislocation Master Fund II LP; FirTree Credit Opportunity Master Fund, LP; MAP 204 Segregated Portfolio, a segregated portfolioof LMA SPC; Star V Partners LLC; and TQ Master Fund LP.Attorneys for the AHC:QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLPChristopher D. Porter (SBN 24070437)Joanna D. Caytas (SBN 24127230)Melanie A. Guzman (SBN 24117175)Cameron M. Kelly (SBN 24120936)700 Louisiana Street, Suite 3900Houston, TX 77002Telephone: (713) 221-7000Facsimile: (713) 221-7100Email: chrisporter@quinnemanuel.comjoannacaytas@quinnemanuel.commelanieguzman@quinnemanuel.comcameronkelly@quinnemanuel.com-and-Benjamin I. Finestone (admitted pro hac vice)Sascha N. Rand (admitted pro hac vice)Katherine A. Scherling (admitted pro hac vice)295 5th AvenueNew York, New York 10016Telephone: (212) 849-7000Facsimile: (212) 849-7100Email: benjaminfinestone@quinnemanuel.comsascharand@quinnemanuel.comkatescherling@quinnemanuel.comB. Positions of appellant in the adversary proceeding or bankruptcy case that isthe subject of this appeal:CreditorsCase 24-90575 Document 296 Filed in TXSB on 01/13/25 Page 2 of 63II. THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPEALA. Judgment, order, or decree appealed from:The Order Denying Motion of the Ad Hoc Committee of Holders of Intrum AB Notes Due2025 to Dismiss Chapter 11 Cases Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b) and Federal Rule ofBankruptcy Procedure 1017(f)(1) (ECF No. 262); the Order (I) Approving Disclosure Statementand (II) Confirming Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan of Intrum AB and Its Affiliated Debtor(Further Technical Modifications) (ECF No. 263); and the December 31, 2024 Transcript of OralRuling Before the Honorable Christopher M. Lopez United States Bankruptcy Court Judge (ECFNo. 275).B. The date on which the judgment, order, or decree was entered:The Motion to Dismiss Order and the Confirmation Order were entered on December 31,2024. The Court issued its oral ruling accompanying the Motion to Dismiss Order and theConfirmation Order on December 31, 2024.III. OTHER PARTIES TO THIS APPEALIntrum AB and Intrum AB of Texas LLCMILBANK LLPDennis F. Dunne (admitted pro hac vice)Jaimie Fedell (admitted pro hac vice)55 Hudson YardsNew York, NY 10001Telephone: (212) 530-5000Facsimile: (212) 530-5219Email: ddunne@milbank.comjfedell@milbank.com–and–Andrew M. Leblanc (admitted pro hac vice)Melanie Westover Yanez (admitted pro hac vice)1850 K Street, NW, Suite 1100Washington, DC 20006Telephone: (202) 835-7500Facsimile: (202) 263-7586Email: aleblanc@milbank.commwyanez@milbank.com–and–PORTER HEDGES LLPJohn F. Higgins (SBN 09597500)Case 24-90575 Document 296 Filed in TXSB on 01/13/25 Page 3 of 64Eric D. Wade (SBN 00794802)M. Shane Johnson (SBN 24083263)1000 Main Street, 36th FloorHouston TX 77002Telephone: (713) 226-6000Facsimile: (713) 226-6248Email: jhiggins@porterhedges.comewade@porterhedges.comsjohnson@porterhedges.comIV. OTHER PARTIES THAT MAY HAVE AN INTEREST IN THIS APPEALThe following chart lists certain parties that are not parties to this appeal, but that may havean interest in the outcome of the case. These parties should be served with notice of this appealby the Debtors who are aware of their identities and best positioned to provide notice.All Other Creditors of the Debtors, Including, But Not Limited To:• Certain funds and accounts managed by BlackRock Investment Management (UK)Limited or its affiliates;• Capital Four;• Davidson Kempner European Partners, LLP;• Intermediate Capital Managers Limited;• Mandatum Asset Management Ltd;• H.I.G. Capital, LLC;• Spiltan Hograntefond; Spiltan Rantefond Sverige; and Spiltan Aktiefond Stabil;• The RCF SteerCo Group;• Swedbank AB (publ).Any Holder of Stock of the Debtors• Any holder of stock of the Debtors, including their successors and assigns.Case 24-90575 Document 296 Filed in TXSB on 01/13/25 Page 4 of 65Respectfully submitted this 13th day of January, 2025.QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &SULLIVAN, LLP/s/ Christopher D. PorterChristopher D. Porter (SBN 24070437)Joanna D. Caytas (SBN 24127230)Melanie A. Guzman (SBN 24117175)Cameron M. Kelly (SBN 24120936)700 Louisiana Street, Suite 3900Houston, TX 77002Telephone: (713) 221-7000Facsimile: (713) 221-7100Email: chrisporter@quinnemanuel.comjoannacaytas@quinnemanuel.commelanieguzman@quinnemanuel.comcameronkelly@quinnemanuel.com-and-Benjamin I. Finestone (admitted pro hac vice)Sascha N. Rand (admitted pro hac vice)Katherine A. Scherling (admitted pro hac vice)295 5th AvenueNew York, New York 10016Telephone: (212) 849-7000Facsimile: (212) 849-7100Email: benjaminfinestone@quinnemanuel.comsascharand@quinnemanuel.comkatescherling@quinnemanuel.comCOUNSEL FOR THE AD HOC COMMITTEE OFINTRUM AB 2025 NOTEHOLDERSCase 24-90575 Document 296 Filed in TXSB on 01/13/25 Page 5 of 6CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI, Christopher D. Porter, hereby certify that on the 13th day of January, 2025, a copy ofthe foregoing document has been served via the Electronic Case Filing System for the UnitedStates Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas./s/ Christopher D. PorterBy: Christopher D. PorterCase 24-90575 Document 296 Filed in TXSB on 01/13/25 Page 6 of 6EXHIBIT ACase 24-90575 Document 296-1 Filed in TXSB on 01/13/25 Page 1 of 31IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASHOUSTON DIVISION)In re: ) Chapter 11)Intrum AB, et al.,1 ) Case No. 24-90575 (CML)))Jointly AdministeredDebtors. ))ORDER DENYING MOTION OF THE AD HOCCOMMITTEE OF HOLDERS OF INTRUM AB NOTES DUE 2025TO DISMISS CHAPTER 11 CASES PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 1112(B) ANDFEDERAL RULE OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE 1017(F)(1)(Related to Docket No. 27)This matter, having come before the Court upon the Motion of the Ad Hoc Committee ofHolders of Intrum AB Notes Due 2025 to Dismiss Chapter 11 Cases Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §1112(b) and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1017(f)(1) [Docket No. 27] (the “Motion toDismiss”); and this Court having considered the Debtors' Objection to the Motion of the Ad HocCommittee of Holders of Intrum AB Notes Due 2025 to Dismiss Chapter 11 Cases Pursuant to 11U.S.C. § 1112(b) and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1017(f)(1) (the “Objection”) andany other responses or objections to the Motion to Dismiss; and this Court having jurisdiction overthis matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and the Amended Standing Order; and this Court havingfound that this is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2); and this Court having foundthat it may enter a final order consistent with Article III of the United States Constitution; and thisCourt having found that the relief requested in the Objection is in the best interests of the Debtors'1 The Debtors in these Chapter 11 Cases are Intrum AB and Intrum AB of Texas LLC. The Debtors' serviceaddress in these Chapter 11 Cases is 801 Travis Street, STE 2101, #1312, Houston, TX 77002.United States Bankruptcy CourtSouthern District of TexasENTEREDDecember 31, 2024Nathan Ochsner, ClerkCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29662-1 F Filieledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 2 o of f2 32estates; and this Court having found that the Debtors' notice of the Objection and opportunity fora hearing on the Motion to Dismiss and Objection were appropriate and no other notice need beprovided; and this Court having reviewed the Motion to Dismiss and Objection and havingheard the statements in support of the relief requested therein at a hearing before this Court; andthis Court having determined that the legal and factual bases set forth in the Objectionestablish just cause for the relief granted herein; and upon all of the proceedings had beforethis Court; and after due deliberation and sufficient cause appearing therefor, it is HEREBYORDERED THAT:1. The Motion to Dismiss is Denied for the reasons stated at the December 31, 2024 hearing.2. This Court retains exclusive jurisdiction and exclusive venue with respect to allmatters arising from or related to the implementation, interpretation, and enforcement of this Order.DAeucegmubste 0r 23,1 2, 0210294CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29662-1 F Filieledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 2 3 o of f2 3EXHIBIT BCase 24-90575 Document 296-2 Filed in TXSB on 01/13/25 Page 1 of 135IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASHOUSTON DIVISION)In re: ) Chapter 11)Intrum AB et al.,1 ) Case No. 24-90575 (CML)))(Jointly Administered)Debtors. ))ORDER (I) APPROVINGDISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND(II) CONFIRMING JOINT PREPACKAGED CHAPTER 11PLAN OF INTRUM AB AND ITS AFFILIATEDDEBTOR (FURTHER TECHNICAL MODIFICATIONS)The above-captioned debtors and debtors in possession (collectively, the“Debtors”), having:a. entered into that certain Lock-Up Agreement, dated as of July 10, 2024 (asamended and restated on August 15, 2024, and as further modified,supplemented, or otherwise amended from time to time in accordance with itsterms, the “the Lock-Up Agreement”) and that certain Backstop Agreement,dated as of July 10, 2024, (as amended and restated on November 15, 2024 andas further modified, supplemented, or otherwise amended from time to time inaccordance with its terms), setting out the terms of the backstop commitmentsprovided by the Backstop Providers to backstop the entirety of the issuance ofNew Money Notes (as may be further amended, restated, amended and restated,modified or supplemented from time to time in accordance with the termsthereof, the “Backstop Agreement”) which set forth the terms of a consensualfinancial restructuring of the Debtors;b. commenced, on October 17, 2024, a prepetition solicitation (the “Solicitation”)of votes on the Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization of IntrumAB and its Debtor Affiliate Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (asthe same may be further amended, modified and supplemented from time totime, the “Plan”), by causing the transmittal, through their solicitation andballoting agent, Kroll Restructuring Administration LLC (“Kroll”), to theholders of Claims entitled to vote on the Plan of, among other things: (i) the1 The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Intrum AB and Intrum AB of Texas LLC. The Debtors' serviceaddress in these chapter 11 cases is 801 Travis Street, STE 2102, #1312, Houston, TX 77002.United States Bankruptcy CourtSouthern District of TexasENTEREDDecember 31, 2024Nathan Ochsner, ClerkCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Filieledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 2 o of f1 133452Plan, (ii) the Disclosure Statement for Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan ofReorganization of Intrum AB and its Debtor Affiliate (as the same may befurther amended, modified and supplemented from time to time, the“Disclosure Statement”), and (iii) the Ballots and Master Ballot to vote on thePlan (the “Ballots”), (iv) the Affidavit of Service of Solicitation Materials[Docket No. 7];c. commenced on November 15, 2024 (the “Petition Date”), these chapter 11 cases(these “Chapter 11 Cases”) by filing voluntary petitions in the United StatesBankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (the “Bankruptcy Court”or the “Court”) for relief under chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code(the “Bankruptcy Code”);d. Filed on November 15, 2024, the Affidavit of Service of Solicitation Materials[Docket No. 7] (the “Solicitation Affidavit”);e. Filed, on November 16, 2024 the Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan ofReorganization of Intrum AB and its Debtor Affiliate Pursuant to Chapter 11of the Bankruptcy Code (Technical Modifications) [Docket No. 16] and theDisclosure Statement for Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan of Intrum AB andits Debtor Affiliate [Docket No. 17];f. Filed on November 16, 2024, the Declaration of Andrés Rubio in Support of ofthe Debtors' Chapter 11 Petitions and First Day Motions [Docket No. 14] (the“First Day Declaration”);g. Filed on November 17, 2024, the Declaration of Alex Orchowski of KrollRestructuring Administration LLC Regarding the Solicitation of Votes andTabulation of Ballots Case on the Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan ofReorganization of Intrum AB and its Debtor Affiliate Pursuant to Chapter 11of the Bankruptcy Code [Docket No. 18] (the “Voting Declaration,” andtogether with the Plan, the Disclosure Statement, the Ballots, and theSolicitation Affidavit, the “Solicitation Materials”);h. obtained, on November 19, 2024, the Order(I) Scheduling a Combined Hearingon (A) Adequacy of the Disclosure Statement and (B) Confirmation of the Plan,(II) Approving Solicitation Procedures and Form and Manner of Notice ofCommencement, Combined Hearing, and Objection Deadline, (III) FixingDeadline to Object to Disclosure Statement and Plan, (IV) Conditionally (A)Directing the United States Trustee Not to Convene Section 341 Meeting ofCreditors and (B) Waiving Requirement to File Statements of Financial Affairsand Schedules of Assets and Liabilities, and (V) Granting Related Relief[Docket No. 71] (the “Scheduling Order”), which, among other things: (i)approved the prepetition solicitation and voting procedures, including theConfirmation Schedule (as defined therein); (ii) conditionally approved theDisclosure Statement and its use in the Solicitation; and (iii) scheduled theCombined Hearing on December 16, 2024, at 1:00 p.m. (prevailing CentralCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Filieledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 2 3 o of f1 133453Time) to consider the final approval of the Disclosure Statement and theconfirmation of the Plan (the “Combined Hearing”);i. served, through Kroll, on November 20, 2025, on all known holders of Claimsand Interests, the U.S. Trustee and certain other parties in interest, the Noticeof: (I) Commencement of Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Cases; (II) Hearing on theDisclosure Statement and Confirmation of the Plan, and (III) Certain ObjectionDeadlines (the “Combined Hearing Notice”) as evidence by the Affidavit ofService [Docket No. 160];j. caused, on November 25 and 27, 2024, the Combined Hearing Notice to bepublished in the New York Times (national and international editions) and theFinancial Times (international edition), as evidenced by the Certificate ofPublication [Docket No. 148];k. Filed and served, on December 10, 2024, the Plan Supplement for the Debtors'Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization [Docket 165];l. Filed on December 10, 2024, the Declaration of Jeffrey Kopa in Support ofConfirmation of the Joint Prepackaged Plan of Reorganization of Intrum ABand its Debtor Affiliate Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code [DocketNo. 155];m. Filed on December 14, 2024, the:i. Debtors' Memorandum of Law in Support of an Order: (I) Approving, on aFinal Basis, Adequacy of the Disclosure Statement; (II) Confirming theJoint Prepackaged Plan of Reorganization; and (III) Granting Related Relief[Docket No. 190] (the “Confirmation Brief”);ii. Declaration of Andrés Rubio in Support of Confirmation of the JointPrepackaged Plan of Reorganization of Intrum AB and its Debtor Affiliate.[Docket No. 189] (the “Confirmation Declaration”); andiii. Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization of Intrum AB and itsDebtor Affiliate Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (FurtherTechnical Modifications) [Docket No. 191];n. Filed on December 18, 2024, the Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan ofReorganization of Intrum AB and its Debtor Affiliate Pursuant to Chapter 11of the Bankruptcy Code (Further Technical Modifications) [Docket No. 223];CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Filieledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 3 4 o of f1 133454WHEREAS, the Court having, among other things:a. set December 12, 2024, at 4:00 p.m. (prevailing Central Time) as the deadlinefor Filing objection to the adequacy of the Disclosure Statement and/orConfirmation2 of the Plan (the “Objection Deadline”);b. held, on December 16, 2024 at 1:00 p.m. (prevailing Central Time) [andcontinuing through December 17, 2024], the Combined Hearing;c. heard the statements, arguments, and any objections made at the CombinedHearing;d. reviewed the Disclosure Statement, the Plan, the Ballots, the Plan Supplement,the Confirmation Brief, the Confirmation Declaration, the SolicitationAffidavit, and the Voting Declaration;e. overruled (i) any and all objections to approval of the Disclosure Statement, thePlan, and Confirmation, except as otherwise stated or indicated on the record,and (ii) all statements and reservations of rights not consensually resolved orwithdrawn, unless otherwise indicated; andf. reviewed and taken judicial notice of all the papers and pleadings Filed(including any objections, statement, joinders, reservations of rights and otherresponses), all orders entered, and all evidence proffered or adduced and allarguments made at the hearings held before the Court during the pendency ofthese cases;NOW, THEREFORE, it appearing to the Bankruptcy Court that notice of theCombined Hearing and the opportunity for any party in interest to object to the DisclosureStatement and the Plan having been adequate and appropriate as to all parties affected or to beaffected by the Plan and the transactions contemplated thereby, and the legal and factual bases setforth in the documents Filed in support of approval of the Disclosure Statement and Confirmationand other evidence presented at the Combined Hearing establish just cause for the relief grantedherein; and after due deliberation thereon and good cause appearing therefor, the BankruptcyCourt makes and issues the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, and orders for thereasons stated on the record at the December 31, 2024 ruling on plan confirmation;2 Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein have meanings given to them in the Plan and/or theDisclosure Statement. The rules of interpretation set forth in Article I.B of the Plan apply to this CombinedOrder.CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Filieledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 4 5 o of f1 133455I. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAWIT IS HEREBY FOUND AND DETERMINED THAT:A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.1. The findings and conclusions set forth herein and in the record of theCombined Hearing constitute the Bankruptcy Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law underRule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as made applicable herein by Bankruptcy Rules7052 and 9014. To the extent any of the following conclusions of law constitute findings of fact,or vice versa, they are adopted as such.B. Jurisdiction, Venue, Core Proceeding.2. This Court has jurisdiction over these Chapter 11 Cases pursuant to28 U.S.C. § 1334. Venue of these proceedings and the Chapter 11 Cases in this district is properpursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409. This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 157(b)(2) and this Court may enter a final order hereon under Article III of the United StatesConstitution.C. Eligibility for Relief.3. The Debtors were and continue to be entities eligible for relief under section109 of the Bankruptcy Code and the Debtors were and continue to be proper proponents of thePlan under section 1121(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.D. Commencement and Joint Administration of the Chapter 11 Cases.4. On the Petition Date, the Debtors commenced the Chapter 11 Cases. OnNovember 18, 2024, the Court entered an order [Docket No. 51] authorizing the jointadministration of the Chapter 11 Case in accordance with Bankruptcy Rule 1015(b). The Debtorshave operated their businesses and managed their properties as debtors in possession pursuant toCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Filieledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 5 6 o of f1 133456sections 1107(a) and 1108 of the Bankruptcy Code. No trustee, examiner, or statutory committeehas been appointed in these Chapter 11 Cases.E. Adequacy of the Disclosure Statement.5. The Disclosure Statement and the exhibits contained therein (i) containssufficient information of a kind necessary to satisfy the disclosure requirements of applicablenonbankruptcy laws, rules and regulations, including the Securities Act; and (ii) contains“adequate information” as such term is defined in section 1125(a)(1) and used in section1126(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, with respect to the Debtors, the Plan and the transactionscontemplated therein. The Filing of the Disclosure Statement satisfied Bankruptcy Rule 3016(b).The injunction, release, and exculpation provisions in the Plan and the Disclosure Statementdescribe, in bold font and with specific and conspicuous language, all acts to be enjoined andidentify the Entities that will be subject to the injunction, thereby satisfying Bankruptcy Rule3016(c).F. Solicitation.6. As described in and evidenced by the Voting Declaration, the Solicitationand the transmittal and service of the Solicitation Materials were: (i) timely, adequate, appropriate,and sufficient under the circumstances; and (ii) in compliance with sections 1125(g) and 1126(b)of the Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Rules 3017 and 3018, the applicable Local Bankruptcy Rules,the Scheduling Order and all applicable nonbankruptcy rules, laws, and regulations applicable tothe Solicitation, including the registration requirements under the Securities Act. The SolicitationMaterials, including the Ballots and the Opt Out Form (as defined below), adequately informedthe holders of Claims entitled to vote on the Plan of the procedures and deadline for completingand submitting the Ballots.CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Filieledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 6 7 o of f1 1334577. The Debtors served the Combined Hearing Notice on the entire creditormatrix and served the Opt Out Form on all Non-Voting Classes. The Combined Hearing Noticeadequately informed Holders of Claims or Interests of critical information regarding voting on (ifapplicable) and objecting to the Plan, including deadlines and the inclusion of release, exculpation,and injunction provisions in the Plan, and adequately summarized the terms of the Third-PartyRelease. Further, because the form enabling stakeholders to opt out of the Third-Party Release (the“Opt Out Form”) was included in both the Ballots and the Opt Out Form, every known stakeholder,including unimpaired creditors was provided with the means by which the stakeholders could optout of the Third-Party Release. No further notice is required. The period for voting on the Planprovided a reasonable and sufficient period of time and the manner of such solicitation was anappropriate process allowing for such holders to make an informed decision.G. Tabulation.8. As described in and evidenced by the Voting Declaration, (i) the holders ofClaims in Class 3 (RCF Claims) and Class 5 (Notes Claims) are Impaired under the Plan(collectively, the “Voting Classes”) and have voted to accept the Plan in the numbers and amountsrequired by section 1126 of the Bankruptcy Code, and (ii) no Class that was entitled to vote on thePlan voted to reject the Plan. All procedures used to tabulate the votes on the Plan were in goodfaith, fair, reasonable, and conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of theBankruptcy Code, the Bankruptcy Rules, the Local Rules, the Disclosure Statement, theScheduling Order, and all other applicable nonbankruptcy laws, rules, and regulations.H. Plan Supplement.9. On December 10, 2024, the Debtors Filed the Plan Supplement with theCourt. The Plan Supplement (including as subsequently modified, supplemented, or otherwiseCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Filieledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 7 8 o of f1 133458amended pursuant to a filing with the Court), complies with the terms of the Plan, and the Debtorsprovided good and proper notice of the filing in accordance with the Bankruptcy Code, theBankruptcy Rules, the Scheduling Order, and the facts and circumstances of the Chapter 11 Cases.All documents included in the Plan Supplement are integral to, part of, and incorporated byreference into the Plan. No other or further notice is or will be required with respect to the PlanSupplement. Subject to the terms of the Plan and the Lock-Up Agreement, and only consistenttherewith, the Debtors reserve the right to alter, amend, update, or modify the Plan Supplementand any of the documents contained therein or related thereto, in accordance with the Plan, on orbefore the Effective Date.I. Modifications to the Plan.10. Pursuant to section 1127 of the Bankruptcy Code, the modifications to thePlan described or set forth in this Combined Order constitute technical or clarifying changes,changes with respect to particular Claims by agreement with holders of such Claims, ormodifications that do not otherwise materially and adversely affect or change the treatment of anyother Claim or Interest under the Plan. These modifications are consistent with the disclosurespreviously made pursuant to the Disclosure Statement and Solicitation Materials, and notice ofthese modifications was adequate and appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the Chapter11 Cases. In accordance with Bankruptcy Rule 3019, these modifications do not require additionaldisclosure under section 1125 of the Bankruptcy Code or the resolicitation of votes under section1126 of the Bankruptcy Code, and they do not require that holders of Claims or Interests beafforded an opportunity to change previously cast acceptances or rejections of the Plan.Accordingly, the Plan is properly before this Court and all votes cast with respect to the Plan priorto such modification shall be binding and shall apply with respect to the Plan.CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Filieledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 8 9 o of f1 133459J. Objections Overruled.11. Any resolution or disposition of objections to Confirmation explained orotherwise ruled upon by the Court on the record at the Confirmation Hearing is herebyincorporated by reference. All unresolved objections, statements, joinders, informal objections,and reservations of rights are hereby overruled on the merits.K. Burden of Proof.12. The Debtors, as proponents of the Plan, have met their burden of provingthe elements of sections 1129(a) and 1129(b) of the Bankruptcy Code by a preponderance of theevidence, the applicable evidentiary standard for Confirmation. Further, the Debtors have proventhe elements of sections 1129(a) and 1129(b) by clear and convincing evidence. Each witness whotestified on behalf of the Debtors in connection with the Confirmation Hearing was credible,reliable, and qualified to testify as to the topics addressed in his testimony.L. Compliance with the Requirements of Section 1129 of the BankruptcyCode.13. The Plan complies with all applicable provisions of section 1129 of theBankruptcy Code as follows:a. Section 1129(a)(1) – Compliance of the Plan with Applicable Provisions of theBankruptcy Code.14. The Plan complies with all applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code,including sections 1122 and 1123, as required by section 1129(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code.i. Section 1122 and 1123(a)(1) – Proper Classification.15. The classification of Claims and Interests under the Plan is proper under theBankruptcy Code. In accordance with sections 1122(a) and 1123(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code,Article III of the Plan provides for the separate classification of Claims and Interests at each Debtorinto Classes, based on differences in the legal nature or priority of such Claims and Interests (otherCaCsaes e2 42-49-09507557 5 D oDcoucmumenetn 2t 9266-32 FFiilleedd iinn TTXXSSBB oonn 1021//3113//2245 PPaaggee 91 0o fo 1f 3143510than Administrative Claims, Professional Fee Claims, and Priority Tax Claims, which areaddressed in Article II of the Plan and Unimpaired, and are not required to be designated asseparate Classes in accordance with section 1123(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code). Valid business,factual, and legal reasons exist for the separate classification of the various Classes of Claims andInterests created under the Plan, the classifications were not implemented for any improperpurpose, and the creation of such Classes does not unfairly discriminate between or among holdersof Claims or Interests.16. In accordance with section 1122(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, each Class ofClaims or Interests contains only Claims or Interests substantially similar to the other Claims orInterests within that Class. Accordingly, the Plan satisfies the requirements of sections 1122(a),1122(b), and 1123(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Codeii. Section 1123(a)(2) – Specifications of Unimpaired Classes.17. Article III of the Plan specifies that Claims and Interests in the classesdeemed to accept the Plan are Unimpaired under the Plan. Holders of Intercompany Claims andIntercompany Interests are either Unimpaired and conclusively presumed to have accepted thePlan, or are Impaired and deemed to reject (the “Deemed Rejecting Classes”) the Plan, and, ineither event, are not entitled to vote to accept or reject the Plan. In addition, Article II of the Planspecifies that Administrative Claims and Priority Tax Claims are Unimpaired, although the Plandoes not classify these Claims. Accordingly, the Plan satisfies the requirements of section1123(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 101 o of f1 1334511iii. Section 1123(a)(3) – Specification of Treatment of Voting Classes18. Article III.B of the Plan specifies the treatment of each Voting Class underthe Plan – namely, Class 3 and Class 5. Accordingly, the Plan satisfies the requirements of section1123(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code.iv. Section 1123(a)(4) – No Discrimination.19. Article III of the Plan provides the same treatment to each Claim or Interestin any particular Class, as the case may be, unless the holder of a particular Claim or Interest hasagreed to a less favorable treatment with respect to such Claim or Interest. Accordingly, the Plansatisfies the requirements of section 1123(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code.v. Section 1123(a)(5) – Adequate Means for Plan Implementation.20. The Plan and the various documents included in the Plan Supplementprovide adequate and proper means for the Plan's execution and implementation, including: (a)the general settlement of Claims and Interests; (b) the restructuring of the Debtors' balance sheetand other financial transactions provided for by the Plan; (c) the consummation of the transactionscontemplated by the Plan, the Lock-Up Agreement, the Restructuring Implementation Deed andthe Agreed Steps Plan and other documents Filed as part of the Plan Supplement; (d) the issuanceof Exchange Notes, the New Money Notes, and the Noteholder Ordinary Shares pursuant to thePlan; (e) the amendment of the Intercreditor Agreement; (f) the amendment of the FacilityAgreement; (g) the amendment of the Senior Secured Term Loan Agreement; (h) theconsummation of the Rights Offering in accordance with the Plan, Rights Offering Documentsand the Lock-Up Agreement; (i) the granting of all Liens and security interests granted orconfirmed (as applicable) pursuant to, or in connection with, the Facility Agreement, the ExchangeNotes Indenture, the New Money Notes Indenture, the amended Intercreditor Agreement and theCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 112 o of f1 1334512Senior Secured Term Loan Agreement pursuant to the New Security Documents (including anyLiens and security interests granted or confirmed (as applicable) on the Reorganized Debtors'assets); (j) the vesting of the assets of the Debtors' Estates in the Reorganized Debtors; (k) theconsummation of the corporate reorganization contemplated by the Plan, the Lock-Up Agreement,the Agreed Steps Plan and the Master Reorganization Agreement (as defined in the RestructuringImplementation Deed); and (l) the execution, delivery, filing, or recording of all contracts,instruments, releases, and other agreements or documents in furtherance of the Plan. Accordingly,the Plan satisfies the requirements of section 1123(a)(5) of the Bankruptcy Codevi. Section 1123(a)(6) – Non-Voting Equity Securities.21. The Company's organizational documents in accordance with the SwedishCompanies Act, Ch. 4, Sec 5 and the Plan prohibit the issuance of non-voting securities as of theEffective Date to the extent required to comply with section 1123(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.Accordingly, the Plan satisfies the requirements of section 1123(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.vii. Section 1123(a)(7) – Directors, Officers, and Trustees.22. The manner of selection of any officer, director, or trustee (or any successorto and such officer, director, or trustee) of the Reorganized Debtors will be determined inaccordance with the existing organizational documents, which is consistent with the interests ofcreditors and equity holders and with public policy. Accordingly, the Plan satisfies therequirements of section 1123(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code.b. Section 1123(b) – Discretionary Contents of the Plan23. The Plan contains various provisions that may be construed as discretionarybut not necessary for Confirmation under the Bankruptcy Code. Any such discretionary provisionCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 123 o of f1 1334513complies with section 1123(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and is not inconsistent with the applicableprovisions of the Bankruptcy Code. Thus, the Plan satisfies section 1123(b).i. Section 1123(b)(1) – Impairment/Unimpairment of Any Class of Claims orInterests24. Article III of the Plan impairs or leaves unimpaired, as the case may be,each Class of Claims or Interests, as contemplated by section 1123(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code.ii. Section 1123(b)(2) – Assumption and Rejection of Executory Contracts andUnexpired Leases25. Article V of the Plan provides for the assumption of the Debtors' ExecutoryContracts and Unexpired Leases as of the Effective Date unless such Executory Contract orUnexpired Lease: (a) is identified on the Rejected Executory Contract and Unexpired Lease List;(b) has been previously rejected by a Final Order; (c) is the subject of a motion to reject ExecutoryContracts or Unexpired Leases that is pending on the Confirmation Date; or (4) is subject to amotion to reject an Executory Contract or Unexpired Lease pursuant to which the requestedeffective date of such rejection is after the Effective Date. Thus, the Plan satisfies section1123(b)(2).iii. Compromise and Settlement26. In accordance with section 1123(b)(3)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code andBankruptcy Rule 9019, and in consideration for the distributions and other benefits provided underthe Plan, the provisions of the Plan constitute a good-faith compromise of all Claims, Interests,and controversies relating to the contractual, legal, and subordination rights that all holders ofClaims or Interests may have with respect to any Allowed Claim or Interest or any distribution tobe made on account of such Allowed Claim or Interest. Such compromise and settlement is theproduct of extensive arm's-length, good faith negotiations that, in addition to the Plan, resulted inCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 134 o of f1 1334514the execution of the Lock-Up Agreement, which represents a fair and reasonable compromise ofall Claims, Interests, and controversies and entry into which represented a sound exercise of theDebtors' business judgment. Such compromise and settlement is fair, equitable, and reasonableand in the best interests of the Debtors and their Estates.27. The releases of the Debtors' directors and officers are an integral componentof the settlements and compromises embodied in the Plan. The Debtors' directors and officers: (a)made a substantial and valuable contribution to the Debtors' restructuring, including extensive preandpost-Petition Date negotiations with stakeholder groups, and ensured the uninterruptedoperation of the Debtors' businesses during the Chapter 11 Cases; (b) invested significant timeand effort to make the restructuring a success and maximize the value of the Debtors' businessesin a challenging operating environment; (c) attended and, in certain instances, testified atdepositions and Court hearings; (d) attended and participated in numerous stakeholder meetings,management meetings, and board meetings related to the restructuring; (e) are entitled toindemnification from the Debtors under applicable non-bankruptcy law, organizationaldocuments, and agreements; (f) invested significant time and effort in the preparation of the Lock-Up Agreement, the Plan, Disclosure Statement, all supporting analyses, and the numerous otherpleadings Filed in the Chapter 11 Cases, thereby ensuring the smooth administration of the Chapter11 Cases; and (g) are entitled to all other benefits under any employment contracts existing as ofthe Petition Date. Litigation by the Debtors or other Releasing Parties against the Debtors'directors and officers would be a distraction to the Debtors' business and restructuring and woulddecrease rather than increase the value of the estates. The releases of the Debtors' directors andofficers contained in the Plan have the consent of the Debtors and the Releasing Parties and are inthe best interests of the estates.CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 145 o of f1 1334515iv. Debtor Release28. The releases of claims and Causes of Action by the Debtors, ReorganizedDebtors, and their Estates described in Article VIII.C of the Plan in accordance with section1123(b) of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Debtor Release”) represent a valid exercise of the Debtors'business judgment under Bankruptcy Rule 9019. The Debtors' or the Reorganized Debtors' pursuitof any such claims against the Released Parties is not in the best interests of the Estates' variousconstituencies because the costs involved would outweigh any potential benefit from pursuingsuch claims. The Debtor Release is fair and equitable and complies with the absolute priority rule.29. The Debtor Release is (a) an integral part of the Plan, and a component ofthe comprehensive settlement implemented under the Plan; (b) in exchange for the good andvaluable consideration provided by the Released Parties; (c) a good faith settlement andcompromise of the claims and Causes of Action released by the Debtor Release; (d) materiallybeneficial to, and in the best interests of, the Debtors, their Estates, and their stakeholders, and isimportant to the overall objectives of the Plan to finally resolve certain Claims among or againstcertain parties in interest in the Chapter 11 Cases; (e) fair, equitable, and reasonable; (f) given andmade after due notice and opportunity for hearing; and (g) a bar to any Debtor asserting any claimor Cause of Action released by the Debtor Release against any of the Released Parties. Theprobability of success in litigation with respect to the released claims and Causes of Action, whenweighed against the costs, supports the Debtor Release. With respect to each of these potentialCauses of Action, the parties could assert colorable defenses and the probability of success isuncertain. The Debtors' or the Reorganized Debtors' pursuit of any such claims or Causes ofAction against the Released Parties is not in the best interests of the Estates or the Debtors' variousCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 156 o of f1 1334516constituencies because the costs involved would likely outweigh any potential benefit frompursuing such claims or Causes of Action30. Holders of Claims and Interests entitled to vote have overwhelmingly votedin favor of the Plan, including the Debtor Release. The Plan, including the Debtor Release, wasnegotiated before and after the Petition Date by sophisticated parties represented by able counseland advisors, including the Consenting Creditors. The Debtor Release is therefore the result of ahard fought and arm's-length negotiation process conducted in good faith.31. The Debtor Release appropriately offers protection to parties thatparticipated in the Debtors' restructuring process, including the Consenting Creditors, whoseparticipation in the Chapter 11 Cases is critical to the Debtors' successful emergence frombankruptcy. Specifically, the Released Parties, including the Consenting Creditors, madesignificant concessions and contributions to the Chapter 11 Cases, including, entering into theLock-Up Agreement and related agreements, supporting the Plan and the Chapter 11 Cases, andwaiving or agreeing to impair substantial rights and Claims against the Debtors under the Plan (aspart of the compromises composing the settlement underlying the revised Plan) in order tofacilitate a consensual reorganization and the Debtors' emergence from chapter 11. The DebtorRelease for the Debtors' directors and officers is appropriate because the Debtors' directors andofficers share an identity of interest with the Debtors and, as previously stated, supported and madesubstantial contributions to the success of the Plan, the Chapter 11 Cases, and operation of theDebtors' business during the Chapter 11 Cases, actively participated in meetings, negotiations, andimplementation during the Chapter 11 Cases, and have provided other valuable consideration tothe Debtors to facilitate the Debtors' successful reorganization and continued operation.CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 167 o of f1 133451732. The scope of the Debtor Release is appropriately tailored under the factsand circumstances of the Chapter 11 Cases. In light of, among other things, the value provided bythe Released Parties to the Debtors' Estates and the critical nature of the Debtor Release to thePlan, the Debtor Release is appropriate.v. Release by Holders of Claims and Interests33. The release by the Releasing Parties (the “Third-Party Release”), set forthin Article VIII.D of the Plan, is an essential provision of the Plan. The Third-Party Release is: (a)consensual as to those Releasing Parties that did not specifically and timely object or properly optout from the Third-Party Release; (b) within the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court pursuant to28 U.S.C. § 1334; (c) in exchange for the good and valuable consideration provided by theReleased Parties; (d) a good faith settlement and compromise of the claims and Causes of Actionreleased by the Third-Party Release; (e) materially beneficial to, and in the best interests of, theDebtors, their Estates, and their stakeholders, and is important to the overall objectives of the Planto finally resolve certain Claims among or against certain parties in interest in the Chapter 11Cases; (f) fair, equitable, and reasonable; (g) given and made after due notice and opportunity forhearing; (h) appropriately narrow in scope given that it expressly excludes, among other things,any Cause of Action that is judicially determined by a Final Order to have constituted actual fraud,willful misconduct, or gross negligence; (i) a bar to any of the Releasing Parties asserting anyclaim or Cause of Action released by the Third-Party Release against any of the Released Parties;and (j) consistent with sections 105, 524, 1123, 1129, and 1141 and other applicable provisions ofthe Bankruptcy Code.34. The Third-Party Release is an integral part of the agreement embodied inthe Plan among the relevant parties in interest. Like the Debtor Release, the Third-Party ReleaseCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 178 o of f1 1334518facilitated participation in both the Debtors' Plan and the chapter 11 process generally. The Third-Party Release is instrumental to the Plan and was critical in incentivizing parties to support thePlan and preventing significant and time-consuming litigation regarding the parties' respectiverights and interests. The Third-Party Release was a core negotiation point in connection with thePlan and instrumental in developing the Plan that maximized value for all of the Debtors'stakeholders and kept the Debtors intact as a going concern. As such, the Third-Party Releaseappropriately offers certain protections to parties who constructively participated in the Debtors'restructuring process—including the Consenting Creditors (as set forth above)—by, among otherthings, facilitating the negotiation and consummation of the Plan, supporting the Plan and, in thecase of the Backstop Providers, committing to provide new capital to facilitate the Debtors'emergence from chapter 11. Specifically, the Notes Ad Hoc Group proposed and negotiated thepari passu transaction that is the basis of the restructuring proposed under the Plan and provideda much-needed deleveraging to the Debtors' business while taking a discount on their Claims (inexchange for other consideration).35. Furthermore, the Third-Party Release is consensual as to all parties ininterest, including all Releasing Parties, and such parties in interest were provided notice of thechapter 11 proceedings, the Plan, the deadline to object to confirmation of the Plan, and theCombined Hearing and were properly informed that all holders of Claims against or Interests inthe Debtors that did not file an objection with the Court in the Chapter 11 Cases that included anexpress objection to the inclusion of such holder as a Releasing Party under the provisionscontained in Article VIII of the Plan would be deemed to have expressly, unconditionally,generally, individually, and collectively consented to the release and discharge of all claims andCauses of Action against the Debtors and the Released Parties. Additionally, the release provisionsCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 189 o of f1 1334519of the Plan were conspicuous, emphasized with boldface type in the Plan, the DisclosureStatement, the Ballots, and the applicable notices. Except as set forth in the Plan, all ReleasingParties were properly informed that unless they (a) checked the “opt out” box on the applicableBallot or opt-out form and returned the same in advance of the Voting Deadline, as applicable, or(b) timely Filed an objection to the releases contained in the Plan that was not resolved beforeentry of this Confirmation Order, they would be deemed to have expressly consented to the releaseof all Claims and Causes of Action against the Released Parties.36. The Ballots sent to all holders of Claims and Interests entitled to vote, aswell as the notice of the Combined Hearing sent to all known parties in interest (including thosenot entitled to vote on the Plan), unambiguously provided in bold letters that the Third-PartyRelease was contained in the Plan.37. The scope of the Third-Party Release is appropriately tailored under thefacts and circumstances of the Chapter 11 Cases, and parties in interest received due and adequatenotice of the Third-Party Release. Among other things, the Plan provides appropriate and specificdisclosure with respect to the claims and Causes of Action that are subject to the Third-PartyRelease, and no other disclosure is necessary. The Debtors, as evidenced by the VotingDeclaration and Certificate of Publication, including by providing actual notice to all knownparties in interest, including all known holders of Claims against, and Interests in, any Debtor andpublishing notice in international and national publications for the benefit of unknown parties ininterest, provided sufficient notice of the Third-Party Release, and no further or other notice isnecessary. The Third-Party Release is designed to provide finality for the Debtors, theReorganized Debtors and the Released Parties regarding the parties' respective obligations underthe Plan. For the avoidance of doubt, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary, anyparty who timely opted-out of the Third-Party Release is not bound by the Third-PartyRelease.CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 290 o of f1 133452038. The Third-Party Release is specific in language, integral to the Plan, andgiven for substantial consideration. The Releasing Parties were given due and adequate notice ofthe Third-Party Release, and thus the Third-Party Release is consensual under controllingprecedent as to those Releasing Parties that did not specifically and timely object. In light of,among other things, the value provided by the Released Parties to the Debtors' Estates and theconsensual and critical nature of the Third-Party Release to the Plan, the Third-Party Release isappropriatevi. Exculpation.39. The exculpation described in Article VIII.E of the Plan (the “Exculpation”)is appropriate under applicable law, including In re Highland Capital Mgmt., L.P., 48 F. 4th 419(5th Cir. 2022), because it was supported by proper evidence, proposed in good faith, wasformulated following extensive good-faith, arm's-length negotiations with key constituents, and isappropriately limited in scope.40. No Entity or Person may commence or continue any action, employ anyprocess, or take any other act to pursue, collect, recover or offset any Claim, Interest, debt,obligation, or Cause of Action relating or reasonably likely to relate to any act or commission inconnection with, relating to, or arising out of a Covered Matter (including one that alleges theactual fraud, gross negligence, or willful misconduct of a Covered Entity), unless expresslyauthorized by the Bankruptcy Court after (1) it determines, after a notice and a hearing, such Claim,Interest, debt, obligation, or Cause of Action is colorable and (2) it specifically authorizes suchEntity or Person to bring such Claim or Cause of Action. The Bankruptcy Court shall have soleand exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether any such Claim, Interest, debt, obligation or Causeof Action is colorable and, only to the extent legally permissible and as provided for in Article XI,CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 2 201 o of f1 1334521shall have jurisdiction to adjudicate such underlying colorable Claim, Interest, debt, obligation, orCause of Action.vii. Injunction.41. The injunction provisions set forth in Article VIII.F of the Plan are essentialto the Plan and are necessary to implement the Plan and to preserve and enforce the discharge,Debtor Release, the Third-Party Release, and the Exculpation provisions in Article VIII of thePlan. The injunction provisions are appropriately tailored to achieve those purposes.viii. Preservation of Claims and Causes of Action.42. Article IV.L of the Plan appropriately provides for the preservation by theDebtors of certain Causes of Action in accordance with section 1123(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.Causes of Action not released by the Debtors or exculpated under the Plan will be retained by theReorganized Debtors as provided by the Plan. The Plan is sufficiently specific with respect to theCauses of Action to be retained by the Debtors, and the Plan and Plan Supplement providemeaningful disclosure with respect to the potential Causes of Action that the Debtors may retain,and all parties in interest received adequate notice with respect to such retained Causes of Action.The provisions regarding Causes of Action in the Plan are appropriate and in the best interests ofthe Debtors, their respective Estates, and holders of Claims or Interests. For the avoidance of anydoubt, Causes of Action released or exculpated under the Plan will not be retained by theReorganized Debtors.c. Section 1123(d) – Cure of Defaults43. Article V.D of the Plan provides for the satisfaction of Cure Claimsassociated with each Executory Contract and Unexpired Lease to be assumed in accordance withsection 365(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code. Any monetary defaults under each assumed ExecutoryCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 2 212 o of f1 1334522Contract or Unexpired Lease shall be satisfied, pursuant to section 365(b)(1) of the BankruptcyCode, by payment of the default amount in Cash on the Effective Date, subject to the limitationsdescribed in Article V.D of the Plan, or on such other terms as the parties to such ExecutoryContracts or Unexpired Leases may otherwise agree. Any Disputed Cure Amounts will bedetermined in accordance with the procedures set forth in Article V.D of the Plan, and applicablebankruptcy and nonbankruptcy law. As such, the Plan provides that the Debtors will Cure, orprovide adequate assurance that the Debtors will promptly Cure, defaults with respect to assumedExecutory Contracts and Unexpired Leases in accordance with section 365(b)(1) of theBankruptcy Code. Thus, the Plan complies with section 1123(d) of the Bankruptcy Code.d. Section 1129(a)(2) – Compliance of the Debtors and Others with the ApplicableProvisions of the Bankruptcy Code.44. The Debtors, as proponents of the Plan, have complied with all applicableprovisions of the Bankruptcy Code as required by section 1129(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code,including sections 1122, 1123, 1124, 1125, 1126, and 1128, and Bankruptcy Rules 3017, 3018,and 3019.e. Section 1129(a)(3) – Proposal of Plan in Good Faith.45. The Debtors have proposed the Plan in good faith, in accordance with theBankruptcy Code requirements, and not by any means forbidden by law. In determining that thePlan has been proposed in good faith, the Court has examined the totality of the circumstancesfiling of the Chapter 11 Cases, including the formation of Intrum AB of Texas LLC (“IntrumTexas”), the Plan itself, and the process leading to its formulation. The Debtors' good faith isevident from the facts and record of the Chapter 11 Cases, the Disclosure Statement, and the recordof the Combined Hearing and other proceedings held in the Chapter 11 CasesCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 2 223 o of f1 133452346. The Plan (including the Plan Supplement and all other documents necessaryto effectuate the Plan) is the product of good faith, arm's-length negotiations by and among theDebtors, the Debtors' directors and officers and the Debtors' key stakeholders, including theConsenting Creditors and each of their respective professionals. The Plan itself and the processleading to its formulation provide independent evidence of the Debtors' and such other parties'good faith, serve the public interest, and assure fair treatment of holders of Claims or Interests.Consistent with the overriding purpose of chapter 11, the Debtors Filed the Chapter 11 Cases withthe belief that the Debtors were in need of reorganization and the Plan was negotiated and proposedwith the intention of accomplishing a successful reorganization and maximizing stakeholder value,and for no ulterior purpose. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1129(a)(3) of the BankruptcyCode are satisfied.f. Section 1129(a)(4) – Court Approval of Certain Payments as Reasonable.47. Any payment made or to be made by the Debtors, or by a person issuingsecurities or acquiring property under the Plan, for services or costs and expenses in connectionwith the Chapter 11 Cases, or in connection with the Plan and incident to the Chapter 11 Cases,has been approved by, or is subject to the approval of, the Court as reasonable. Accordingly, thePlan satisfies the requirements of section 1129(a)(4).g. Section 1129(a)(5)—Disclosure of Directors and Officers and Consistency with theInterests of Creditors and Public Policy.48. The identities of or process for appointment of the Reorganized Debtors'directors and officers proposed to serve after the Effective Date were disclosed in the PlanSupplement in advance of the Combined Hearing. Accordingly, the Debtors have satisfied therequirements of section 1129(a)(5) of the Bankruptcy Code.CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 2 234 o of f1 1334524h. Section 1129(a)(6)—Rate Changes.49. The Plan does not contain any rate changes subject to the jurisdiction of anygovernmental regulatory commission and therefore will not require governmental regulatoryapproval. Therefore, section 1129(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code does not apply to the Plan.i. Section 1129(a)(7)—Best Interests of Holders of Claims and Interests.50. The liquidation analysis attached as Exhibit D to the Disclosure Statementand the other evidence in support of the Plan that was proffered or adduced at the CombinedHearing, and the facts and circumstances of the Chapter 11 Cases are (a) reasonable, persuasive,credible, and accurate as of the dates such analysis or evidence was prepared, presented orproffered; (b) utilize reasonable and appropriate methodologies and assumptions; (c) have not beencontroverted by other evidence; and (d) establish that each holder of Allowed Claims or Interestsin each Class will recover as much or more value under the Plan on account of such Claim orInterest, as of the Effective Date, than the amount such holder would receive if the Debtors wereliquidated on the Effective Date under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code or has accepted the Plan.As a result, the Debtors have demonstrated that the Plan is in the best interests of their creditorsand equity holders and the requirements of section 1129(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code are satisfied.j. Section 1129(a)(8)—Conclusive Presumption of Acceptance by UnimpairedClasses; Acceptance of the Plan by Certain Voting Classes.51. The classes deemed to accept the Plan are Unimpaired under the Plan andare deemed to have accepted the Plan pursuant to section 1126(f) of the Bankruptcy Code. EachVoting Class voted to accept the Plan. For the avoidance of doubt, however, even if section1129(a)(8) has not been satisfied with respect to all of the Debtors, the Plan is confirmable becausethe Plan does not discriminate unfairly and is fair and equitable with respect to the Voting Classesand thus satisfies section 1129(b) of the Bankruptcy Code with respect to such Classes as describedCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 2 245 o of f1 1334525further below. As a result, the requirements of section 1129(b) of the Bankruptcy Code are alsosatisfied.k. Section 1129(a)(9)—Treatment of Claims Entitled to Priority Pursuant to Section507(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.52. The treatment of Administrative Claims, Professional Fee Claims, andPriority Tax Claims under Article II of the Plan satisfies the requirements of, and complies in allrespects with, section 1129(a)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code.l. Section 1129(a)(10)—Acceptance by at Least One Voting Class.53. As set forth in the Voting Declaration, all Voting Classes overwhelminglyvoted to accept the Plan. As such, there is at least one Voting Class that has accepted the Plan,determined without including any acceptance of the Plan by any insider (as defined by theBankruptcy Code), for each Debtor. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1129(a)(10) of theBankruptcy Code are satisfied.m. Section 1129(a)(11)—Feasibility of the Plan.54. The Plan satisfies section 1129(a)(11) of the Bankruptcy Code. Thefinancial projections attached to the Disclosure Statement as Exhibit D and the other evidencesupporting the Plan proffered or adduced by the Debtors at or before the Combined Hearing: (a)is reasonable, persuasive, credible, and accurate as of the dates such evidence was prepared,presented, or proffered; (b) utilize reasonable and appropriate methodologies and assumptions; (c)has not been controverted by other persuasive evidence; (d) establishes that the Plan is feasibleand Confirmation of the Plan is not likely to be followed by liquidation or the need for furtherfinancial reorganization; (e) establishes that the Debtors will have sufficient funds available tomeet their obligations under the Plan and in the ordinary course of business—including sufficientamounts of Cash to reasonably ensure payment of Allowed Claims that will receive CashCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 2 256 o of f1 1334526distributions pursuant to the terms of the Plan and other Cash payments required under the Plan;and (f) establishes that the Debtors or the Reorganized Debtors, as applicable, will have thefinancial wherewithal to pay any Claims that accrue, become payable, or are allowed by FinalOrder following the Effective Date. Accordingly, the Plan satisfies the requirements of section1129(a)(11) of the Bankruptcy Code.n. Section 1129(a)(12)—Payment of Statutory Fees.55. Article XII.C of the Plan provides that all fees payable pursuant to section1930(a) of the Judicial Code, as determined by the Court at the Confirmation Hearing inaccordance with section 1128 of the Bankruptcy Code, will be paid by each of the applicableReorganized Debtors for each quarter (including any fraction of a quarter) until the Chapter 11Cases are converted, dismissed, or closed, whichever occurs first. Accordingly, the Plan satisfiesthe requirements of section 1129(a)(12) of the Bankruptcy Code.o. Section 1129(a)(13)—Retiree Benefits.56. Pursuant to section 1129(a)(13) of the Bankruptcy Code, and as provided inArticle IV.K of the Plan, the Reorganized Debtors will continue to pay all obligations on accountof retiree benefits (as such term is used in section 1114 of the Bankruptcy Code) on and after theEffective Date in accordance with applicable law. As a result, the requirements of section1129(a)(13) of the Bankruptcy Code are satisfied.p. Sections 1129(a)(14), (15), and (16)—Domestic Support Obligations, Individuals,and Nonprofit Corporations.57. The Debtors do not owe any domestic support obligations, are notindividuals, and are not nonprofit corporations. Therefore, sections 1129(a)(14), 1129(a)(15), and1129(a)(16) of the Bankruptcy Code do not apply to the Chapter 11 Cases.CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 2 267 o of f1 1334527q. Section 1129(b)—Confirmation of the Plan Over Nonacceptance of VotingClasses.58. No Classes rejected the Plan, and section 1129(b) is not applicable here,but even if it were, the Plan may be confirmed pursuant to section 1129(b)(1) of the BankruptcyCode because the Plan is fair and equitable with respect to the Deemed Rejecting Classes. ThePlan has been proposed in good faith, is reasonable, and meets the requirements and all VotingClasses have voted to accept the Plan. The treatment of Intercompany Claims and IntercompanyInterests under the Plan provides for administrative convenience does not constitute a distributionunder the Plan on account of suc

united states america ceo new york director time new year texas europe action law service state new york times russia office failure ny board russian dc plan class professional financial judge congress record security code court supreme court llc employees sweden tx capital rights wall street journal treatments cure consistency euro surrender proof principal acceptance rejection norway attorney agent stock judgment swedish sec markets powers relief motion delivery claim consistent account stockholm parties conditions payments burden claims compliance contracts individuals appeal estate considerations supplements proposal releases compromise assets classes professionals allowed distribution aa public policy lp requirements consent declaration satisfaction trustees launched regulations subject stern file stays entry interpretation map document retention preserving ruling certificates documents bankruptcy bb implementation d d rand lowe counsel main street disclosure confirmation purdue positions effectiveness cc circuit preservation alvarez persons denied object cooperation esq holder officers affiliate contribution lien elimination ee interests 1b agreements schedules findings sas reasonable expenses rubio instruments venue valid securities withdrawal litigation objections interpreting cancellation nominees absent filing assumption cures publication eligibility conclusions entity ff manner ballots nominee clause rothschild voluntary leblanc classification entities restructuring sw proceedings citibank waiver united states supreme court liens coupled commencement llp sections robert johnson amendments objection lender reservation filed termination lenders allocation exchange commission successors estates tex ste latham affiliates district court discharge allowance holders nw neil gorsuch 1a proofs exemption petitions dismissal kroll dismiss liabilities southern district insurance policies substantial united states constitution mailing reimbursement modification insurers modifications memorandum purdue pharma authorization jurisdiction russian federation whitlock reinstated liquidation comb debtors impaired computation remainder heeding defaults sek feasibility good faith affidavit incase distributions specifications insolvency incorporation estimation injunction bad faith cir disputed 70m consummation creditors lindquist third parties fifth circuit reinstate debtor united states district court case management sio confirmation hearing reinstatement amended insurer reorganization reversion fof avianca revocation consummate tranche forthe issuance bankr solicitation article ii ltl eurobonds best interests vesting k street business day injunctions rcf exhibit c federal rules article v article iii adequacy applicability civil procedure pursuant third circuit case no purchase price 23f payable ahc regulation d bankruptcy court 42k 44b securities act capitalized 24a 24b bankruptcy code article iv 27a united states code ad hoc committee business days article vi holdco united states securities 27b 33a 5h uniform commercial code insurance carriers final order intrum oid estoppel philippine airlines subsection bloomberg l exhibit b this court theunited states docket no 48h new york law texas council i10 no discrimination mtns comity united states bankruptcy court little creek i6 quinn emanuel urquhart watkins llp 40f 26c restatements a-class i19

Episode 162: The Threat of a National Abortion Ban in All but Name

Broken Law

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 26, 2024 31:18

How might a Trump administration effectively ban abortion without actually signing a national abortion ban into law? Abortion advocates are sounding the alarm over a 1873 law known as the Comstock Act. Lindsay Langholz joins Christopher Wright Durocher to take a critical look at this zombie law - why it was passed, how it has historically been used, and how an incoming Trump administration might take advantage of this dusty section of the United States Code. Join the Progressive Legal Movement Today: ACSLaw.orgHost: Christopher Wright Durocher, Vice President of Policy and ProgramGuest: Lindsay Langholz, Senior Director of Policy and Program, ACSLink: Trump Allies Plan New Sweeping Abortion Restrictions, by Lisa Lerer and Elizabeth Dias Link: Ten Actions Dems Can Take to Protect Abortion Before Trump Takes Office, by Jessica ValentiLink: Comstockery: How Government Censorship Gave Birth to the Law of Sexual and Reproductive Freedom, and May Again Threaten It, by Reva Siegel and Mary ZieglerVisit the Podcast Website: Broken Law PodcastEmail the Show: Podcast@ACSLaw.orgFollow ACS on Social Media: Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | LinkedIn | YouTube-----------------Broken Law: About the law, who it serves, and who it doesn't.----------------- Production House: Flint Stone Media Copyright of American Constitution Society 2024.

Tracked: Domestic Violence in the Tech Age

Look West: How California is Leading the Nation

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 15, 2024 25:12

AB 3139, as amended, Weber. Data privacy: vehicle manufacturers: remote vehicle technology.Existing law establishes various privacy requirements applicable to vehicle manufacturers, including limitations on the usage of images or video recordings from in-vehicle cameras in new motor vehicles equipped standard with one or more in-vehicle cameras. Existing law provides various protections to persons who are escaping from actual or threatened domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, human trafficking, and other abuse, including providing for a means to keep the names and addresses of abuse survivors confidential in public records.This bill would, among other things, require a vehicle manufacturer that offers a vehicle for sale, rent, or lease in the state that includes remote vehicle technology to do certain things, including ensure that the remote vehicle technology can be immediately manually disabled by a driver of the vehicle while that driver is inside the vehicle by a method that, among other things, is prominently located and easy to use and does not require access to a remote, online application. The bill would require a vehicle manufacturer to offer secure remote means via the internet for a survivor to submit a vehicle separation notice that meets specified requirements. The bill would define “survivor” to mean an individual who has a covered act committed, or allegedly committed, against the individual. The bill would define “covered act” to mean, among other things, certain crimes relating to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, and sex trafficking.This bill would require a survivor to submit a vehicle separation notice through the secure remote means described above within 7 days of the date on which the survivor used the method of manually disabling remote vehicle technology and would require the notice to include prescribed information, including a statement by the survivor signed under penalty of perjury that a perpetrator who has access to the remote vehicle technology in the vehicle has committed committed, or allegedly committed committed, a covered act against the survivor or an individual in the survivor's care, or a copy of specified documents that support that the perpetrator has committed committed, or allegedly committed committed, a covered act against the survivor or an individual in the survivor's care, including a signed affidavit from, among other specified individuals acting within the scope of their employment, a licensed medical care provider.By requiring a survivor to submit a statement signed under penalty of perjury or requiring specified individuals to sign an affidavit, the bill would expand the crime of perjury and impose a state-mandated local program.This bill would make a vehicle manufacturer that violates the above-described provisions liable in a civil action brought by a survivor for, among other things, reasonable attorney's fees and costs of the prevailing survivor, in addition to any other remedy provided by law. The bill would specify that any waiver of the requirements of the above-described provisions is against public policy, void, and unenforceable. statutory damages in an amount not to exceed $50,000 or not to exceed $100,000 for a knowing violation.This bill would define various terms for these purposes, purposes and would make related findings and declarations.The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.DIGEST KEYVote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: yes BILL TEXTTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(a) Domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, sexual assault, human trafficking, and related crimes are life-threatening issues and have lasting and harmful effects on individuals, families, and entire communities.(b) Survivors of violence and abuse often lack meaningful support and options when establishing independence from an abuser, including barriers of financial insecurity and limited access to reliable communication tools to maintain essential connections with family, social safety networks, employers, and support services.(c) Perpetrators of violence and abuse increasingly use technological and communication tools to exercise control over, monitor, and abuse their victims.(d) Remote vehicle technology, including mobile phone wireless connectivity and location data capabilities that are manufactured into vehicles, are among the technological and communication tools perpetrators of violence and abuse can, and have, used.(e) According to The New York Times, “Modern vehicles have been called ‘smartphones with wheels' because they are internet-connected and have myriad methods of data collection, from cameras and seat weight sensors to records of how hard you brake and corner. Most drivers don't realize how much information their cars are collecting and who has access to it.”(f) Under the federal Safe Connections Act of 2022, survivors of domestic abuse are empowered to protect themselves and their loved ones by requiring telecommunications providers, upon request, to separate their mobile phone accounts from the accounts of their abusers.SEC. 2. Chapter 36.5 (commencing with Section 22948.60) is added to Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code, to read:CHAPTER 36.5. Remote Vehicle Technology 22948.60. (a) For the purposes of this chapter:(1) “Covered act” means conduct that is any of the following:(A) A crime described in subsection (a) of Section 40002 of the federal Violence Against Women Act (34 U.S.C. Sec. 12291), including domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, and sex trafficking.(B) An act or practice described in paragraph (11) or (12) of Section 103 of the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. Sec. 7102) relating to severe forms of trafficking in persons and sex trafficking, respectively.(C) An act under state law, tribal law, or the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Chapter 47 (commencing with Section 801) of Title 10 of the United States Code) that is similar to an offense described in subparagraph (A) or (B).(2) “Designated person” means a person who provides care to a survivor and meets both of the following criteria:(A) The person has been authorized by the survivor to submit a request pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 22948.61.(B) The person did not commit, or did not allegedly commit, a covered act against the survivor.(2)(3) “Perpetrator” means an individual who has committed committed, or allegedly committed committed, a covered act against a survivor or an individual under the care of a survivor.(3)(4) “Remote vehicle technology” means any technology that allows a person who is outside of a vehicle to access the activity, track the location, or control any operation of the vehicle or its parts, that includes, but is not limited to, any of the following:(A) A Global Positioning System (GPS).(B) An app-based technology.(C) Any other remote wireless connectivity technology.(4)(5) “Survivor” means an individual who meets either of the following criteria: has had a covered act committed, or allegedly committed, against the individual.(A)The individual has had a covered act committed or allegedly committed against them.(B)The individual provides care to an individual who has had a covered act committed or allegedly committed against, and that caretaker did not commit or allegedly commit the covered act.(5)(6) “Vehicle manufacturer” means a vehicle manufacturer or remanufacturer, as defined in Section 672 of the Vehicle Code.(b) Subdivision (a) does not require a criminal conviction or any other determination of a court in order for conduct to satisfy a definition. 22948.61. (a) A vehicle manufacturer that offers a vehicle for sale, rent, or lease in the state that includes remote vehicle technology shall do all of the following:(1) Ensure that the remote vehicle technology can be immediately manually disabled by a driver of the vehicle while that driver is inside the vehicle by a method that meets all of the following criteria:(A) The method of manually disabling the remote vehicle technology shall be is prominently located and easy to use and shall does not require access to a remote, online application.(B) Upon its use, the method of manually disabling the remote vehicle technology shall inform informs the user of the requirements of subdivision (b).(C) The method of manually disabling the remote vehicle technology shall does not require a password or any log-in information.(D) Upon its use, the method of manually disabling the remote vehicle technology shall does not result in the remote vehicle technology, vehicle manufacturer, or a third-party service provider sending to the registered owner of the car an email, telephone call, or any other notification related to the remote vehicle technology being disabled.(E) Upon its use, the method of manually disabling the remote vehicle technology shall cause causes the remote vehicle technology to be disabled for a minimum of seven days and capable of being reenabled only by the vehicle manufacturer pursuant to paragraph (4).(2) Offer secure remote means via the internet for a survivor to submit a vehicle separation notice that includes a prominent link on the vehicle manufacturer's internet website that meets both of the following requirements:(A) The link is titled, in bold and capital letters, “CALIFORNIA SURVIVOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ASSISTANCE.”(B) The link provides a designated internet website portal that provides a survivor the ability to submit a vehicle separation notice and includes a form that enables a survivor to submit the information required by subdivision (b).(3) Upon the request of a survivor, reset the remote vehicle technology with a new secure account and delete all data from the original account.(4) Reenable the remote vehicle technology only if the registered owner of the car notifies the manufacturer that the remote vehicle technology was disabled in error, and a survivor has not contacted the vehicle manufacturer to provide the information required by subdivision (b) within seven days of the remote vehicle technology being disabled.(b) A survivor shall submit a vehicle separation notice to a vehicle manufacturer through the means provided by the vehicle manufacturer pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) within 7 days of the date on which the survivor used the method of manually disabling remote vehicle technology required by subdivision (a), which shall include the vehicle identification number of the vehicle and either of the following:(1) A statement by the survivor signed under penalty of perjury that a perpetrator who has access to the remote vehicle technology in the vehicle has committed committed, or allegedly committed committed, a covered act against the survivor or an individual in the survivor's care.(2) A copy of either of the following documents that supports that the perpetrator has committed committed, or allegedly committed committed, a covered act against the survivor or an individual in the survivor's care:(A) A signed affidavit from any of the following individuals acting within the scope of that person's employment:(i) A licensed medical or mental health care provider.(ii) A licensed military medical or mental health care provider.(iii) A licensed social worker.(iv) A victim services provider.(v) A licensed military victim services provider.(B) A copy of any of the following documents:(i) A police report.(ii) A statement provided by the police, including military police, to a magistrate judge or other judge.(iii) A charging document.(iv) A protective or restraining order, including military protective orders.(v) Any other relevant document that is an official record.(c) (1) Only if, for technological reasons, a vehicle manufacturer is unable to comply with paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), the vehicle manufacturer shall create a conspicuous mechanism that is easy to use by which a survivor or a designated person can submit a request to disable a vehicle's remote vehicle technology.(2) A vehicle manufacturer shall disable remote vehicle technology within one business day after receiving a request from a survivor that includes the information required by subdivision (b) and is submitted pursuant to the mechanism required by paragraph (1).(d) This section does not authorize or require a vehicle manufacturer to verify ownership of a vehicle, the identity of a survivor, or the authenticity of information that is submitted by the survivor. 22948.62. (a) In addition to any other remedy provided by law, a vehicle manufacturer that violates Section 22948.61 shall be liable in a civil action brought by a survivor for all of the following:(1) Reasonable attorney's fees and costs of the prevailing survivor.(2) A civil penalty Statutory damages in an amount not to exceed fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) per violation, or a civil penalty statutory damages in an amount not to exceed one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) per violation for knowing violations.(3) Actual damages or three times the amount at which the actual damages are assessed for knowing or reckless violations.(b) Any waiver of the requirements of this chapter shall be against public policy, void, and unenforceable. SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.

business mental health healing new york times podcasts tech data trauma modern podcasting divorce podcasters survivors offer ab metoo remote sec domestic violence domestic vehicles covered ensure toxic relationships weber existing reasonable domestic abuse legislature women empowerment weave sexual violence emotional abuse appropriation designated tracked perpetrators domestic violence awareness statutory subdivisions violence against women act united states code uniform code california constitution trafficking victims protection act government code assembly democrats look west

The Federalist Society's Teleforum: Discussing Garland v. Cargill

The Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 26, 2024

Garland v. Cargill concerned whether bump stocks are considered “machineguns” as defined by Title 26 of the United States Code. Impacting the realms of both Second Amendment and administrative law, the case raised questions concerning the role of lenity, the applicability of the (then standing) Chevron Doctrine, and the nature of the Bureau of Alcohol, […]

alcohol bureau impacting second amendment cargill federalist society united states code teleforum

Discussing Garland v. Cargill

Teleforum

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 26, 2024 61:15

Garland v. Cargill concerned whether bump stocks are considered "machineguns" as defined by Title 26 of the United States Code. Impacting the realms of both Second Amendment and administrative law, the case raised questions concerning the role of lenity, the applicability of the (then standing) Chevron Doctrine, and the nature of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)’s authority.The issue came to the Court following a significant circuit split on the validity of the ATF's 2019 reclassification of bump stocks as machineguns, with the Fifth and Sixth Circuits having held that bump stocks are not machineguns, while the D.C. and Tenth Circuits had held that they were. Oral argument was heard in Cargill on February 28, 2024, and a 6-3 Court issued its decision on June 14, 2024.Join us as a panel of experts break down and analyze the decision and its potential impacts for both Second Amendment and administrative law jurisprudence.Featuring:Dr. Stephen Halbrook, Senior Fellow, Independent InstituteProf. Zachary Price, Professor of Law, The College of the Law, University of California San Francisco(Moderator) Dr. Robert Leider, Assistant Professor of Law, George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School

university college law professor court supreme court alcohol assistant professor bureau impacting oral senior fellow second amendment firearms tobacco litigation george mason university atf cargill antonin scalia law school explosives atf united states code stephen halbrook tenth circuits sixth circuits administrative law & regulatio criminal law & procedure

Re-release: Section 1782—US Style Discovery for Cases in Foreign Courts

Law, disrupted

Play Episode Listen Later May 29, 2024 41:33

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Lucas Bento, Of Counsel in Quinn Emanuel's New York office. Bento is the author of The Globalization of Discovery: The Law and Practice under 28 U.S.C § 1782 (Section 1782), the first and only book to discuss the law pertaining to that Section. John and Lucas discuss how, under Section 1782, parties to proceedings outside of the US can invoke discovery procedures inside the US in aid of those foreign proceedings. John notes how many foreign lawyers he talks to complain about the relatively burdensome US discovery system. Yet they also envy it, especially if you're a plaintiff. US law has a procedure to achieve US-style discovery of evidence or witnesses located in the US – Section 1782 of Title 28 of the United States Code.The conversation begins by outlining what exactly Section 1782 is. Lucas notes it's a federal statute that allows a party to a foreign proceeding to gain access to US discovery procedures and evidence (including documents and depositions) for use in the foreign proceeding. Historically, one would need to use letters rogatory or go through the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence. But Section 1782 provides many advantages over those tools. For example, under the Hague Convention, US-style depositions are not available; however, under Section 1782, if there is a witness subject to the jurisdiction of the US courts, they could be served with a subpoena and get a complete US-style deposition. Lucas highlights how powerful a tool §1782 can be, working as a global evidentiary X-ray machine.John asks how one invokes §1782, with Lucas highlighting the application process and the necessary requirements that must be met in order for the application to be processed successfully. If the court authorizes the application, the discovery target can be subpoenaed immediately, making it a very contentious issue. They dive deep into the logistics and Intel discretionary factors of Section 1782 and how these can impact the success of an application. John notes how US discovery is not loved around the world – with foreign jurisdictions hostile to the US's broad processes. In discussing the types of foreign proceedings that qualify under Section 1782, Lucas states that you can obtain US-style discovery as long as the foreign proceeding is pending or within reasonable contemplation – something you can't typically do in the US. However, there are some limitations and boundaries in place, such as the fact that people can't use §1782 to fish around and see if someone has a claim in the first place, or use it for private arbitrations. The conversation moves on to discuss what the future of the law surrounding Section 1782 will look like in the future. Lucas believes its trajectory is on the assent, with more applications being made, which only gives the courts more issues to unpack and define. He argues that Section 1782 is now becoming a routine consideration across the entire legal industry, noting that the statute can be a bastion of truth in a world struggling with fake news and widespread disinformation. The use of legal tools, such as Section 1782, to discover facts can be a means to achieve fairer and more just decisions around the world.Finally, John and Lucas discuss how foreign litigants must act fast and hire qualified US counsel to assist in the use of Section 1782. Lucas notes how relevance is important, although it is still a very broad term in general, and explains why the timing of the application is crucial.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

new york law practice style discovery intel foreign editing historically courts re release globalization bento of counsel alexander rossi hague convention united states code quinn emanuel

No Offseason Episode 43 Feat Jamaar Milton

Play Episode Listen Later May 10, 2024 111:18

No Offseason Episode 43 Feat. Jamaar Milton www.Barsandhoops.com Call in 516.206.0711 Download the free @barsandhoopsradio app for apple and android users. Like, Share & Subscribe to our page on all social media platforms. For interviews, promotional or business enquirers, email us at barsandhoopsradio@barsandhoops.com Copyright Disclaimer We do not own the musical copyrights to any music played during this broadcast. All music is played for promotional use only Digital Media Copyright Act l music and videos are copyrights of the original owners. Please support the artists and buy their work. We claim safe harbor under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Title 17, United States Code, Section 512. Pursuant to the DMCA, if you are a copyright holder and believe your work is being infringed upon you are required by law to adhere to the following procedure: DMCA Compliance Policy The DMCA requires that all notices of alleged copyright infringement must be in writing. When informing the designated agent of an alleged copyright infringement, you should: 1. Identify the copyrighted work that allegedly has been infringed. If multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are involved, please provide a list of the works on that site. 2. Describe the material that is claimed to be infringing and provide sufficient information to permit BARSANDHOOPS to locate that material. 3. Provide your contact information, including an address, telephone number, and, if available, an e-mail address. 4. Certify or include a statement that you have a good faith belief that the use of the copyright-protected material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, the owner's agent, or law. 5. Certify that the information that you have provided BARSANDHOOPS is accurate. You should attest under penalty of perjury that you are authorized to enforce the copyrights that you allege have been infringed. 6. Include a physical or electronic signature of the copyright owner or person authorized to act on behalf of the owner. BARSANDHOOPS may not be able to act on your complaint promptly or at all if you do not provide the information required in the “Contents of Notice.” Before you allege an infringement, you should consult copyright materials to confirm that the use is, in fact, infringing. The United States Copyright Office provides basic information that can help you determine whether an exception or defense, such as fair use, may apply to the use of your copyrighted work. Notice, Takedown, and Putback Procedure BARSANDHOOPS expects all users of its system to comply with applicable copyright laws. If BARSANDHOOPS receives notice of claimed copyright infringement, or otherwise becomes aware of facts and circumstances from which infringement is apparent, it will respond appropriately, which may include removing or disabling access to the material that is claimed to be infringing. BARSANDHOOPS will follow the procedures outlined in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act as to notifications of users and the complaining parties, acceptance of counter notifications, takedown and/or putback of the alleged infringing material. Notification Agent Pursuant to the DMCA, Bars & Hoops LLC has designated an agent to receive notification of alleged copyright infringement occurring on Web pages or computer servers. If you believe that your copyrighted work is being infringed on a Barsandhoops site, please notify our designated agent, preferably by email, at: EMAIL: BARSANDHOOPSRADIO@BARSANDHOOPSRADIO.COM

web identify offseason bars milton takedown feat contents dmca certify pursuant digital millennium copyright act united states code united states copyright office

NO OFF SEASON EPISODE 44 FEATURING CRIMINAL GOD

Play Episode Listen Later May 10, 2024 101:06

No Offseason Episode 44 Feat. Criminal God www.Barsandhoops.com Call in 516.206.0711 Download the free @barsandhoopsradio app for apple and android users. Like, Share & Subscribe to our page on all social media platforms. For interviews, promotional or business enquirers, email us at barsandhoopsradio@barsandhoops.com Copyright Disclaimer We do not own the musical copyrights to any music played during this broadcast. All music is played for promotional use only Digital Media Copyright Act l music and videos are copyrights of the original owners. Please support the artists and buy their work. We claim safe harbor under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Title 17, United States Code, Section 512. Pursuant to the DMCA, if you are a copyright holder and believe your work is being infringed upon you are required by law to adhere to the following procedure: DMCA Compliance Policy The DMCA requires that all notices of alleged copyright infringement must be in writing. When informing the designated agent of an alleged copyright infringement, you should: 1. Identify the copyrighted work that allegedly has been infringed. If multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are involved, please provide a list of the works on that site. 2. Describe the material that is claimed to be infringing and provide sufficient information to permit BARSANDHOOPS to locate that material. 3. Provide your contact information, including an address, telephone number, and, if available, an e-mail address. 4. Certify or include a statement that you have a good faith belief that the use of the copyright-protected material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, the owner's agent, or law. 5. Certify that the information that you have provided BARSANDHOOPS is accurate. You should attest under penalty of perjury that you are authorized to enforce the copyrights that you allege have been infringed. 6. Include a physical or electronic signature of the copyright owner or person authorized to act on behalf of the owner. BARSANDHOOPS may not be able to act on your complaint promptly or at all if you do not provide the information required in the “Contents of Notice.” Before you allege an infringement, you should consult copyright materials to confirm that the use is, in fact, infringing. The United States Copyright Office provides basic information that can help you determine whether an exception or defense, such as fair use, may apply to the use of your copyrighted work. Notice, Takedown, and Putback Procedure BARSANDHOOPS expects all users of its system to comply with applicable copyright laws. If BARSANDHOOPS receives notice of claimed copyright infringement, or otherwise becomes aware of facts and circumstances from which infringement is apparent, it will respond appropriately, which may include removing or disabling access to the material that is claimed to be infringing. BARSANDHOOPS will follow the procedures outlined in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act as to notifications of users and the complaining parties, acceptance of counter notifications, takedown and/or putback of the alleged infringing material. Notification Agent Pursuant to the DMCA, Bars & Hoops LLC has designated an agent to receive notification of alleged copyright infringement occurring on Web pages or computer servers. If you believe that your copyrighted work is being infringed on a Barsandhoops site, please notify our designated agent, preferably by email, at: EMAIL: BARSANDHOOPSRADIO@BARSANDHOOPSRADIO.COM

web identify criminals offseason bars takedown feat contents dmca certify pursuant digital millennium copyright act united states code united states copyright office

No Offseason Episode 45 Feat. JR Gamble

united states house senate bills housing capitol banking floor coming up united states code native children

Play Episode Listen Later May 10, 2024 144:04

No Offseason Episode 45 Feat. JR Gamble www.Barsandhoops.com Call in 516.206.0711 Download the free @barsandhoopsradio app for apple and android users. Like, Share & Subscribe to our page on all social media platforms. For interviews, promotional or business enquirers, email us at barsandhoopsradio@barsandhoops.com Copyright Disclaimer We do not own the musical copyrights to any music played during this broadcast. All music is played for promotional use only Digital Media Copyright Act l music and videos are copyrights of the original owners. Please support the artists and buy their work. We claim safe harbor under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Title 17, United States Code, Section 512. Pursuant to the DMCA, if you are a copyright holder and believe your work is being infringed upon you are required by law to adhere to the following procedure: DMCA Compliance Policy The DMCA requires that all notices of alleged copyright infringement must be in writing. When informing the designated agent of an alleged copyright infringement, you should: 1. Identify the copyrighted work that allegedly has been infringed. If multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are involved, please provide a list of the works on that site. 2. Describe the material that is claimed to be infringing and provide sufficient information to permit BARSANDHOOPS to locate that material. 3. Provide your contact information, including an address, telephone number, and, if available, an e-mail address. 4. Certify or include a statement that you have a good faith belief that the use of the copyright-protected material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, the owner's agent, or law. 5. Certify that the information that you have provided BARSANDHOOPS is accurate. You should attest under penalty of perjury that you are authorized to enforce the copyrights that you allege have been infringed. 6. Include a physical or electronic signature of the copyright owner or person authorized to act on behalf of the owner. BARSANDHOOPS may not be able to act on your complaint promptly or at all if you do not provide the information required in the “Contents of Notice.” Before you allege an infringement, you should consult copyright materials to confirm that the use is, in fact, infringing. The United States Copyright Office provides basic information that can help you determine whether an exception or defense, such as fair use, may apply to the use of your copyrighted work. Notice, Takedown, and Putback Procedure BARSANDHOOPS expects all users of its system to comply with applicable copyright laws. If BARSANDHOOPS receives notice of claimed copyright infringement, or otherwise becomes aware of facts and circumstances from which infringement is apparent, it will respond appropriately, which may include removing or disabling access to the material that is claimed to be infringing. BARSANDHOOPS will follow the procedures outlined in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act as to notifications of users and the complaining parties, acceptance of counter notifications, takedown and/or putback of the alleged infringing material. Notification Agent Pursuant to the DMCA, Bars & Hoops LLC has designated an agent to receive notification of alleged copyright infringement occurring on Web pages or computer servers. If you believe that your copyrighted work is being infringed on a Barsandhoops site, please notify our designated agent, preferably by email, at: EMAIL: BARSANDHOOPSRADIO@BARSANDHOOPSRADIO.COM

web identify offseason bars gamble takedown feat contents dmca certify pursuant digital millennium copyright act united states code united states copyright office

Coming Up in The Capitol: 5.5.24

Talk Talk Vote!

Play Episode Listen Later May 5, 2024 6:35

Bills expected on the Floor of the House this week:H.R. 7109: Equal Representation Act – OPPOSETo require a citizenship question on the decennial census, to require reporting on certain census statistics, and to modify apportionment of Representatives to be based on United States citizens instead of all persons.Call Your Representative: tell them to vote NO on HR 7109Read more hereH.R. 2925: Mining Regulatory Clarity Act of 2024 – OPPOSEThis bill sets forth a process to allow mine operations to use, occupy, and conduct operations (e.g., construction of roads and other mining infrastructure activity) on public land regardless of whether a mineral deposit has been discovered on the land.Call Your Representative: tell them to vote NO on HR 2925Bipartisan SupportRead more hereS. 2073: Eliminate Useless Reports Act of 2023 – SUPPORTA bill to amend title 31, United States Code, to require agencies to include a list of outdated or duplicative reporting requirements in annual budget justifications, and for other purposes.Call Your Representative: tell them to vote YES on S 2073Has already passed through the SenateBipartisan SupportRead more hereSenate Hearings Scheduled:JudiciaryHearings to examine the urgent need to protect immigrant youth.Tune in at 10:00am ET, Wednesday, May 8, 2024 (or watch after!)Indian AffairsTo receive a briefing on the Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission's Report on Native Children.Tune in at 2:30pm ET, Wednesday, May 8, 2024 (or watch after!)Banking, Housing, and Urban AffairsHearings to examine consumer protection, focusing on examining fees in financial services and rental housing.Tune in at 10:00am ET, Thursday, May 9, 2024 (or watch after!)Where to find other Senate hearings!https://www.senate.gov/committees/hearings_meetings.htmDrop us a line: talktalkvote@gmail.com

Coming Up in the Capitol: 4.7.24

Talk Talk Vote!

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 8, 2024 5:32

Bills expected on the Floor of the House this week:H.R. 4389: Migratory Birds of the Americas Conservation Enhancements Act of 2023 – SUPPORTThis bill reauthorizes through FY2028 and revises the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act, which provides financial assistance for projects to promote the conservation of neotropical migratory birds.Call Your Representative: tell them to vote YES on HR 4389Bipartisan SupportRead more hereH.R. 2560: Sea Turtle Rescue Assistance and Rehabilitation Act of 2023 – SUPPORTThis bill requires the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to establish a Sea Turtle Rescue Assistance Grant Program to encourage and facilitate coordinated rapid response and rescue of stranded marine turtles.Call Your Representative: tell them to vote YES on HR 2560Bipartisan SupportRead more hereH.R. 4639: Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act – SUPPORTTo amend section 2702 of title 18, United States Code, to prevent law enforcement and intelligence agencies from obtaining subscriber or customer records in exchange for anything of value, to address communications and records in the possession of intermediary internet service providers, and for other purposes.Call Your Representative: tell them to vote YES on HR 4639Bipartisan supportRead more hereSenate Hearings Scheduled:BudgetHearings to examine offshore tax evasion by the wealthy and corporations.Tune in at 10:00am ET, Wednesday, April 10, 2024 (or watch after!)Joint Economic CommitteeHearings to examine investing in early childhood education.Tune in at 2:30pm ET, Wednesday, April 10, 2024 (or watch after!)Where to find other Senate hearings!https://www.senate.gov/committees/hearings_meetings.htm

house senate bills capitol floor coming up national oceanic atmospheric administration migratory birds rehabilitation act united states code

The Federalist Society's Teleforum: Courthouse Steps Oral Argument: Garland v. Cargill

The Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 5, 2024

Garland v. Cargill concerns whether bump stocks are considered “machineguns” as defined by Title 26 of the United States Code. Impacting the realms of both Second Amendment and Administrative Law, the case raises questions concerning the role of lenity, the applicability of the Chevron Doctrine, and the nature of the ATF's authority. Bump stocks are […]

impacting bump second amendment atf cargill courthouse federalist society oral arguments administrative law united states code teleforum

Courthouse Steps Oral Argument: Garland v. Cargill

Teleforum

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 5, 2024 62:37

Garland v. Cargill concerns whether bump stocks are considered "machineguns" as defined by Title 26 of the United States Code. Impacting the realms of both Second Amendment and Administrative Law, the case raises questions concerning the role of lenity, the applicability of the Chevron Doctrine, and the nature of the ATF’s authority. Bump stocks are devices attached to semi-automatic firearms to increase the rate of fire. In 2019, the ATF issued a rule that bumpstocks themselves were machineguns, and thus subject to the rules of Title 26, which marked a significant shift in federal policy. Michael Cargill, the owner of Central Texas Gun Works, challenged this reclassification, arguing it was an unconstitutional overreach by the ATF and the Department of Justice (DOJ). The Fifth Circuit of Appeals ruled in his favor. A significant circuit split on this issue now exists, with the Fifth and Sixth Circuits holding that bump stocks are not machineguns, while the D.C. and Tenth Circuits have held that they are. The oral argument in Cargill is set to be heard before the Supreme Court on February 28, 2024.Join us the next day as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring:Stephen Halbrook, Senior Fellow, Independent Institute(Moderator) Robert Leider, Assistant Professor of Law, George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School

law court supreme court assistant professor impacting senior fellow appeals bump second amendment george mason university atf cargill courthouse fifth circuit oral arguments justice doj administrative law antonin scalia law school united states code michael cargill central texas gun works tenth circuits sixth circuits administrative law & regulatio criminal law & procedure

NO OFFSEASON EPISODE 42 FEAT. COACH TUTT

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 16, 2024 117:12

www.Barsandhoops.com Call in 516.206.0711 Download the free @barsandhoopsradio app for apple and android users. Like, Share & Subscribe to our page on all social media platforms. For interviews, promotional or business enquirers, email us at barsandhoopsradio@barsandhoops.com Copyright Disclaimer We do not own the musical copyrights to any music played during this broadcast. All music is played for promotional use only Digital Media Copyright Act l music and videos are copyrights of the original owners. Please support the artists and buy their work. We claim safe harbor under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Title 17, United States Code, Section 512. Pursuant to the DMCA, if you are a copyright holder and believe your work is being infringed upon you are required by law to adhere to the following procedure: DMCA Compliance Policy The DMCA requires that all notices of alleged copyright infringement must be in writing. When informing the designated agent of an alleged copyright infringement, you should: 1. Identify the copyrighted work that allegedly has been infringed. If multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are involved, please provide a list of the works on that site. 2. Describe the material that is claimed to be infringing and provide sufficient information to permit BARSANDHOOPS to locate that material. 3. Provide your contact information, including an address, telephone number, and, if available, an e-mail address. 4. Certify or include a statement that you have a good faith belief that the use of the copyright-protected material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, the owner's agent, or law. 5. Certify that the information that you have provided BARSANDHOOPS is accurate. You should attest under penalty of perjury that you are authorized to enforce the copyrights that you allege have been infringed. 6. Include a physical or electronic signature of the copyright owner or person authorized to act on behalf of the owner. BARSANDHOOPS may not be able to act on your complaint promptly or at all if you do not provide the information required in the “Contents of Notice.” Before you allege an infringement, you should consult copyright materials to confirm that the use is, in fact, infringing. The United States Copyright Office provides basic information that can help you determine whether an exception or defense, such as fair use, may apply to the use of your copyrighted work. Notice, Takedown, and Putback Procedure BARSANDHOOPS expects all users of its system to comply with applicable copyright laws. If BARSANDHOOPS receives notice of claimed copyright infringement, or otherwise becomes aware of facts and circumstances from which infringement is apparent, it will respond appropriately, which may include removing or disabling access to the material that is claimed to be infringing. BARSANDHOOPS will follow the procedures outlined in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act as to notifications of users and the complaining parties, acceptance of counter notifications, takedown and/or putback of the alleged infringing material. Notification Agent Pursuant to the DMCA, Bars & Hoops LLC has designated an agent to receive notification of alleged copyright infringement occurring on Web pages or computer servers. If you believe that your copyrighted work is being infringed on a Barsandhoops site, please notify our designated agent, preferably by email, at: EMAIL: BARSANDHOOPSRADIO@BARSANDHOOPSRADIO.COM

coach web identify offseason bars takedown contents dmca tutt certify pursuant digital millennium copyright act united states code united states copyright office

No Offseason Episode 41 Feat. Champ (My Expert Opinion) & Splash 631