Podcasts about united states courts

The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in federal civil cases for legal claims, primarily those seeking monetary damages (e.g., torts, contract breaches), as opposed to equitable remedies like injunctions or specific performance.Voir dire is the process of questioning potential jurors to ensure an impartial jury. Challenges for cause allow dismissal for demonstrated bias, while peremptory challenges permit a limited number of removals without stating a reason, though they cannot be discriminatory.A typical civil trial proceeds with opening statements, the plaintiff's case-in-chief (presenting evidence to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard), the defendant's case-in-chief, rebuttal, surrebuttal (if any), closing arguments, and jury instructions before deliberation and verdict.A motion for judgment as a matter of law (Rule 50(a)) argues that the opposing party has not presented sufficient evidence to support a verdict in their favor and can be made after that party has been fully heard. The court considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.A motion for a new trial (Rule 59) seeks to restart the trial due to errors or issues that prejudiced the outcome, such as evidentiary errors, misconduct, a verdict against the weight of the evidence, or newly discovered evidence. It differs from Rule 50 in that it doesn't necessarily argue the existing verdict is legally impossible.The entry of judgment formally concludes the trial court proceedings and triggers deadlines for post-judgment remedies and appeals. One ground for relief from judgment under Rule 60 is excusable neglect, generally with a one-year time limit from the entry of judgment.United States Courts of Appeals have jurisdiction over final decisions of district courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The general deadline for filing a notice of appeal is within 30 days of the entry of the final judgment.The de novo standard of review means the appellate court reviews legal questions anew without deference to the trial court's ruling. The clear error standard applies to factual findings, which the appellate court will only overturn if a definite and firm mistake is found.Claim preclusion (res judicata) prevents relitigating a claim already decided by a final judgment on the merits. The elements are a final judgment on the merits, identity of the parties (or privity), and the same claim or cause of action.Issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) prevents relitigating specific factual or legal issues already decided in a prior case. A key requirement is that the issue must have been actually litigated and determined, and essential to the prior judgment.

In Today's exclusive part-two episode of the CBL Podcast, William Wolfe sits down with Jon Whitehead, a lifelong Southern Baptist, Attorney, and Trustee of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), to discuss the never-before-told story of Russell Moore's departure from the SBC, the fallout from his leaked letters, which lead to investigations that found no wrongdoing but harmed the convention and wasted immense time and funds.   If you missed part-one, go back and listen here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/center-for-baptist-leadership/id1743074575?i=1000653503272   #CenterForBaptistLeadership #JonWhitehead #WilliamWolfe #ERLC #SBC #CoverUp #LeakedLetters #RussellMoore #Exposed #Truth #Justice   Jon Whitehead is a lifelong Southern Baptist and the founding attorney of the Law Offices of Jonathan R. Whitehead LLC, located in Missouri. He is a Trustee of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), a former President of the Kansas City Lawyers' Chapter of the Federalist Society, a 2002 Blackstone Fellow, and a graduate of Southwest Baptist University and Harvard Law School. He represents nonprofits in litigation, with deep experience in religious congregations and ministries. He was co-counsel in Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer (2017) and with First Liberty and IJ in Carson v. Makin (2022), protecting religious freedom in generally available government programs. Jon regularly files amicus briefs before the United States Supreme Court and United States Courts of Appeals on behalf of groups including the ERLC and the Missouri Baptist Convention. In 2013, he successfully obtained an injunction against the Obamacare abortifacient mandate on behalf of Christian business owners, and in 2020, he sued Jackson County, Missouri, for discriminating against local churches under the guise of COVID regulations.   Learn more about Jon Whitehead's work: https://whiteheadlawllc.com/ https://centerforbaptistleadership.org/our-team/   ––––––   Follow Center for Baptist Leadership across Social Media: X / Twitter – https://twitter.com/BaptistLeaders Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/people/Center-For-Baptist-Leadership/61556762144277/ Rumble – https://rumble.com/c/c-6157089 YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@CenterforBaptistLeadership Website – https://centerforbaptistleadership.org/   To book William for media appearances or speaking engagements, please contact him at media@centerfor­baptistleadership.org.   Follow Us on Twitter: William Wolfe - https://twitter.com/William_E_Wolfe   Renew the SBC from within and defend the SBC from those who seek its destruction, donate today: https://centerforbaptistleadership.org/donate/   The Center for Baptist Leadership Podcast is powered by American Reformer, recorded remotely in the United States by William Wolfe, and edited by Jared Cummings.   Subscribe to the Center for Baptist Leadership Podcast: Distribute our RSS Feed – https://centerforbaptistleadership.podbean.com/ Apple Podcasts – https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/center-for-baptist-leadership/id1743074575 Spotify – https://open.spotify.com/show/0npXohTYKWYmWLsHkalF9t Amazon Music // Audible – https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/9ababbdd-6c6b-4ab9-b21a-eed951e1e67b BoomPlay – https://www.boomplaymusic.com/podcasts/96624 TuneIn – Coming Soon iHeartRadio – https://iheart.com/podcast/170321203 Listen Notes – https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/center-for-baptist-leadership-center-for-3liUZaE_Tnq/ Pandora – Coming Soon PlayerFM – https://player.fm/series/3570081 Podchaser – https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/the-center-for-baptist-leaders-5696654

In Today's exclusive part-one episode of the CBL Podcast, William Wolfe sits down with Jon Whitehead, a lifelong Southern Baptist, Attorney, and Trustee of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), to discuss the never-before-told story of Russell Moore's departure from the SBC.   William and Jon explore Moore's two different letters alleging abuse cover-ups and his plans for retaliation against SBC leadership. Concerns were raised about Moore's performance and relationships but were dismissed. His exit from the ERLC appeared coordinated, without board consent. Further allegations and leaked recordings set the stage to investigate the SBC executive committee at the 2021 annual meeting. However, subsequent probes found Moore's claims to be false. The podcast reveals lies, broken promises, and power struggles as key figures sought control over the SBC's direction and response to abuse issues.   #CenterForBaptistLeadership #JonWhitehead #WilliamWolfe #ERLC #SBC #CoverUp #LeakedLetters #RussellMoore #Exposed #Truth #Justice   Jon Whitehead is a lifelong Southern Baptist and the founding attorney of the Law Offices of Jonathan R. Whitehead LLC, located in Missouri. He is a Trustee of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), a former President of the Kansas City Lawyers' Chapter of the Federalist Society, a 2002 Blackstone Fellow, and a graduate of Southwest Baptist University and Harvard Law School. He represents nonprofits in litigation, with deep experience in religious congregations and ministries. He was co-counsel in Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer (2017) and with First Liberty and IJ in Carson v. Makin (2022), protecting religious freedom in generally available government programs. Jon regularly files amicus briefs before the United States Supreme Court and United States Courts of Appeals on behalf of groups including the ERLC and the Missouri Baptist Convention. In 2013, he successfully obtained an injunction against the Obamacare abortifacient mandate on behalf of Christian business owners, and in 2020, he sued Jackson County, Missouri, for discriminating against local churches under the guise of COVID regulations.   Learn more about Jon Whitehead's work: https://whiteheadlawllc.com/ https://centerforbaptistleadership.org/our-team/   ––––––   Follow Center for Baptist Leadership across Social Media: X / Twitter – https://twitter.com/BaptistLeaders Website – https://centerforbaptistleadership.org/   To book William for media appearances or speaking engagements, please contact him at media@centerfor­baptistleadership.org.   Follow Us on Twitter: William Wolfe - https://twitter.com/William_E_Wolfe   Renew the SBC from within and defend the SBC from those who seek its destruction, donate today: https://centerforbaptistleadership.org/donate/   The Center for Baptist Leadership Podcast is powered by American Reformer, recorded remotely in the United States by William Wolfe, and edited by Jared Cummings.   Subscribe to the Center for Baptist Leadership Podcast: Distribute our RSS Feed – https://centerforbaptistleadership.podbean.com/ Apple Podcasts – https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/center-for-baptist-leadership/id1743074575 Spotify – https://open.spotify.com/show/0npXohTYKWYmWLsHkalF9t Amazon Music // Audible – https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/9ababbdd-6c6b-4ab9-b21a-eed951e1e67b BoomPlay – https://www.boomplaymusic.com/podcasts/96624 TuneIn – Coming Soon iHeartRadio – https://iheart.com/podcast/170321203 Listen Notes – https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/center-for-baptist-leadership-center-for-3liUZaE_Tnq/ Pandora – Coming Soon PlayerFM – https://player.fm/series/3570081 Podchaser – https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/the-center-for-baptist-leaders-5696654

This week we are discussing Ernesto Miranda, the namesake behind “Miranda Rights”, and the landmark case that reshaped the American legal procedure to this day.  Thank you to our sponsors! If you want to try Beam's best-selling Dream Powder, get up to 40% off for a limited time when you go to shopbeam.com/MOMS and use code MOMS at checkout. If you're looking for the next must listen to podcast, check-out True Crime Feed! Stop wasting money on things you don't use. Cancel your unwanted subscriptions – and manage your money the easy way – by going to RocketMoney.com/moms. Gain peace of mind today with Trust and Will. Get 10% off plus free shipping of your estate plan documents by visiting trustandwill.com/MOMS.  Listen here for the story of Jared Bridegan. New merch! Check out Moms and Mysteries Threadless! You can also get new episodes a day early and ad free, plus merch and more at Patreon.com/momsandmysteriespodcast Listen and subscribe to Melissa's other podcast, Criminality!! It's the podcast for those who love reality TV, true crime, and want to hear all the juicy stories where the two genres intersect. Subscribe and listen here: www.pod.link/criminality  Check-out Moms and Mysteries to find links to our tiktok, youtube, twitter, instagram and more! Make sure you subscribe and rate our show to help others find us! Sources: N/A, “Miranda Slain”, Associated Press, 1 Feb 1976 NCC Staff, “The Miranda Warning…”, National Constitution Center, 13 June 2017 Dungan, Ron, “Miranda and the right…”, The Republic, 11 June 2016 Miranda v. Arizona, 1966 N/A, “Suspect charged in…”, UPI, 5 Feb 1976 N/A, “Explore the history…”, Lewis and Roca LLP Lawyers, accessed 17 Sept 2023  N/A, “Miranda, Ernest”, Encyclopedia.com, accessed 17 Sept 2023 N/A, “Facts and Case Summary…”, United States Courts, accessed 18 Sept 2023 N/A, “History of Miranda Warning”, MirandaWarning.org, accessed 18 Sept 2023 Lief, Michael S. and Caldwell, Mitchell, “You have the right…” American Heritage Magazine, August/September 2006 Hardy, David C., “What are Miranda rights…”, The Hardly Law Firm, P.A., 26 Aug 2018 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This week we're replaying a classic episode where Steve and Yvonne interview Bill Stone of Stone Law Group (https://www.stonelaw.com/).   Remember to rate and review GTP in iTunes: Click Here to Rate and Review   View/Download Trial Documents   Case Details: Former Georgia Plaintiff's Lawyer of the Year Bill Stone of Stone Law Group in Atlanta explains how he secured justice for Shannon Trabue, an expectant mother with pre-eclampsia who suffered irreversible brain damage due to medical malpractice. Two Atlanta Women's Specialists' doctors failed to regulate Shannon's blood pressure, despite knowledge that pre-eclampsia patients pose a high risk of blood pressure-induced seizures, and failed to manage her fluid levels. As a result, Shannon suffered cardiopulmonary arrest, resulting in permanent brain damage and physical disabilities due to an extended period of time without oxygen. A Fulton County, Georgia jury delivered a $45.8 million verdict, including $9.8 million in economic loss and $18 million in compensatory damages for Shannon. Guest Bio: William 'Bill' Sims Stone Bill is a trial lawyer from Blakely, Georgia, who specializes in personal injury, wrongful death, professional malpractice, product liability, commercial and consumer fraud cases. The firm's predecessor was founded in 1915 by Bill's grandfather, the late Wm. Lowrey Stone. Past members of the firm include Bill's father, Lowrey S. Stone, who formerly served as Chief Judge of Superior Courts, Pataula Judicial Circuit. Bill was born in Dothan, Alabama, on August 19, 1953. He attended the public schools in Early County, Georgia and graduated from Early County High School in 1971. He attended the University of Georgia College of Business Administration and received a Bachelor's Degree in Business Administration with a major in accounting on graduation in 1975. Bill also attended the Netherlands Institute of Industrial Economics near Amsterdam in The Netherlands in 1973. Bill received his Juris Doctor Degree from the University of Georgia School of Law in 1977. He was admitted to practice law in the state of Georgia in 1977 and in the state of Alabama in 1985. He is also member of the bars of the United States District Courts for the Middle and Northern Districts of Georgia, the Middle District of Alabama, and the Central District of Illinois, as well as the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits. The publishers of the Martindale Hubble Law Directory have awarded Bill its highest rating (AV) for legal ability and integrity. Bill is a Life Member and past president of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association and is also a member of the American Bar Association, the State Bar of Georgia, the Alabama State Bar, the American Association for Justice, and the Southwest Georgia Trial Lawyers Association. Bill has served on the Georgia Judicial Nominating Commission that recommends candidates to the Governor for appointment to vacant judgeships in Georgia. He has authored a number of published articles and is a frequent lecturer at legal seminars on the subject of trial practice and tort law. Bill is a past president of the Blakely Rotary Club, and a member of the First United Methodist Church of Blakely. Bill has five children, Ryals, also a member of Boone & Stone, Katie, James, John and Andrew. Read Full Bio   Show Sponsors: Legal Technology Services - LegalTechService.com Digital Law Marketing - DigitalLawMarketing.com Harris Lowry Manton LLP - hlmlawfirm.com   Free Resources: Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 1 Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 2

Ryan Sallans, MA is an international speaker and author who specializes in inclusion, diversity, and healthcare. Over the past 20 years, Ryan has worked in the fields of eating disorder recovery, sexual orientation, and gender identity development. In 2021, Ryan became the first person outside a lawyer to address the United States Courts for a Heritage Month Event (Pride Month). Ryan uses the craft of educational storytelling, guided by his academic degrees in cultural anthropology, English and educational psychology to assist audiences in breaking down the barriers that gender presents us all.

Negotiate Like a CEO Jotham Stein, Law Offices of Jotham S. Stein P.C.   – The Sharkpreneur podcast with Seth Greene Episode 862 Jotham Stein Jotham Stein is the principal of the Law Offices of Jotham S. Stein P.C. He has more than two decades of experience representing entrepreneurs and C-Suite executives running myriad types of companies, board members, venture capitalists, private equity principals, investment bankers as well as less senior employees of all size companies. Stein has negotiated numerous employment agreements, separation agreements, M & A agreements, change in control agreements, stock option agreements, restricted stock agreements, management carve out agreements, non-compete agreements, and much more.   Also, a litigator, Stein has represented individuals and corporate clients in state and federal courts and in multidistrict litigation, before state and federal agencies, and in arbitration, including before JAMS, the American Arbitration Association and FINRA. Stein has also served as part-time General Counsel of a high-technology Silicon Valley company.   A graduate of Stanford Law School and Princeton University, Stein is admitted to practice in California, Illinois, New York, Colorado, and the District of Columbia, as well as the United States Supreme Court, United States Courts of Appeals for the Seventh, Ninth, and District of Columbia Circuits, and several United States District Courts. He is also a member of multiple bar associations, including the American Bar Association.   Stein is also the author of Executive Employment Law: Protecting Executives, Entrepreneurs and Employees, a how-to guide for practitioners. Executive Employment Law was first published in June 2011 by Oxford University Press and is now published by Matthew Bender (LexisNexis) and in its ninth edition.   Stein's new book, Negotiate Like a CEO, is an engaging look at how all employees can protect themselves with lessons learned from top entrepreneurs and executives and how you can too.   Listen to this illuminating Sharkpreneur episode with Jotham Stein about tips from his book, Negotiate Like a CEO. Here are some of the beneficial topics covered on this week's show: - How it's vital for entrepreneurs to have their business legally protected on the first day. - Why entrepreneurs with partners must have a professional pre-nuptial-like agreement. - How some lawsuits are inevitable because some companies don't abide their contracts. - Why writing a book anyone can read can really help the everyday person - How you could lose a friend and a business partner if you don't have the right protections in place.   Connect with Jotham: Guest Contact Info LinkedIn Linkedin.com/jotham-s-stein Links Mentioned: negotiatelikeaceobook.com   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

John Morrison has served Montana and America as a lawyer and public leader for 35 years. John grew up in western Montana working from the age of 13 as a dishwasher, lawn mower, construction laborer, landscaper and radio announcer before going to law school. After passing the Montana bar exam, John worked in Washington D.C. for Sen. John Melcher, where he helped write the Farm Credit Act of 1987, before returning to Montana to practice law. While still in his mid 30s, John received the highest possible rating for legal ability and ethics (AV Preeminent) from judges and other lawyers and has held the rating for 25 consecutive years. John also became a Board Certified Civil Trial Advocate by the National Board of Trial Advocacy, was President of the Montana Trial Lawyers Association, served as Special Assistant Attorney General and chief Montana counsel in the Tobacco Case, obtained medical monitoring funds for hundreds of Montana fen Phen victims, and represented the New York Times and NBC in the Unabomber case before being elected to public office. John has tried numerous cases to verdict and judgment in the state and federal trial courts and won many landmark decisions in the Montana Supreme Court and the United States Courts of Appeals. Morrison, Sherwood, Wilson, & Deola, PLLP: https://www.mswdlaw.com/ Learn more about EmotionTrac and our AI-driven Emotional Intelligence Platform: https://emotiontrac.com/calendly/ https://legal.emotiontrac.com/

John Morrison has served Montana and America as a lawyer and public leader for 35 years. John grew up in western Montana working from the age of 13 as a dishwasher, lawn mower, construction laborer, landscaper and radio announcer before going to law school. After passing the Montana bar exam, John worked in Washington D.C. for Sen. John Melcher, where he helped write the Farm Credit Act of 1987, before returning to Montana to practice law. While still in his mid 30s, John received the highest possible rating for legal ability and ethics (AV Preeminent) from judges and other lawyers and has held the rating for 25 consecutive years. John also became a Board Certified Civil Trial Advocate by the National Board of Trial Advocacy, was President of the Montana Trial Lawyers Association, served as Special Assistant Attorney General and chief Montana counsel in the Tobacco Case, obtained medical monitoring funds for hundreds of Montana fen Phen victims, and represented the New York Times and NBC in the Unabomber case before being elected to public office. John has tried numerous cases to verdict and judgment in the state and federal trial courts and won many landmark decisions in the Montana Supreme Court and the United States Courts of Appeals. Morrison, Sherwood, Wilson, & Deola, PLLP: https://www.mswdlaw.com/ Learn more about EmotionTrac and our AI-driven Emotional Intelligence Platform: https://emotiontrac.com/calendly/ https://legal.emotiontrac.com/

Show Notes Jotham Stein Jotham S. Stein is the principal of the Law Offices of Jotham S. Stein P.C. (www.jotham.com). Mr. Stein has more than twenty-five years of experience representing entrepreneurs, C-Suite executives, board members, venture capitalists, private equity principals, investment bankers as well as employees of companies of all types and sizes. Mr. Stein has negotiated numerous employment agreements, separation agreements, M & A agreements, change in control agreements, stock option agreements, restricted stock agreements, management carve out agreements, non-compete agreements, and much more. Mr. Stein is also a litigator. He has represented individuals and corporate clients in state and federal courts and in multidistrict litigation, before state and federal agencies, and in arbitration, including before JAMS, the American Arbitration Association and FINRA. Mr. Stein has also served as part-time General Counsel of a high-technology Silicon Valley company. Mr. Stein is a graduate of Stanford Law School and Princeton University. He is admitted to practice in California, Illinois, New York, Colorado and the District of Columbia as well as the United States Supreme Court, United States Courts of Appeals for the Seventh, Ninth and District of Columbia Circuits and several United States District Courts. He is also a member of multiple bar associations, including the American Bar Association. Mr. Stein's new book, Negotiate Like a CEO, is an engaging look at how top entrepreneurs and executives protect themselves and how you can too. Mr. Stein is also the author of the professional guide for attorneys: Executive Employment Law: Protecting Executives, Entrepreneurs and Employees (first published by Oxford University Press, and now its ninth edition, published by Mathew Bender/LexisNexis).   We talk about What is better, to get a two-page offer letter or a 50-page offer letter and why? Should negotiations be done face-to-face or with the new world, is zoom, ok? What are the areas of an employment contract that can be negotiated? What are single action and double action triggers in a contract?     Connect with Jothem Stein (3) Jotham S. Stein | LinkedInjothamstein@jotham.com joe@totalexpertinc.com jotham.com  Negotiate Like a CEO – Negotiate Like a CEO, What Every CEO, Entrepreneur, Attorney Should Read! (negotiatelikeaceobook.com)  

Today on the podcast, Robin and Lester interview Cheryl Legare and Steven Wolfe of Legare, Attwood and Wolfe who focus on employment law.   Guest Bios Cheryl Legare Cheryl Legare's practice focuses on representing employees in all aspects of employment law, including claims of disability discrimination and retaliation, sexual harassment, FMLA interference and retaliation, gender, pregnancy, race, religion, national origin, age discrimination, and wage and hour disputes. She also represents individuals in contract negotiations and employment separation Negotiations. Cheryl is active in the Georgia Association for Women Lawyers, the Atlanta Bar Association, the State Bar of Georgia. She founded GAWL's Solo/Small Firm Affinity Group and is a past president for GAWL. Cheryl is also a member of the National Employment Lawyers' Association and is a past president of the organization's Georgia chapter. Cheryl is admitted to practice law in Georgia and South Carolina. She is also admitted to the United States District Courts for the Northern and Middle Districts of Georgia, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits, and the United States Supreme Court. Cheryl lives with her cat Dixie and dogs Luna and Molly in Decatur, Georgia. In her spare time, Cheryl enjoys spending time with friends, listening to live music, and traveling.   Steven Wolfe  Steven has devoted his entire legal career to helping individuals stand up to their employers. He helps people fight for overtime pay that their employers have illegally denied them. He helps people overcome unlawful workplace discrimination, harassment, and retaliation and helps people negotiate severances and new employment contracts. Steve has successfully represented people from all walks of life, from all industries, and on all rungs of the corporate ladder, from entry level to C-level. Steve attended Boston University for undergraduate and then Emory Law School.   Steve is married to his wife, Cristiane, who is a corporate attorney, has two sons, Jake and Caleb, and two dogs. Steve loves hiking, photography, and reading history or anything to do with the space program. He is also more than halfway to my goal of hiking in every national park in North America. Links: https://law-llc.com/ http://www.akintate.com/ https://www.gatriallawyers.net/ See You In Court Website To learn more about the Georgia Civil Justice Foundation, visit fairplay.org

Jordan MatthewsBOOK: Failure: When You Have Nothing You Have Everythinghttps://www.wgfcounsel.com/Jordan Matthews is a business trial lawyer and litigation partner at Weinberg Gonser Frost LLP since 2018 with broad experience in the entertainment industry and business community. He currently handles matters throughout the country and has litigated or otherwise been involved with matters pending in California, Nevada, and Massachusetts, has argued before the Ninth Circuit of the United States Courts of Appeal. He wrote the book, Failure: When You Have Nothing You Have Everything because his experiences of the past 19 years are his most valuable asset. https://www.wgfcounsel.com/team_member/jordan-matthews/Dr Melissa Goldberg Mintz (Dr Melissa)BOOK: HAS YOUR CHILD BEEN TRAUMATIZEDhttps://melissagoldbergmintz.com/Dr. Melissa Goldberg Mintz is an author, psychologist, and mom of two. She has worked with traumatized children, adolescents, and families for a decade, and is passionate about the role parents play in helping their children recover from adverse events. Dr. Mintz currently owns a small private practice, Secure Base Psychology, holds the title of Clinical Assistant Professor at Baylor College of Medicine, and is the author of Has Your Child Been Traumatized? How to Know and What to do to Promote Healing and Recovery. https://melissagoldbergmintz.com/Rachel VailBOOK: SOMETIMES I GRUMBLESQUINCHhttps://www.rachelvail.com/Rachel Vail is the author of many beloved picture books and novels, including Righty and Lefty, Jibberwillies at Night, Sometimes I'm Bombaloo, the Mama Rex & T series, Lucky, and You, Maybe. Rachel loves talking with kids - hearing their stories and reactions, discussing their hopes and their worries. She gets many of her ideas from the letters she receives. http://www.rachelvail.com/

Black Girls Talk Sports Podcast celebrates Title IX 50th Anniversary. Hosts Rekaya Gibson and Angela Spears discuss the meaning of Title IX. They share Title IX accomplishments for the past 50 years according to the Women's Sports Foundation (WSF) report. They explain what still needs to be done about equity in women's sports. They share recommendations to use to advocate for change and accountability. #KeepItSporty Mentioned in this episode: Title IX 50th Anniversary is June 23, 2022. Women's Sports Foundation - womenssportsfoundation.org/titleix50 Podcast Items of Interest: Listen and Support Black Girls Talk Sports Podcast - https://www.blackgirlstalksports.com Join our Facebook Group (Women only) @BlackGirlsTalkSports Follow us on Instagram @BlackGirlsTalkSportsPodcast Download BGTS Android App for free in the Google Play Store https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.blackgirlstalksports.android.girls Podcast Sponsor: Food Temptress Cookbook Store – https://www.foodtemptress.com Sources: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. (2022). Grove City College v. Bell - Facts and Case Summary. United States Courts. https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/grove-city-college-v-bell-facts-and-case-summary National Institute of Food and Agriculture (2022). Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972. United States Department of Agriculture. https://www.nifa.usda.gov/title-ix-education-amendments-act-1972 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration & Management. (2022). Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972. U.S. Department of Labor. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oasam/centers-offices/civil-rights-center/statutes/title-ix Office for Civil Rights. (2021, October 27). Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/sex-discrimination/title-ix-education-amendments/index.html Women's Sports Foundation. (2022, May 4). 50 Years of Title IX: We're Not Done Yet. WomensSportsFoundation.org. https://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/articles_and_report/50-years-of-title-ix-were-not-done-yet

Jordan Matthews is a business trial lawyer and litigation partner at Weinberg Gonser LLP. Jordan is lead counsel in the RICO case against Steve Wynn. Jordan currently handles matters throughout the country and has litigated or otherwise been involved with matters pending in California, Nevada, and Massachusetts before the Ninth Circuit of the United States Courts of Appeals and is involved in litigation covered by the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, CNN and others. https://www.wgfcounsel.com/Tim Dura served as a command fighter pilot in the United States Air Force and, after 22 years of service, retired due to medical issues. He then began a 20-year teaching career and became involved with teaching entrepreneurship. Tim's program was extremely successful, sending five businesses to the NFTE National Business Plan Competition in New York City in the six years his NFTE kids were eligible. Currently Tim is semi-retired doing consulting work, coaching girls' softball and acting as the COO of the Polk Institute Foundation. https://polkinstitute.org/Melissa Febos is the author of the memoir Whip Smart, the essay collection, Abandon Me, and a craft book, Body Work. She is the inaugural winner of the Jeanne Córdova Nonfiction Award from LAMBDA Literary and the recipient of fellowships from The National Endowment for the Arts, MacDowell, Bread Loaf, Lower Manhattan Cultural Council, and others. Her critically acclaimed, Girlhood, examined the narratives women are told about what it means to be female and what it takes to free oneself from them. https://www.melissafebos.com/girlhood

We live in a society where people often talk about taking certain steps in their lives but never do so because they are either afraid to lose, or they are otherwise held back by fear of overcoming whatever perceived obstacles are a part of their life. It is about understanding the price of success and the process of finding meaning in your own life. Jordan Matthews joins host Denise Griffitts to share how people can turn failure into success. Jordan Matthews is a business trial lawyer and litigation partner at Weinberg-Gonser LLP since 2018 with broad experience in the entertainment industry and business community. He currently handles matters throughout the country and has litigated or otherwise been involved with matters pending in California, Nevada, and Massachusetts before the North Circuit of the United States Courts of Appeals and is involved in litigation covered by the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, CNN, and other media outlets. Matthews represents a wide range of clients including producers, directors, production companies, athletes, entrepreneurs, and C-level individuals in the entertainment industry and business sector. Prior to becoming a lawyer, Jordan spent nearly a decade as a film finance executive and producer. He raised the capital to fully finance his first feature film which was then sold to a mini-major motion picture studio and licensed to various international distributors. Subsequently, he managed a team of top entertainment executives and formed several slate financing arrangements with various motion picture studios. The deals were valued at around $600 million. He wrote his upcoming book 'Failure: When You Have Nothing You Have Everything' because his experiences over the past 19 years are his most valuable asset.

This week on the Legally Speaking Podcast, our host Robert Hanna welcomes Judge Robert Bacharach.Robert graduated from Washington University School of Law and worked for Oklahoma firm, Crowe and Dunlevy, practising commercial litigation. He has worked as a federal magistrate judge for the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.In 2013, Robert was appointed as a Judge of the United States Courts of Appeal for the 10th Circuit - after his nomination from President Barack Obama. Robert recently published his book, Legal Writing: A Judge's Perspective on the Science and Rhetoric of the Written Word.In this episode, we discuss the following:What are actions and behaviours which he finds most persuasive or repulsive as his role as a judgeThe motivation in writing ‘Legal Writing: A Judge's Perspective on the Science and Rhetoric of the Written Word'The importance of psycholinguists and how they can improve our writingGet 20% discount code (LGLFBRA) for Robert's book, Legal Writing: A Judge's Perspective on the Science and Rhetoric of the Written WordSponsored by Clio: Clio is a legal case management software that work in partnership with the Law Society of England and Wales and is an approved supplier of the Law Society of Scotland.Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/legallyspeakingpodcast)

This week, your hosts Steve Lowry and Yvonne Godfrey interview Bill Stone, James Stone and Ryals Stone of The Stone Law Group (https://www.stonelaw.net/).    Remember to rate and review GTP in iTunes: Click Here To Rate and Review   New! Watch GTP on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKdeO4IodggpSLyhWVdcWKw   Episode Details: The Stone Law Group's trial team -- comprised of father Bill Stone and sons James Stone and Ryals Stone -- explain how they thoroughly investigated a fatal car accident and proved that their client, a promising 19-year-old University of Mississippi student, was not the proximate cause of his own tragic death, as law enforcement investigators initially concluded. In the early morning hours of March 29, 2013, University of Mississippi freshman Price Thornal was attempting to travel from Oxford, Mississippi to his hometown in Tallahassee, Florida to celebrate his father's birthday. Price's Honda Civic was hit head-on by the defendant, who was driving a Dodge Durango on the wrong side of the divided US Hwy 84. Trial lawyers Bill, James and Ryals Stone used the GPS system in Price's car to plot his trajectory and utilized the defendant's cell phone records as evidence of her negligence and opposing trajectory. In spite of the defendant's attempts to cast blame on Price, the Stone Law Group used basic physics as well as expert accident reconstruction to show the jury which car was traveling in the appropriate direction. In November 2021, after just 20 minutes of deliberation, an Early County, Georgia jury found the defendant's negligence to be the proximate cause of Price's death and awarded $26,141,628 in damages.  Click Here to Read/Download Trial Documents   Guest Bios: William Stone: Bill is a trial lawyer from Blakely, Georgia, who specializes in personal injury, wrongful death, professional malpractice, product liability, commercial and consumer fraud cases. The firm's predecessor was founded in 1915 by Bill's grandfather, the late Wm. Lowrey Stone. Past members of the firm include Bill's father, Lowrey S. Stone, who formerly served as Chief Judge of Superior Courts, Pataula Judicial Circuit. Bill was born in Dothan, Alabama, on August 19, 1953. He attended the public schools in Early County, Georgia and graduated from Early County High School in 1971. He attended the University of Georgia College of Business Administration and received a Bachelor's Degree in Business Administration with a major in accounting on graduation in 1975. Bill also attended the Netherlands Institute of Industrial Economics near Amsterdam in The Netherlands in 1973. Bill received his Juris Doctor Degree from the University of Georgia School of Law in 1977. He was admitted to practice law in the state of Georgia in 1977 and in the state of Alabama in 1985. He is also member of the bars of the United States District Courts for the Middle and Northern Districts of Georgia, the Middle District of Alabama, and the Central District of Illinois, as well as the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits. The publishers of the Martindale Hubble Law Directory have awarded Bill its highest rating (AV) for legal ability and integrity. Bill is a Life Member and past president of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association and is also a member of the American Bar Association, the State Bar of Georgia, the Alabama State Bar, the American Association for Justice, and the Southwest Georgia Trial Lawyers Association. Bill has served on the Georgia Judicial Nominating Commission that recommends candidates to the Governor for appointment to vacant judgeships in Georgia. He has authored a number of published articles and is a frequent lecturer at legal seminars on the subject of trial practice and tort law. Read Full Bio Here   James Stone: James grew up in Blakely, Georgia and currently lives with his wife, Rachel, in Roswell, Georgia. James practices in our Atlanta office, primarily focusing on cases involving catastrophic personal injury and death from medical negligence, trucking accidents, and motor vehicle accidents. James, a fifth-generation attorney in his family, grew up with an eye always towards practicing law. Watching his father represent clients who lacked the ability to obtain justice for themselves, James always appreciated the work and time invested in pursuing high-stakes litigation and catastrophic injury cases. Now, James works alongside his father and brother, furthering that pursuit of justice and relentlessly fighting for clients and families injured in accidents are wronged by corporations. James is a 2009 graduate of the University of Georgia where he received his BBA in Management Information Systems. Afterward, James attended Atlanta's John Marshall Law School and graduated in 2013. James was admitted to practice law in Georgia in 2013 and Alabama in 2015. James is a member of the State Bar of Georgia, the Alabama State Bar, the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association, the American Association of Justice, the American Bar Association, and the Sandy Springs Bar Association. James has been involved in numerous complex lawsuits resulting in verdicts or settlements higher than seven figures. In his spare time, James enjoys recreational activities such as mountain biking, running, softball and coaching little league baseball. Read Full Bio   Ryals Stone: Ryals D. Stone is a Partner in the Rome office of Stone Law Group. He represents individual and small business plaintiffs in cases involving catastrophic personal injuries or wrongful death, specifically those caused by motor vehicle accidents or trucking collisions, unsafe premises, industrial boiler explosions, defective products, medical negligence by a medical provider, insurance bad faith or financial fraud, and other civil RICO racketeering conspiracies. During his career as a trial attorney Ryals has handled many complex civil cases and has been an active and integral member of the firm's trial team during numerous multi-week jury trials, which have resulted in verdicts and settlements of over $150 million combined. Ryals is the oldest son of Stone Law Group senior partner William S. Stone. The firm's predecessor was founded in 1915 by Ryals' great-grandfather, the late William Lowrey Stone. Past members of the firm include Ryals' grandfather, Lowrey S. Stone, who later served for 15 years as Chief Judge of Superior Courts, Pataula Judicial Circuit. Upon being admitted to the Georgia Bar in 2010, Ryals proudly became the 5th straight generation of Georgia attorneys in the Stone family. Raised in his hometown of Blakely in rural Southwest Georgia, Ryals went on to earn his undergraduate degree in History from University of Georgia in 2005 and his law degree in 2009 from Cumberland School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama. During law school, Ryals also studied International Comparative Constitutional Law at the University of Cambridge in England. He earned the highest marks in several of his law school classes, including Trial Advocacy Basic Skills and Professional Responsibility. As a 3rd Year law student he was selected as a distinguished Abraham J. Caruthers Fellow, chosen to mentor Cumberland's renowned first-year legal research and writing program. Throughout his final year of law school, Ryals gained valuable practice experience as a law clerk in the Bessemer, Alabama District Attorney's Office and for the In-House Counsel at Southern Progress Corporation. Ryals is admitted to practice before the U.S. District Courts of the Northern, Middle, and Southern Districts of Georgia, the Georgia Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court of Georgia. He is a Champion member of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association (GTLA), American Association of Justice (AAJ), Attorneys Information Exchange Group (AIEG), the Rome Bar Association, and he currently serves as President of the Pataula Circuit Bar Association. He has continuously served as a voting member of GTLA's Executive Committee since 2013 and currently serves as an elected officer of the Civil Justice PAC's Board of Directors. He has served GTLA's Verdict Editorial Board as a Board member and frequent contributing author since 2015. Ryals currently serves on the Board of Governors of AAJ as one of only 5 Governors from Georgia. Ryals has also served multiple terms on the Board of Directors for the State Bar of Georgia's Young Lawyers Division. However, above any of his career achievements Ryals is most proud of his role as the founding member and inaugural Co-Chair of GTLA's “LEAD” Program (“Leadership Education and Advanced Direction”), a leadership academy he co-created specifically for talented young Georgia trial lawyers. Today, the program boasts nearly 100 LEAD alumni over its first five years, many of whom are now counted as among GTLA's highest-ranking officers and Board members. Read Full Bio   Show Sponsors: Legal Technology Services - LegalTechService.com Digital Law Marketing - DigitalLawMarketing.com Harris Lowry Manton LLP - hlmlawfirm.com   Free Resources: Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 1 Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 2

This week, Ethan and Amy talk about the how the prosecution looks to be doing as they rest their case-in-chief against Elizabeth Holmes in this criminal trial reflecting on Theranos. What is the responsibility of the prosecution in convincing the jury of Elizabeth Holmes' guilt? Why would the defense risk putting Elizabeth Holmes on the stand? Or was that one of their smartest moves, so far? Hosted by Amy Bearman and Attorney Ethan Bearman (The Bearman Firm) Read our disclaimer and more at https://lawjunkieshow.com Sign up for our insider news - http://eepurl.com/hK1cZT Follow us and please share! Twitter - https://twitter.com/LawJunkieShow Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/lawjunkieshow Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/LawJunkieShow This is a link to the United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit Model Jury Instructions for Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) - https://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/583 --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/lawjunkieshow/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lawjunkieshow/support

On June 13, 1966, an important Supreme Court decision was announced. It affected the way law enforcement all over the country did their job. But, if you've never been arrested, you might only know about this landmark case from watching crime dramas. Listen to find out about Ernesto Miranda and Miranda vs. Arizona. SOURCES “About the Supreme Court.” United States Courts. Accessed September 19, 2021. https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about. “Ernesto Miranda.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, August 10, 2021. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernesto_Miranda. Kimble, Mark. “Ernest Miranda's Legacy: 'You Have the Right...'.” Tucson Citizen (Tucson, Arizona), January 27, 2005. www.newspapers.com. “Miranda v. Arizona.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, August 22, 2021. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona. Moller, Dave, and Liz Kellar. “Former DA and Fine Printer Harold Berliner Dies.” TheUnion.com, April 27, 2010. https://www.theunion.com/news/local-news/former-da-and-fine-printer-harold-berliner-dies/. “Police Get Official Word On Interrogation Procedures.” Chula Vista Star-News (Chula Vista, California), June 23, 1966. www.newspapers.com. Shine, Jacqui. “How ‘You Have the Right to Remain Silent' Became the Standard Miranda Warning.” Slate Magazine. Slate, July 2, 2014. https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/07/miranda-warning-history-how-the-language-of-the-warning-became-standard.html. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

In this episode, Jim Garrity offers practical tips for developing deposition testimony that will allow you to use leading questions when examining adverse witnesses you'll call during your case-in-chief at trial. Being able to lead so-called "611(c)(2) witnesses" before the jury is a tremendous advantage, but you've got to first build the foundation. Garrity explains the requirements of Fed. R.Evid. 611(c)(2), and offers numerous lines of deposition inquiries to meet your burden.SHOW NOTESMcleod v. Llano, No. 17CV6062ARRRLM, 2021 WL 1669732, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2021) Here, Officer Prinston is defendant's partner, witnessed the use of force at issue, and previously was a defendant in this case. Pl.'s Mot. 7. Additionally, plaintiff has shown that Officer Prinston provided inconsistent testimony in the CCRB investigation and the NYPD administrative trial that favored defendant. Id. at 9. These facts sufficiently show that Officer Prinston is a “witness identified with an adverse party")Doe By Watson v. Russell Cty. Sch. Bd., No. 1:16CV00045, 2018 WL 1089277 (W.D. Va. Feb. 28, 2018) (“The normal sense of a person ‘identified with an adverse party' has come to mean, in general, an employee, agent, friend, or relative of an adverse party.” Id. (citation omitted); see Ratliff v. City of Chi., No. 10 C 739, 2012 WL 7993412 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 20, 2012). “Whether a former employee is properly considered ‘a witness identified with an adverse party' is an unsettled inquiry whose resolution is often fact-dependent.” Fehr, 2015 WL 6166627. In analyzing this question, courts have come to differing conclusions based upon the former employee's position and involvement, if any, in the events giving rise to the litigation. Compare Stahl v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 775 F. Supp. 1397, 1398 (D. Colo. 1991) (finding former employee of defendant to be “identified with an adverse party” because of her former employment and ongoing relationship with a key witnesses who attended the trial on behalf of defendant), with Radice v. Meritor Sav. Bank, Inc., Civ. A. No. 89-6914, 1993 WL 56044 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 2, 1993) (finding that witness, who was a former employee and defendant in the case, was not a hostile witness simply due to his former employment because he had been dismissed as a defendant at summary judgment and “was not involved in the internal process” that led to litigation).Flores v. Miami-Dade Cty., 787 So. 2d 955, 958 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001) (A doctor's sharing of a runner with plaintiff's prior counsel, his extensive payments to the runner, and his reciprocal referral arrangement are facts which could reasonably be viewed as creating a bias toward testifying favorably to plaintiffs. Interest and motive of a witness are proper subjects for cross-examination. Id. § 608.5, at 465. The cross-examination was properly allowed)Harris v. Buxton T.V., Inc., 460 So. 2d 828, 833 (Miss. 1984) (“In sum, the test for determining how closely the witness must be identified with the adverse party before he falls within that rule is variously stated: (1) If the witness' acts or omissions are the predicate for a party's claim or defense, that is, if in a case such as this under the plaintiff's theory of the case the defendant is subject to potential liability in substantial part not just because of his own actions but because of the actions or omissions of the witness in question, then that witness is ordinarily sufficiently identified with an adverse party and may be called as an adverse witness and interrogated by leading questions. (2) If the conduct of the witness plays such an integral part in the transaction or occurrence which is the subject of the action and which gives rise to the defendant's potential liability, so that the defendant, if the plaintiff's primary original claim is successful, would have prima facie a claim for indemnity over against the witness, then again the witness is said to be sufficiently identified with the adverse party so that the witness may be called as an adverse witness and cross-examined”) *** Since the adoption of Rule 611, Fed.R.Ev. in 1975, there has been precious little litigation concerning the issue of who may be considered as “identified with an adverse party”. There are only two decisions emanating from United States Courts of Appeals which address this issue: Ellis v. City of Chicago, 667 F.2d 606 (7th Cir.1981) and Perkins v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681 (5th Cir.1979). The holding of these cases can be summarized as follows: Before the adoption of Rule 611(c), the use of leading questions on direct examination required either a showing of actual hostility or a determination that the witness being examined was an adverse party, or an officer, director, or managing *832 agent of such an adverse party. [citations omitted] These limitations were designed to guard against the risk of improper suggestion inherent in examining friendly witnesses through the use of leading questions. [citations omitted] The drafters of Rule 611(c), however, determined that these limitations represented “an unduly narrow concept of those who may safely be regarded as hostile without further demonstration.” [citation omitted] The new rule was thus designed to enlarge the categories of witnesses automatically regarded as adverse, and therefore subject to interrogation by leading questions without further showing of actual hostility. —Ellis, 667 F.2d at 612–13; see also Perkins, 596 F.2d at 682 (trial court's failure to allow a mere employee of a corporation to be regarded as “identified with the corporation” was incorrect)United States v. McLaughlin, No. CRIM.A. 95-CR-113, 1998 WL 966014, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 19, 1998) (“Here, Mr. St. Clair clearly is “identified with an adverse party”—the defendant. See Perkins v. Volkswagen of Am., 596 F.2d 681, 682 (5th Cir.1979) (employee of an adverse party was “identified” with employer). Although I would not call them in cahoots, they were, at the very least, cohorts”)Washington v. Illinois Dep't of Revenue, No. 01-3300, 2006 WL 2873437, at *1 (C.D. Ill. Oct. 5, 2006) “The normal sense of a person ‘identified with an adverse party' has come to mean, in general, an employee, agent, friend, or relative of an adverse party.” Vanemmerik v. The Ground Round, Inc., 1998 WL 474106, *1 (E.D.Pa.1998) (collecting cases). As one district court has recognized, “Scholars have warned that, although the rule allows ample room to maneuver, “the courts should be careful before extending this list much further.” Id. (citing 28 WRIGHT & MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 6168, *6 (1993)). Even if a witness is not an adverse party, or identified with an adverse party, the Court may find the witness to be “hostile” under Rule 611(c). “This classification usually involves a showing by the examining party that the witness is biased against the direct examiner, his/her client or both and often is demonstrated by examples of that witnesses demeanor.” Id. at *2 (citing 28 WRIGHT & MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 6168, *7 (1993)).State v. McBeth, 2019 Ohio 59 A witness identified with an adverse party is “a witness aligned with an opposing party because of a relationship or common interest in the litigation.”1 State v. Fields, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 88916, 2007-Ohio-5060, ¶ 14. “[E]vasiveness is not a prerequisite to finding adversity” in determining whether a witness is identified with an adverse party under Evid.R. 611(C). State v. McKelton, 148 Ohio St.3d 261, 2016-Ohio-5735, 70 N.E.3d 508, ¶ 150. The trial court need not expressly find that a witness is identified with an adverse party in order for the decision to allow leading questions to be affirmed on appeal. State v. Benson, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2001-P-0086, 2002-Ohio-6942, ¶ 25, citing State v. Snyder, 12th Dist. Butler No. 88-04-054, 1989 WL 943, *6 (Jan. 9, 1989). “A witness that identifies himself with an opposing party by prior acts or expressed intentions may be questioned as if on cross-examination by the party calling the witness.” State v. Shepherd, 10th Dist. Franklin No. , 2000 WL 192360, *8 (Sept. 28, 1999), quoting State v. Matthews, 5th Dist. Clark App. No. 96-CA-0011, 1997 WL 593821, *10 (Sept. 26, 1997). “Ordinarily, a trial judge is in a better position to evaluate the attitudes displayed by witnesses.” State v. Stearns, 7 Ohio App.3d 11, 14, 454 N.E.2d 139 (8th Dist.).Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Goldstone, 317 F.R.D. 147, 164 (D.N.M. 2016) The definition of a witness “identified with an adverse party” is broader than the old definition of an “adverse party” in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Rule 43(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has included only “an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party.” This limitation virtually to persons whose statements would stand as admissions is believed to be an unduly narrow concept of those who may safely be regarded as hostile without further demonstration.... The phrase of the rule, “witness identified with” an adverse party, is designed to enlarge the category of persons thus callable. 15 Fed. R. Evid. 611, advisory committee notes. Although the precise meaning of a witness identified with an adverse party is not clearly defined, a few relationships fall within its meaning. These relationships include: (i) employee/employer relationships, see Chonich v. Wayne Cty. Cmty. Coll., 874 F.2d 359, 368 (6th Cir.1989)(allowing leading questions on direct examinations of community college's former president and personnel director); Haney v. Mizell Mem'l Hosp., 744 F.2d 1467, 1478 (11th Cir.1984)(“Nurse Williamson, an employee of one of the defendants present when the alleged malpractice may have occurred, certainly was identified with a party adverse to [the plaintiff].”); (ii) romantic partners, see United States v. Hicks, 748 F.2d 854, 859 (4th Cir.1984)(“Clearly [the defendant's girlfriend] was a person ‘identified with an adverse party' so that interrogation by leading questions was permissible.”); and (iii) law enforcement investigators, see United States v. Tsui, 646 F.2d 365, 368 (9th Cir.1981)(stating that a district court's refusal to permit the defendant to pose leading questions to an IRS investigator was error, albeit harmless error). Courts must be careful, however, not to expand these pre-existing categories. See Suarez Matos v. Ashford Presbyterian Cmty. Hosp., Inc., 4 F.3d 47, 50 (1st Cir.1993)(“We find no case involving the adversary's proposed expert, or suggesting that simply because a party expects favorable testimony from a witness, the opponent is entitled to call him, or her, as hostile.”). They may thus wait until trial to determine whether the witness will actually demonstrate hostility. See Gold, supra, at § 6168 (“[S]ince leading questions can also be justified if the specific witness in question is demonstrably ‘hostile,' there is no need to make possibly unwarranted generalizations about the types of witnesses who should be presumed immune to suggestion.”); United States v. Brown, 603 F.2d 1022, 1025–26 (1st Cir.1979)(treating a witness as hostile “after a lengthy direct examination (twenty-five transcript pages) during which all leading questions were excluded”). Courts make determinations outside of existing formal categories based in large part on a witness' demeanor at trial. See United States v. Cisneros–Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 762 (5th Cir.2008)(affirming a district court's decision to treat a witness as hostile “given the extent of Edgardo's memory problems, which reasonably appears to have been feigned, and Edgardo's hostility”); United States v. Wiley, 846 F.2d 150, 156 (2d Cir.1988)(treating witness as hostile where he “was unresponsive and deviated from previous statements”). Even witnesses cooperating with the prosecution pursuant to an immunity agreement may nonetheless be designated hostile witnesses to the United States during their direct examinations. See United States v. Diaz, 662 F.2d 713, 718 (11th Cir.1981)(“The record clearly reflects, however, that, despite the grant of immunity, Gelebert's hostility was directed to the government, rather than to Diaz. Previously, Gelebert had testified that he was a very good friend of Diaz and that he had known him for approximately five years[.]”)Fehr v. SUS-Q Cyber Charter Sch., No. 4:13-CV-01871, 2015 WL 6166627, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 20, 2015) citing, N.L.R.B. v. Sw. Colorado Contractors Ass'n, 379 F.2d 360, 365 (10th Cir.1967) (finding leading questions appropriate under similar statutory provision because “[b]y virtue of [former employee's] status as the proprietor of one of the respondent firms as well as his former official position within [the Defendant] Association, his interests and sympathies were clearly aligned with those of the other respondent”)Dudley v. City of Kinston, No. 4:18-CV-00072-D, 2020 WL 7049554, at *5 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 1, 2020) That Moore is Dudley's daughter places her firmly within the category of a witness identified with an adverse party. Vanemmerik v. The Ground Round, Inc., No. 97–5923, 1998 WL 474106 (E.D. Pa. July 16, 1998) (“The normal sense of a person ‘identified with an adverse party' has come to mean, in general, an employee, agent, friend, or relative of an adverse party.”). There was nothing inappropriate about defense counsel asking Moore leading questions)Chonich v. Wayne Cty. Cmty. Coll., 874 F.2d 359, 368 (6th Cir. 1989) (allowing leading questions on direct examinations of community college's former president and personnel director)Stahl v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 775 F. Supp. 1397, 1398 (D. Colo. 1991) (finding former employee of defendant to be "identified with an adverse party" in part because of her former employment)Haney v. Mizell Mem'l Hosp., 744 F.2d 1467, 1478 (11th Cir. 1984) (finding that an employee of defendant present when the alleged malpractice may have occurred was identified with an adverse party). The term 'witness identified with an adverse party' is intended to apply broadly to an identification based upon employment by the party or by virtue of a demonstrated connection to an opposing party)Batte v. Pomeroy, 497 So.2d 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Medina; Smith v. Fortune Insurance Co., 404 So.2d 821 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)Young v. Metropolitan Dade County, 201 So.2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)Colwell v. Voyager Casualty Ins Co., 251 Ga. 744, 747 (S. Ct. Ga. 1983) (adverse party may only question witness by direct examination)Ellis v. City of Chicago, 667 F.2d 606, 612 (7th Cir.1981)Perkins v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 596 F.2d 681,682 (5th Cir.1979) (error for trial court to rule that employee of defendant would be plaintiff's witness if plaintiff called him)Erp v. Carroll, 438 So. 2d 31, 36–37 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983) An adverse witness means only one who gives evidence on a material matter that is adverse, unfavorable or prejudicial to the party calling the witness. See *37 Hernandez v. State, 156 Fla. 356, 22 So.2d 781 (Fla.1945); Johnson v. State, 178 So.2d 724, 728 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). Cf., Direct Transport Company of Florida v. Rakaskas, 167 So.2d 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964), cert. dismd., 176 So.2d 68 (Fla.1965). A knowledgeable but unwilling, reluctant or recalcitrant witness should always be subject to interrogation by leading questions without regard to who called the witness or as to the witness' status as a party or identity with an adverse party or the possible interest the witness may have in the outcome of the case. Conversely, an obviously willing, forthright and candid witness need not, and should not, be led without regard to the witness' formal status or interest or whether the witness is being directly examined by the person calling the witness or cross-examined by anyone else. Thus, as Wigmore concludes, the test for permitting or prohibiting leading questions is ultimately and essentially independent of the superficial circumstance as to which party originally put the witness on the stand. 3A Wigmore, Evidence § 909 (Chadbourne Rev.1970)Colwell v. Voyager Casualty Ins Co., 251 Ga. 744, 747 (S. Ct. Ga. 1983) (party may not use leading questions on cross-examination of friendly witness after adverse party called the hostile witness on “direct” examination")

Follow Dan on LinkedIn at linkedin.com/in/cotterdan Follow Pat on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/donald-patrick-eckler-69880814/ Follow the show at: https://www.linkedin.com/company/podium-and-panel-podcast Predictions Sure to Go Wrong: Carter: Affirm; Mims: affirm; Arkebauer: affirm The decision in Sampson is here: https://courts.illinois.gov/R23_Orders/AppellateCourt/2021/3rdDistrict/3200163_R23.pdf The oral argument in Carter is here: http://multimedia.illinois.gov/court/AppellateCourt/Audio/2021/3rd/022221_3-19-0594.mp3 The oral argument in Mims v. Paintsil is here: http://multimedia.illinois.gov/court/AppellateCourt/Audio/2021/1st/022321_1-19-1285.mp3 The oral argument in Arkebauer v. Springfield Clinic is here: http://multimedia.illinois.gov/court/AppellateCourt/Audio/2021/4th/022421_4-19-0697.mp3 The "rule" of the week is on the United States Courts page on granting cert: https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1 Pat's article with Paula Villela on sole proximate cause is here: https://www.pretzel-stouffer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/28.4.8.pdf Pat's columns with Dave Levitt are here: https://www.pretzel-stouffer.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/20-4-29-CDLB-Column-Fault-Apportionment-Part-I.pdf https://www.pretzel-stouffer.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/20-5-6-CDLB-Column-Failt-Apportionment-Part-II.pdf Pat's column on special interrogatories with Adam Carter is here: https://www.pretzel-stouffer.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/20-4-22-CDLB-Column-Gap-in-Special-Interrogatories.pdf --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

In this podcast from AHLA’s Women’s Leadership Council, Christy Crider, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, speaks to James Duff, Director, Administrative Office of the United States Courts. Duff reflects upon his memories of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an early and prolific pioneer for gender equality.

In the last episode before the 2020 election, let's take a comprehensive look at what went on in the 116th Congress, a divided Congress during which the House of Representatives was controlled for the first time since Congressional Dish began by the Democratic Party. It was a chaotic two years, with a series of unprecedented events. Did our Congress serve us well in these crazy times? Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Click here to contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Click here to support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536 Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Episodes CD221: Kicking the Funding Can CD216: Dingleberries Against Police Brutality CD213: CARES Act - The Trillions for COVID-19 Law CD212: The COVID-19 Response Laws CD211: Coronavirus (COVID-19) CD209: USMCA with Lori Wallach CD208: The Brink of the Iran War CD207: State of Corporatism CD206: Impeachment: The Evidence CD192: Democracy Upgrade Stalled CD188: Welcome to the 116th Congress CD167: Combating Russia (NDAA 2018) LIVE CD131: Bombing Libya CD068: Ukraine Aid Bill CD067: What Do We Want In Ukraine? Articles/Documents Article: Article on Joe and Hunter Biden Censored By The Intercept By Greenwald, October 29, 2020 Article: Trump campaign places Facebook ads telling users wrong election day By Kiran Stacey in Washington and Hannah Murphy, Financial Times, October 27, 2020 Article: Nancy Pelosi’s One-Woman Congress By Alexander Sammon, The American Prospect, October 26, 2020 Article: With the Hunter Biden Expose, Suppression is a Bigger Scandal Than The Actual Story By Matt Taibbi, Reporting by Matt Taibbi, October 24, 2020 Article: Unlike most Pa. counties, Perry County requires voters to pay for postage to cast ballots by mail By Jan Murphy, PennLive, October 21, 2020 Article: PART FIVE: COURTING CORPORATE THEOCRACY By Intercepted, The Intercept, October 20, 2020 Article: Worried about mailing your ballot? Here’s what postage you will need By ABC7 Staff, WWSB September 28, 2020 Article: BANKS STAND TO MAKE $18 BILLION IN PPP PROCESSING FEES FROM CARES ACT By Bryce Covert, The Intercept, July 14, 2020 Transcript: Joe Biden Leaked Call Transcript with Petro Poroshenko Rev, May 20, 2020 Article: Ukrainian lawmaker releases leaked phone calls of Biden and Poroshenko By Paul Sonne and Rosalind S. Helderman, May 19, 2020 Article: Here are the largest public companies taking payroll loans meant for small businesses By Thomas Franck, CNBC, April 24, 2020 Article: Buzz over Venezuela’s Guaido fades as Maduro holds firm By Scott Smith, AP News, December 23, 2019 Article: Federal judge blocks use of billions of dollars in Pentagon funds to build border wall By Priscilla Alvarez and Caroline Kelly, CNN, December 10, 2019 Article: Memo to Both Parties: On Emergency and Impeachment, Beware Unintended Consequences By Gerald F. Seib, The Wall Street Journal, March 18, 2019 Document: Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States by the Executive Office of the President, National Archives, February 15, 2019 Article: No ‘Emergency’ Will Allow Trump to Build His Wall By Noah Feldman, Bloomberg Opinion, January 8, 2019 Article: The Making of Juan Guaido: How the US Regime Change Laboratory Created Venezuela’s Coup Leader By Dan Cohen and Max Blumenthal, Mint Press News, January 19, 2019 Article: The US is currently in 31 other national emergencies. Here's what that means. By Indra Ekmanis, The World, January 11, 2019 Article: A Chronology of the Ukrainian Coup By Renee Parsons, Common Dreams, March 5, 2014 Article: In Ukraine, Sens. McCain, Murphy address protesters, promise support By Will Englund, The Washington Post, December 15, 2013 Additional Resources Confirmation Listing: Judicial Confirmations, United States Courts, October 30, 2020 State Laws Governing Early Voting, By National Conference of State Legislatures, October 22, 2020 2018–2019 United States federal government shutdown, Wikipedia Images Tweet: Chris Murphy, Twitter Tweet: Joe Biden, Twitter Tweet: Joe Biden Sound Clip Sources News Clip: Mark Meadows: We're not going to control the pandemic, CNN, October 25, 2020 News Clip: Woodward tapes show Trump knew the dangers of COVID-19 but downplayed it, CBS News, September 9, 2020 Hearing: Leaked conversation between Joe Biden and former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, May 20, 2020 Transcript: 13:00 VP Joe Biden: Hey, Mr. President. Joe Biden. How are you? Petro Poroshenko: Very well indeed, as is usual when I hear your voice. What we’re doing now, I think within the last three weeks, we have demonstrated a real, real great progress in the reforms. We voted in the Parliament 100% tariffs, despite the fact that the IMF expected only 75%. We are launching real reform of the state owned enterprises. We are launching reform for the prices for medicine, removing all the obstacles. VP Joe Biden: I agree, I agree. 14:45 VP Joe Biden: Hey, Mr. President. Joe Biden. How are you? Petro Poroshenko: Very well indeed, as is usual when I hear your voice. VP Joe Biden: You are doing very well. Congratulations on getting the new Prosecutor General. I know that there’s a lot more that has to be done but I really think that’s good and I understand your working with the Rada in the coming days on a number of additional laws to secure the IMF, but congratulations on installing the new prosecutor general. It’s going to be critical for him to work quickly to repair the damage Shokin did, and I’m a man of my word, and now that the new prosecutor general is in place we’re ready to move forward in signing that new one billion dollar loan guarantee. I don’t know how you want to go about that? I’m not going to be able to get to Kiev anytime soon, I mean, in the next month or so, and I don’t know whether you could either sign it with our ambassador… 26:20 VP Joe Biden: Hey, Mr. President. Petro Poroshenko: Very good to hear you. VP Joe Biden: Good to hear you. By the way, you know I’ve talked about this a lot before. I guess Monday is the second anniversary. Remember, I’m counting on you to be the founding father of the modern Ukraine. Petro Poroshenko: Thank you, Joe. And I… I just want to be a little bit proactive. So we have no doubt that we should… implement the reforms but we should implement the reforms in a way that the people trust because if people do not trust the reforms, the reforms will be impossible to implement. Hearing: Coronavirus Preparedness and Response, House Oversight and Government Reform, March 12, 2020 Watch on Youtube Witnesses: Dr. Anthony Fauci: Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease at the National Institutes of Health Dr. Robert Redfield: Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Dr. Robert Kadlec: Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the Department of Health and Human Services Transcript: 36:30 Anthony Fauci: In the spirit of staying ahead of the game, right now, we should be doing things that separate us as best as possible from people who might be infected. And there are ways to do that. You know, we use the word social distancing, but most people don't know what that means, for example, crowds. We just heard that they're going to limit access to the capital. That's a really, really good idea to do. I know you like to meet and press the flesh with your constituencies. I think not now, I think you need I need I think you need to really cool it for a while because we should we should be practicing mitigation, even in areas that don't have a dramatic increase. I mean, everyone looks to Washington State. They look to California, they're having an obvious serious problem. But their problem now may be our problem tomorrow. News Clip: Trump praises Venezuela’s Juan Guaidó at the State of the Union | 2020 State of the Union, White House, PBS NewsHour, February 4, 2020 Hearing: Impeachment Inquiry, House Hearings, Impeachment Inquiry Hearing with E.U. Ambassador Gordon Sondland, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, C-SPAN Coverage, November 20, 2019 Watch on Youtube Witness Gordon Sondland, Owner of Providence Hotels Transcript: 54:00 Gordon Sondland: As I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a white house visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing the investigations of the 2016 Election DNC server, and Burisma. 54:30 Gordon Sondland: Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the United States, and we knew these investigations were important to the president. 55:10 Gordon Sondland: I tried diligently to ask why the aid was suspended, but I never received a clear answer. Still haven't to this day. In the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations of the 2016 elections and Burisma as Mr. Giuliani had demanded. 1:01:15 Gordon Sondland: Unfortunately, President Trump was skeptical. He expressed concerns that the Ukrainian government was not serious about reform, and he even mentioned that Ukraine tried to take him down in the last election. In response to our persistent efforts in that meeting to change his views, President Trump directed us to quote, "talk with Rudy." We understood that talk with Rudy meant talk with Mr. Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer. Let me say again, we weren't happy with the President's directive to talk with Rudy. We did not want to involve Mr. Giuliani. I believe then as I do now, that the men and women of the state department, not the president's personal lawyer, should take responsibility for Ukraine matters. Nonetheless, based on the president's direction we were faced with a choice, we could abandon the efforts to schedule the white house phone call and a white house visit between Presidents Trump and Zelensky, which was unquestionably in our foreign policy interest, or we could do as president Trump had directed and talk with Rudy. We chose the latter course, not because we liked it, but because it was the only constructive path open to us. 1:14:10 Gordon Sondland: I know that members of this committee frequently frame these complicated issues in the form of a simple question. Was there a quid pro quo? As I testified previously with regard to the requested white house call and the white house meeting, the answer is yes. Mr. Giuliani conveyed to Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker and others that President Trump wanted a public statement from President Zelensky committing to investigations of Burisma and the 2016 election. Mr Giuliani expressed those requests directly to the Ukrainians and Mr. Giuliani also expressed those requests directly to us. We all understood that these prerequisites for the white house call and the right white house meeting reflected President Trump's desires and requirements. 1:43:00 Gordon Sondland: Again, through Mr. Giuliani, we were led to believe that that's what he wanted. 2:06:25 Gordon Sondland: President Trump never told me directly that the aid was conditioned on the meetings. The only thing we got directly from Giuliani was that the Burisma and 2016 elections were conditioned on the white house meeting. The aide was my own personal guess based again, on your analogy, two plus two equals four. 3:44:10 Daniel Goldman: It wasn't really a presumption, you heard from Mr. Giuliani? Gordon Sondland: Well, I didn't hear from Mr. Giuliani about the aid. I heard about the Burisma and 2016. Daniel Goldman: And you understood at that point, as we discussed, two plus two equals four, that the aid was there as well. Gordon Sondland: That was the problem, Mr. Goldman. No one told me directly that the aid was tied to anything. I was presuming it was. 5:02:10 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): What did mr Giuliani say to you that caused you to say that he is expressing the desires of the president United States? Gordon Sondland: Mr. Himes, when that was originally communicated, that was before I was in touch with mr Giuliani directly. So this all came through Mr. Volcker and others. Rep. Jim Himes (CT): So Mr. Volcker told you that he was expressing the desires of the President of the United States. Gordon Sondland: Correct. Hearing: [Impeachment Inquiry, House Hearings Ambassador Kurt Volker and National Security Aide Tim Morrison](https://www.c-span.org/video/?466377-1/impeachment-hearing-kurt-volker-tim-morrison), House Judiciary Committee, C-SPAN Coverage, November 19, 2019 Watch on Youtube Witnesses: Kurt Volker Timothy Morrison Transcript: 57:35 Kurt Volker: President Zelensky's senior aide, Andriy Yermak approached me several days later to ask to be connected to Mayor Giuliani. I agreed to make that connection. I did so because I understood that the new Ukrainian leadership wanted to convince those like Mayor Giuliani, who believes such a negative narrative about Ukraine, that times have changed and that under President Zelensky, Ukraine is worthy of us support. Ukrainians believed that if they could get their own narrative across in a way that convinced mayor Giuliani that they were serious about fighting corruption and advancing reform, Mayor Giuliani would convey that assessment to president Trump, thus correcting the previous negative narrative. That made sense to me and I tried to be helpful. I made clear to the Ukrainians, the mayor Giuliani was a private citizen, the president's personal lawyer, and not representing the US government. Likewise, in my conversations with mayor Giuliani, I never considered him to be speaking on the president's behalf or giving instructions, rather, the information flow was the other way. From Ukraine to mayor Giuliani in the hopes that this would clear up the information reaching President Trump. 1:00:15 Kurt Volker: I connected Mary Giuliani and Andriy Yermak by text and later by phone they met in person on August 2nd, 2019. In conversations with me following that meeting, which I did not attend, Mr Giuliani said that he had stressed the importance of Ukraine conducting investigations into what happened in the past, and Mr. Yermak stressed that he told Mr. Giuliani it is the government's program to root out corruption and implement reforms, and they would be conducting investigations as part of this process anyway. 1:00:45 Kurt Volker: Mr. Giuliani said he believed that Ukrainian president needed to make a statement about fighting corruption and that he had discussed this with Mr. Yermak. I said, I did not think that this would be a problem since that is the government's position. Anyway, I followed up with Mr. Yermak and he said that they would indeed be prepared to make a statement. 1:02:10 Kurt Volker: On August 16th, Mr. Yermak shared a draft with me, which I thought looked perfectly reasonable. It did not mention Burisma or 2016 elections, but was generic. Ambassador Sondland I had a further conversation with Mr. Giuliani who said that in his view, in order to be convincing that this government represented real change in Ukraine, the statement should include specific reference to Burisma and 2016 and again, there was no mention of vice president Biden in these conversations. Hearing: Diplomats Bill Taylor and George Kent Impeachment Inquiry Testimony, House Select Intelligence Committee, C-SPAN Coverage, November 13, 2019 Witnesses: William Taylor George Kent Transcript: 45:30 George Kent: In mid August, it became clear to me that Giuliani's efforts to gin up politically motivated investigations were now infecting U.S. Engagement with Ukraine, leveraging President Zelensky's desire for a white house meeting. Video: Mitch McConnell praises Trump for 'changing the federal courts forever', The Week, November 4, 2019 Press Video: Pelosi praises 'cleaner government' provisions in H.R. 1 , The Washington Post, March 7, 2019 2019 State of the Union Address, White House, U.S. Senate, February 5, 2019 Watch Transcript: 1:05:28 President Donald Trump - Two weeks ago, the United States officially recognized the legitimate government of Venezuela, and its new interim President, Juan Guaido. We stand with the Venezuelan people in their noble quest for freedom -- and we condemn the brutality of the Maduro regime, whose socialist policies have turned that nation from being the wealthiest in South America into a state of abject poverty and despair. Here, in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country. America was founded on liberty and independence --- not government coercion, domination, and control. We are born free, and we will stay free. Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country. News Clip: Rep. Jordan: We have to fund Trump’s border wall now, Fox Business Network, December 18, 2018 News Clip: Trump says he would be ‘proud’ to shut down the government over border wall funding, Jennifer Haberkorn, Los Angeles Times, December 11, 2018 Remarks by Secretary of State: Remarks on the Way Forward for the United States Regarding Syria, U.S. Department of State, January 17, 2018. Discussion: Foreign Affairs Issue Launch with Former Vice President Joe Biden; Council on Foreign Affairs; January 23, 2018. Speakers: Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations Joe Biden, former Vice President of the United States Transcript: 00:24:15 Haass: In the piece, the two of you say that there’s no truth that the United States—unlike what Putin seems to believe or say, that the U.S. is seeking regime change in Russia. So the question I have is, should we be? And if not, if we shouldn’t be seeking regime change, what should we be seeking in the way of political change inside Russia? What’s an appropriate agenda for the United States vis-à-vis Russia, internally? Biden: I’ll give you one concrete example. I was—not I, but it just happened to be that was the assignment I got. I got all the good ones. And so I got Ukraine. And I remember going over, convincing our team, our leaders to—convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t. So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)

For decades we court professionals have committed ourselves to the practice diversity and inclusion. We make this commitment to earn the public’s trust and confidence in our nation’s courts. This dedication is ongoing; the work still continues. The goals of diversity and inclusion affirm our pledge to fairness, equity, impartiality, trust, and accountability. They also enhance decision-making, innovation, resiliency, responsiveness, employee engagement, and the delivery of services. Courts are constantly confronted by the demand for more access, the desire for equality, and the erosion of that very public trust and confidence we have pledged to earn. What can we do to strengthen our core values? What can we do to use diversity and inclusion as a way to solve today’s problems? What do we see on the horizon for courts as they struggle to address these issues every day? About the Co-Host: Zenell Brown Zenell Brown, Executive Court Administrator for the Third Circuit Court in Detroit, Michigan. She received her Juris Doctor from Wayne State University Law School; received a Public Service Administration Graduate Certificate from Central Michigan University; a Court Administration Certificate from Michigan State University; and is a Certified Diversity Professional from the National Diversity Council-DiversityFirst. About the Panelists: Marcia M. Anderson recently retired as Clerk of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. She was employed for over 28 years with the United States Courts, serving an Operations Manager and later as the Supervisory Staff Attorney for the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City. Hector Gonzalez is the Court Executive Officer for the Superior Court in Tuolumne County, California. He was born and raised in Los Angeles. He is bilingual, speaking both Spanish and English. Hector received a certificate in Judicial Administration from Cal State, Sacramento. He has a law degree from University of California-Hasting College of the Law and a BA from Loyola Marymount University. Norman Meyer retired after serving for 38 years as a court administrator in both the state and Federal systems. Most recently, he was Clerk of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico. He is a court administration expert after a 38 year career as a trial court administrator in the state and federal U.S. courts. He has written and spoken widely on judicial administration in the United States and abroad, and is currently writing a court management blog (https://courtleader.net/vantage-point) as a member of the nonprofit Court Leader coalition. Jose Octavio Guillen retired in 2017 after working for 42 years in the California Justice System. He served as court executive officer and Jury Commissioner for the Superior Courts in Sonoma, Napa, Riverside, and Imperial Counties, as well as, served as court administrator for Beverly Hills Municipal Court, district chief for Los Angeles Superior Court, trial court services director for the California Administrative Office of the Courts, and deputy sheriff for Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

Over the last forty years, our nation’s courts have been committed to diversity and inclusion, in order to live up to the ideals of fairness and equality, and to build public trust and confidence. While we can point to many improvements, there is still much work to be done. The lessons learned from diversity and inclusion practices point to benefits beyond just furthering the institutional values of fairness, equity, impartiality, trust, and accountability. They also improve decision-making, innovation, resiliency, responsiveness, employee engagement, and delivery of services. Institutions like courts today are challenged by the spread of global pandemics, the demand for more access, the desire for more equitable outcomes, and the erosion of public trust and confidence in government. Diversity and inclusion should be at the forefront to harness new solutions and to turn challenges into opportunities. What can we do to strengthen our institutional values and apply concrete diversity and inclusion practices to the problems we face today? What advice do we have for court administrators and clerks of court around the country dealing with these issues on a daily basis? About the Co-Host: Zenell Brown Zenell Brown, Executive Court Administrator for the Third Circuit Court in Detroit, Michigan. She received her Juris Doctor from Wayne State University Law School; received a Public Service Administration Graduate Certificate from Central Michigan University; a Court Administration Certificate from Michigan State University; and is a Certified Diversity Professional from the National Diversity Council-DiversityFirst. About the Panelists: Marcia M. Anderson recently retired as Clerk of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. She was employed for over 28 years with the United States Courts, serving an Operations Manager and later as the Supervisory Staff Attorney for the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City. Hector Gonzalez is the Court Executive Officer for the Superior Court in Tuolumne County, California. He was born and raised in Los Angeles. He is bilingual, speaking both Spanish and English. Hector received a certificate in Judicial Administration from Cal State, Sacramento. He has a law degree from University of California-Hasting College of the Law and a BA from Loyola Marymount University. Norman Meyer retired after serving for 38 years as a court administrator in both the state and Federal systems. Most recently, he was Clerk of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico. He is a court administration expert after a 38 year career as a trial court administrator in the state and federal U.S. courts. He has written and spoken widely on judicial administration in the United States and abroad, and is currently writing a court management blog (https://courtleader.net/vantage-point) as a member of the nonprofit Court Leader coalition. Jose Octavio Guillen retired in 2017 after working for 42 years in the California Justice System. He served as court executive officer and Jury Commissioner for the Superior Courts in Sonoma, Napa, Riverside, and Imperial Counties, as well as, served as court administrator for Beverly Hills Municipal Court, district chief for Los Angeles Superior Court, trial court services director for the California Administrative Office of the Courts, and deputy sheriff for Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

Episode 040: Bill Stone Trabue v. Atlanta Women's Specialists, LLC and Stanley R. Angus, M.D. $45.8 million verdict   This week, your hosts Steve Lowry and Yvonne Godfrey interview Bill Stone of stonelaw.com   Remember to rate and review GTP in iTunes: Click Here To Rate and Review     Case Details:   Former Georgia Plaintiff's Lawyer of the Year Bill Stone of Stone Law Group in Atlanta explains how he secured justice for Shannon Trabue, an expectant mother with pre-eclampsia who suffered irreversible brain damage due to medical malpractice. Two Atlanta Women's Specialists' doctors failed to regulate Shannon's blood pressure, despite knowledge that pre-eclampsia patients pose a high risk of blood pressure-induced seizures, and failed to manage her fluid levels. As a result, Shannon suffered cardiopulmonary arrest, resulting in permanent brain damage and physical disabilities due to an extended period of time without oxygen. A Fulton County, Georgia jury delivered a $45.8 million verdict, including $9.8 million in economic loss and $18 million in compensatory damages for Shannon.   Click Here to Read/Download the Complete Trial Documents     Guest Bio:   Bill Stone   Bill is a trial lawyer from Blakely, Georgia, who specializes in personal injury, wrongful death, professional malpractice, product liability, commercial and consumer fraud cases. The firm's predecessor was founded in 1915 by Bill's grandfather, the late Wm. Lowrey Stone. Past members of the firm include Bill's father, Lowrey S. Stone, who formerly served as Chief Judge of Superior Courts, Pataula Judicial Circuit.   Bill was born in Dothan, Alabama, on August 19, 1953. He attended the public schools in Early County, Georgia and graduated from Early County High School in 1971. He attended the University of Georgia College of Business Administration and received a Bachelor's Degree in Business Administration with a major in accounting on graduation in 1975. Bill also attended the Netherlands Institute of Industrial Economics near Amsterdam in The Netherlands in 1973.   Bill received his Juris Doctor Degree from the University of Georgia School of Law in 1977. He was admitted to practice law in the state of Georgia in 1977 and in the state of Alabama in 1985. He is also a member of the bars of the United States District Courts for the Middle and Northern Districts of Georgia, the Middle District of Alabama, and the Central District of Illinois, as well as the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits.   The publishers of the Martindale Hubble Law Directory have awarded Bill its highest rating (AV) for legal ability and integrity.   Read Full Bio       Show Sponsors:     Legal Technology Services - LTSatlanta.com     Digital Law Marketing - DigitalLawMarketing.com     Harris, Lowry, and Manton - hlmlawfirm.com     Free Resources:   Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 1 Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 2

Seeking justice

Joseph A. Bondy is a federal criminal defense and cannabis business attorney in private practice in Manhattan. The New York Times has called him “armed with the eloquent demeanor of a surgeon,” with an “oratorical intensity [that] hovers at the evangelistic.” A native New Yorker, Mr. Bondy is a graduate of the Bronx High School of Science, Columbia University, and Brooklyn Law School. He is admitted to practice law in New York State, the United States District Courts for the Northern, Southern, Eastern and Western Districts of New York, the District of Colorado, and the District of Connecticut, the United States Courts of Appeal for the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits, and the Supreme Court of the United States. Mr. Bondy has been privileged to represent nearly one thousand clients, from all walks of life, in all stages of litigation. His dedicated courtroom advocacy and written work have resulted repeatedly in dismissals, trial acquittals, and appellate reversals. Mr. Bondy is a life member of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), and a life member of the legal committee for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). The American College of Trial Lawyers rates Mr. Bondy as one of the top 100 criminal trial attorneys in the United States. Mr. Bondy is also the Vice-President of the Cannabis Cultural Association (CCA), and founder of the cannabis law and policy livestream, In the Know 420. He advocates nationally on social justice, criminal law reform, and ending cannabis prohibition, and is a long-time faculty member at Cardozo Law School’s Intensive Trial Advocacy Program (ITAP). Find NetWorkWise on: Facebook Instagram Twitter YouTube LinkedIn  Reddit

The recent shooting and student response protests have brought up some old and new thoughts about my personal experiences protesting as a high school student and the law. This episode contains a lot of hearsay and is not the result of research but the experiences lived through and stories shared by alums of the school. In order to keep within the ten minute constraint set for each episode a lot had to be left out including some comments on the racial, ethnic, and socio-economic diversity of the school which was a considerable range during my personal tenure. There could still be clear distinctions and social divisions between groups (athletes, theatre kids, South Asians, African Americans, etc.) despite friend circles that did not adhere to these categories. References Rosenberg, Jennifer. “The Columbine Massacre.” ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/columbine-massacre-1779624 Router, Jef. “The Apparently Immoral Shoulders of My Five-Year-Old Daughter.” Houston Press. http://www.houstonpress.com/arts/the-apparently-immoral-shoulders-of-my-five-year-old-daughter-7372634 Conger, Cristen and Caroline Ervin. “Are school dress codes good for students?” Stuff Mom Never Told You. https://www.stuffmomnevertoldyou.com/podcasts/are-school-dress-codes-good-for-students.htm Bellamy-Walker, Tatyana. “Teens Get ‘Corporal Punishment’ in Rural Arkansas for Participating in Student Walkout.” The Daily Beast. https://www.thedailybeast.com/teens-face-corporal-punishment-in-rural-arkansas-for-participating-in-student-walkout Lavoie, Denise. “Student walkout over guns poses balancing act for schools.” Associated Press via The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/schools-brace-for-massive-student-walkouts-over-gun-violence/2018/03/11/81b17e6c-2528-11e8-a227-fd2b009466bc_story.html?utm_term=.747ff1cc0b34 “Supreme Court Landmarks.” United States Courts. http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/supreme-court-landmarks Abumrad, Jad, et al. More Perfect. https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/radiolabmoreperfect Abumrad, Jad, et al. RadioLab. http://www.radiolab.org/

About the Lecture: The authority of the President in national security affairs is a long-contested issue. Join us for a discussion on the parallels of this debate between this and past eras. Mr. Thomas Wilson will provide a peek into the internal dynamics of the Iran-Contra investigation, which will include an examination of the political and legal issues involved, noting the constitutional issues raised and contested. Mr. Wilson's central role in a political and legal drama that lasted well into the 1990's makes him uniquely well placed to discuss the investigation. About the Speaker: Mr. Thomas Wilson has led a varied and high profile career. After graduating with a BA in history from Georgetown University, he went on to pursue a law degree from Georgetown Law School. Upon graduation, rather than going into legal practice, he decided to join the US Army, serving in the 6th Special Forces Group (Airborne), in the United States from 1967 to 1968, and in the 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne) in the Republic of Vietnam from 1968 to 1969. He was awarded the Bronze Star Medal, Combat Infantryman's Badge, and Parachute Wings (from the United States, Israel, and the Republic of Vietnam). After military service, he pursued an MBA from Columbia University before going into legal practice. His legal career spanned more than 40 years and included representing clients such as CIA Costa Rica Station Chief Jose Fernandez in the Iran-Contra affair; the Assistant to President George H. W. Bush in an Independent Counsel investigation into the 1992 search of then Presidential candidate Bill Clinton's passport file; a client investigated for making allegedly illegal campaign contributions to the 1996 Clinton/Gore re-election campaign; the former Director of MKULTRA, the CIA's Cold War drug testing program; as well as a major private security firm in a very sensitive, high-profile investigation sited in Baghdad, Iraq. Mr. Wilson has been lead counsel on a host of matters before numerous appellate tribunals, including most United States Courts of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. Until his retirement in 2013, he served as of counsel in the Washington, D.C. office of Berliner, Corcoran & Rowe, L.L.P., where he practiced general litigation with specialties in complex civil, administrative and white-collar criminal litigation.

Atlanta Journal-Constitution/May 14, 2002 -- By Bill Osinski Eatonton --- The child molestation case against Nuwaubian leader Dwight York escalated Monday in state and federal court.  In Eatonton, a Putnam County grand jury issued a 116-count indictment of the 56-year-old leader of the United Nuwaubian Nation of Moors, a quasi-religious group whose 150 to 200 members live in a rural compound that features huge pyramids and a large gate covered with hieroglyphics.  York was charged with 74 counts of child molestation, 29 counts of aggravated child molestation and related charges, including one count of rape. In Macon, an FBI agent testified at a bond hearing in U.S. District Court that authorities have identified as many as 35 victims, whose age at the time of the alleged crimes. 

Today we are going to see the inconsistency in the way in which the United States Courts make judicial decisions & US Congresspersons formulate laws that pertain to the unborn. Therefore, because these two branches of government are all over the map on this issue, we as the salt of the earth & light of the world need to be unwavering in our stance on what costitutes life and personhood.

LLN Reports on Vance Leibman of Funkhouser Vegosen Liebman & Dunn Ltd. Vance is one of the four founding members of the Firm. He grew up in Milwaukee. He received his law degree from Northwestern University, cum laude, in 1977. Vance's practice has included significant work, both domestically and internationally, in corporate mergers and acquisitions, real estate, antitrust and distribution issues, corporate tax, securities, white collar criminal defense, and estate and tax planning, as well as litigation in all of the foregoing. His corporate transactions have taken a multi-disciplinary approach in which he and his team have handle all aspects of the transactions, including securities, tax, real estate, environmental, labor, corporate, employee benefits and other specialized areas of law. In addition to admission before the Illinois courts and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Vance has been admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Tax Court, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Seventh Circuits, and is a member of the trial bar of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Mike and Michele will also discuss upcoming Linked Local events as well as the Social Media Minute.

Since the first court decision to articulate Native American law back in 1823, our nation’s courts have repeatedly invoked historical "facts" as a basis for fashioning judicial doctrines that have been prejudicial and harmful to Native Americans. This important symposium reveals that many of our modern Native law doctrines are based in fiction, not fact. Join us as we explore the historical foundations of key court decisions impacting Native Americans. Speakers include Stuart Banner, UCLA School of Law; Walter Echo-Hawk (Pawnee), Crowe "&" Dunlevy, Oklahoma; Mary Kathryn Nagle (Cherokee), Quinn Emanuel Urquhart "&" Sullivan, New York; and Lindsay Robertson, University of Oklahoma College of Law. Moderated by Kevin Gover (Pawnee), director of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian, the symposium is cosponsored by the National Native American Bar Association and the Federal Bar Association Indian Law Section.

Since the first court decision to articulate Native American law back in 1823, our nation’s courts have repeatedly invoked historical "facts" as a basis for fashioning judicial doctrines that have been prejudicial and harmful to Native Americans. This important symposium reveals that many of our modern Native law doctrines are based in fiction, not fact. Join us as we explore the historical foundations of key court decisions impacting Native Americans. Speakers include Stuart Banner, UCLA School of Law; Walter Echo-Hawk (Pawnee), Crowe "&" Dunlevy, Oklahoma; Mary Kathryn Nagle (Cherokee), Quinn Emanuel Urquhart "&" Sullivan, New York; and Lindsay Robertson, University of Oklahoma College of Law. Moderated by Kevin Gover (Pawnee), director of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian, the symposium is cosponsored by the National Native American Bar Association and the Federal Bar Association Indian Law Section.

Erwin Chemerinsky is the founding dean and distinguished professor of law at the University of California, Irvine School of Law, with a joint appointment in Political Science. Previously, he taught at Duke Law School for four years, during which he won the Duke University Scholar-Teacher of the Year Award in 2006. Before that he taught for 21 years at the University of Southern California School of Law, and served for four years as director of the Center for Communications Law and Policy. Chemerinsky has also taught at UCLA School of Law and DePaul University College of Law. His areas of expertise are constitutional law, federal practice, civil rights and civil liberties, and appellate litigation. He is the author of seven books, most recently, The Conservative Assault on the Constitution (October 2010, Simon & Schuster), and nearly 200 articles in top law reviews. He frequently argues cases before the nation's highest courts, and also serves as a commentator on legal issues for national and local media. He is the author of seven books. His newest, The Conservative Assault on the Constitution, has been released just in time for the start of the U.S. Supreme Court's new term. Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Irvine, School of Law. Prior to assuming this position in July 2008, was the Alston & Bird Professor of Law and Political Science, Duke University. Joined the Duke faculty in July 2004 after 21 years at the University of Southern California Law School, where he was the Sydney M. Irmas Professor of Public Interest Law, Legal Ethics, and Political Science. Before that he was a professor at DePaul College of Law from 1980-83. Practiced law as a trial attorney, United States Department of Justice, and at Dobrovir, Oakes & Gebhardt in Washington, D.C. Received a B.S. from Northwestern University and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He has authored 7 books, and over 100 law review articles that have appeared in journals such as the Harvard Law Review, Michigan Law Review, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Stanford Law Review and Yale Law Journal. Writes a regular column on the Supreme Court for California Lawyer, Los Angeles Daily Journal, and Trial Magazine, and is a frequent contributor to newspapers and other magazines. Regularly serves as a commentator on legal issues for national and local media. In April 2005, was named by Legal Affairs as one of the top 20 legal thinkers in America. Named by the Daily Journal in 2008 and 2009 (and many prior years) as one of the 100 most influential lawyers in California. In 2006, received the Duke University Scholar-Teacher of the Year Award. Has received many awards from educational, public interest, and civic organizations. Frequently argues appellate cases, including in the United States Supreme Court and the United States Courts of Appeals. Testified many times before congressional and state legislative committees. Elected by the voters in April 1997 to serve a two year term as a member of the Elected Los Angeles Charter Reform Commission. Served as Chair of the Commission which proposed a new Charter for the City which was adopted by the voters in June 1999. Also served as a member of the Governor's Task Force on Diversity in 1999-2000. In September 2000, released a report on the Los Angeles Police Department and the Rampart Scandal, which was prepared at the request of the Los Angeles Police Protective League. Served as Chair of the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Commission on City Contracting, which issued its report in February 2005.