Podcasts about United States district court

Before founding Randy Ojeda Law, PLLC, I built my career at the intersection of law, music, and business. My legal foundation comes from Loyola University Chicago School of Law, where I focused on Entertainment Law and Alternative Dispute Resolution. While pursuing my J.D., I gained invaluable experience working for firms like Neal & Leroy, LLC, and serving as a judicial intern at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno. But my path has never been confined to traditional legal roles. I spent years in the trenches of the music industry—signing and developing artists, negotiating distribution deals, and building careers from the ground up. At Symphonic Distribution, I helped artists and labels across the U.S. and Latin America navigate global distribution, monetization, and rights management. That hands-on industry experience continues to shape the way I approach my legal practice today. #brutallydelicious #metal #viralvideo #podcast #rockmusician #musiclaw #entertainmentlawyer #tampadeathmetal #deathmetal #morrissound #heavymetalmusic #musician #rockmusician #viralvideo Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

All fifty states mandate certain vaccinations for schoolchildren. Forty-six of them allow religious exemptions. New York once did as well, maintaining such exemptions for more than half a century before eliminating them in 2019. Medical exemptions remain.Members of the Amish community now challenge New York’s policy, claiming that opposition to vaccines is integral to their “traditional way of life,” as recognized in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972). The Petitioners include three Amish parents, one representing all Amish and Mennonites in New York, as well as three Amish schools—funded by and serving Amish communities on Amish land. In 2022, the state charged these schools with violating its vaccination law and levied $118,000 in penalties.The Petitioners defended themselves by filing a Section 1983 action in federal court, raising an as-applied challenge under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court dismissed the case, and the Second Circuit affirmed under Employment Division v. Smith’s rational basis framework. The Petitioners are seeking Supreme Court review.Featuring:Robert M. Overing, Deputy Solicitor General, Alabama Office of the Attorney General(Moderator) Hon. Sean D. Jordan, Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

Just days ago, Donald Trump was standing before the press in Washington, defiant as ever, with flashing cameras capturing every word. The timing couldn't be more consequential. On August 15th, as Trump spoke flanked by law enforcement officials, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was handing down a new motion for a Temporary Restraining Order in one of the most closely watched cases against him. The District's legal team argued for immediate intervention, referencing statements Trump had made at his press conference and linking them directly to their emergency application. That turbulent morning, as crowds gathered outside the courthouse, the air was thick with anticipation over what the court's swift action might mean for the former president and his legal team.Beyond Washington, the legal action was unfolding in California too. In Thakur v. Trump et al., a hearing scheduled for August 26th will determine whether the preliminary injunction against Trump's administration will be extended to a wider, provisionally certified class. This case is emblematic of the sweeping litigation Trump faces as plaintiffs challenge many of his executive actions, especially concerning national security and government oversight. Earlier this month, the Northern District Court held an order to show cause hearing related to the suspension of National Science Foundation grants, another issue tangentially tied to Trump's time in office and the repercussions that continue to reverberate across agencies.The Litigation Tracker managed by Lawfare details something staggering: more than two hundred ninety-eight active cases challenging Trump administration actions are currently still open, with some pushing all the way up to the Supreme Court. Judges have swung both ways—some ruling for the federal government, others against—while legal teams scramble to keep pace. The swirl of litigation encompasses issues big and small, from immigration enforcement to broader questions about executive authority and agency shutdowns.One of the hottest topics right now has centered on Trump's prerogative to force sweeping personnel changes at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. On August 18th, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals cleared the Trump administration to resume its plan to fire more than fourteen hundred CFPB employees, a move that union groups fiercely opposed. While Judge Gregory Katsas—himself appointed by Trump—wrote that there's no legal foundation to claim the administration is shutting down the agency entirely, dissenting voices like Judge Cornelia Pillard have vigorously challenged that narrative, insisting the courts must intervene if an agency's existence is being imperiled.Throughout all of this, Trump's legal team has remained on war footing, acutely aware that each courtroom drama carries not just legal ramifications but political ones. As these proceedings continue to snake through the judicial system, every decision, dissent, and order is watched with hawk-like intensity—not just by Trump's allies and critics, but by the nation at large.Thanks for tuning in, everyone. Be sure to come back next week for deeper dives and the latest updates. This has been a Quiet Please production—check out Quiet Please Dot A I for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Episode 74 On November 21, 2016, a fire tore through a home in Flora, Indiana, claiming the lives of four young sisters: Keyana, Keyara, Kerriele, Kionnie. Nearly nine years later, the case remains unsolved, mired in contradictions, unanswered questions, and a community still searching for justice. In this episode of Crime to Burn, we sift through the layers of rumor and fact surrounding the Flora fire. From conflicting reports about accelerant use to the shifting narratives in the press, we trace how early investigative missteps and public speculation blurred the line between truth and gossip. We'll examine the timeline of the fire, the aftermath that shook Carroll County, and the resignation of key officials that left even more questions hanging in the air. What we cover in this episode: The night of the fire and the immediate response Early statements by officials and how they conflicted The role of rumors in shaping public perception Why investigators and community members remain at odds The lasting impact on a small Indiana town still waiting for answers The Flora case is more than just an unsolved fire — it's a story about trust, accountability, and the thin line between official record and whispered speculation. Background music by Not Notoriously Coordinated  Get your Crime to Burn Merch! https://crimetoburn.myspreadshop.com Please follow us on Instagram, X, Facebook, TikTok and Youtube for the latest news on this case. You can email us at crimetoburn@gmail.com We welcome any constructive feedback and would greatly appreciate a 5 star rating and review.  If you need a way to keep your canine contained, you can also support the show by purchasing a Pawious wireless dog fence using our affiliate link and use the code "crimetoburn" at checkout to receive 10% off. Pawious, because our dog Winston needed a radius, not a rap sheet.  Sources: WTHR YouTube. “8 Years Since Deadly Flora Fire Killed 4 Girls.” Posted Nov 21, 2024. Link Turner, Dakariai. “Flora Fire | Questions Remain 7 Years After 4 Sisters Killed in Intentionally Set Fire.” WISH-TV I-Team 8. Link Brown, Steve. “Dashboard Camera Video Reveals Rescue Attempt in Deadly Flora Fire.” CBS4. Link Hasnie, Aishah. Fox59 News. “Governor responds to FOX59 investigation into whether Flora case was mishandled.” Posted July 12, 2017; updated July 12, 2017. Link Lowe, Debbie. Carroll County Comet. “Jean Ann Randle sentenced: ‘I don't buy the tears,' Judge tells former sheriff's wife.” October 8, 2014. Link Wilkins, Ron. “FBI, Indiana State Police Go Door to Door to Try to Solve Fatal 2016 Flora Fire.” Lafayette Journal & Courier, July 7, 2025. Link “Randle Turns in Law Badge After 3 Decades of Service.” Carroll County Comet. Link Paul, Joseph. “Fire Chief Resigns One Year After Fatal Flora Fire That Killed 4 Children.” Lafayette Journal & Courier, Nov 15, 2017. Link Gay, David. “Docs: Settlement Reached in Flora Arson Fire Civil Suit.” FOX59, Sept 14, 2023. Link Chapman, Sandra. “Product Liability Lawsuit Dismissed in Flora Fire Case.” WTHR 13 News, Jan 29, 2020 (updated Jan 31, 2020). Link Rose v. Birch Tree Holdings, LLC. United States District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Aug 22, 2022. Opinion. Link True Crime Garage. “The Flora Fire [Episode 538].” Posted Nov 26, 2021. YouTube Link “Camden Man Charged with Attempted Murder, Arson.” Logansport Pharos-Tribune, May 12, 1993. Newspaper Archive. Pharos-Tribune Coverage, Late 1992. Headlines include: “Camden Man Charged with Attempted Murder, Arson,” and notice of upcoming arson trial. Newspaper Archive. Bell, Amy. “Camden Man Charged With Attempted Murder, Arson.” Pharos-Tribune (Delphi, Indiana). Archival clipping from local print edition, circa Sept 1992. Accessed via Delphi Media Archives (Reddit). “Camden Man Charged With Arson.” Pharos-Tribune (Delphi, Indiana). Archival clipping from local print edition, June 1992. Accessed via Delphi Media Archives (Reddit). Bell, Amy. “Mistrial Declared in Arson Case.” Pharos-Tribune (Delphi, Indiana). Archival clipping from local print edition, early 1993. Accessed via Delphi Media Archives (Reddit). “Camden Fire Department Rebuilds After Arson.” Pharos-Tribune (Delphi, Indiana). Archival clipping from local print edition, 1992–1993 coverage. Accessed via Delphi Media Archives (Reddit). Indiana State Police Report. (Flora Fire investigation records, ISP file) Flora Police Report. (Initial incident report, Flora Police Department, Nov. 2016) Flora Arson Report. Todd Hetrick & Jeremy Lemon, Investigators. (ATF/Fire Marshal collaboration) Carroll County E911 Records. “E-911 Flora Volunteer Fire Dept. call logs (July 2017).” Indiana Public Access Counselor. Advisory Opinion 17-FC-134 (re: Flora Fire Department records request). July 20, 2017 Carroll County E911 v. Hasnie. Amicus Brief of Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press & 16 media organizations. Indiana Court of Appeals, Cause No. 19A-MI-2682 FVFD Chief / Public Access Counselor. Advisory correspondence re: records access (2017). Federal Court Filing. USDC IN/ND Case No. 2:18-cv-00197-JTM, Document 196-28 (filed April 13, 2022). ISO (Insurance Services Office). Letter to Chief Bruce Dickey, Flora Fire Department, April 25, 2012. Community Mitigation Analyst Report — Public Protection Classification (PPC) Class 6 rating for Flora, IN. Britt, Luke H., Indiana Public Access Counselor. Formal Complaint No. 17-FC-167: Aishah Hasnie v. Carroll County E-911. Opinion issued July 2017. Found in APRA Suit E911 documents

Beth Mitchell is a partner in the law firm of Ambler | Keenan | Mitchell | Johnson. Beth devotes her practice to estate planning, special needs planning, and probate and trust administration. She is a member of the American Academy of Estate Planning Attorneys, the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, the Denver Bar Association, and the Colorado Bar Association, where she is a member of the Trust and Estates Section and the Elder Law Section.Beth sincerely enjoys working with families to make sure that estate matters are handled correctly and efficiently. She is a frequent speaker for professionals and the public on educational topics involving estate planning, probate, and trust administration.Beth received her B.A. in English and Speech Communications from Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa. She was awarded her J.D. from the University of Denver College of Law, where she was an editor for the Preventive Law Reporter and an active member of the University of Denver Student Law Office's Battered Women's Clemency Project.Beth is admitted to practice law before the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, and the 10th Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals.Prior to joining Ambler | Keenan | Mitchell | Johnson, Beth's diverse background included working for the Colorado Bar Association, with the Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence as an AmeriCorps member and interning with South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson on Capitol Hill. She is a South Dakota native who loves to travel and has enjoyed living in Iowa, New York, Washington D.C., and Colorado.https://ambler-keenan.com/https://ambler-keenan.com/staff-profile/elizabeth-d-mitchell/https://www.linkedin.com/in/elizabeth-d-mitchell-23b984/*************************************************************Judy Carlson is the CEO and Founder of the Judy Carlson Financial Group, where she helps couples create personalized, coordinated financial plans that support the life they want to live – now and in the future.As an Independent Fiduciary and Comprehensive Financial Planner, Judy specializes in retirement income and wealth decumulation strategies. She is a CPA, Investment Advisor Representative, licensed in life and health insurance, and certified in long-term care planning.Judy's mission is to help guide clients with clarity and care, building financial plans that focus on real planning built around real lives. Learn More: https://judycarlson.com/Investment Adviser Representative of and advisory services offered through Royal Fund Management, LLC, a SEC Registered Adviser.The Inspired Impact Podcasthttps://businessinnovatorsradio.com/the-inspired-impact-podcast/Source: https://businessinnovatorsradio.com/the-inspired-impact-podcast-with-judy-carlson-interview-with-beth-mitchell-partner-ambler-keenan-mitchell-johnson

Episode 73 In the late 1980s, Florida's Gulf Coast was a powder keg of cocaine, cash, and violence. In this episode, we dive into the wild case of Jeff Matthews — a drug kingpin whose ego was as big as his rap sheet, and whose grudges were… explosive. When a federal investigation started closing in, Matthews didn't just lawyer up — he plotted bombings. One of his alleged targets? A Fort Myer's Florida fire marshal. And somehow, in the tangled web of suspects, an innocent-sounding pizza joint landed in the crosshairs of investigators. From late-night parties and sudden gunfire to booby-trapped vans and high-stakes plea deals, this case has it all: drugs, bombs, and one very memorable slice of Florida true crime. Background music by Not Notoriously Coordinated  Get your Crime to Burn Merch! https://crimetoburn.myspreadshop.com Please follow us on Instagram, X, Facebook, TikTok and Youtube for the latest news on this case. You can email us at crimetoburn@gmail.com We welcome any constructive feedback and would greatly appreciate a 5 star rating and review.  If you need a way to keep your canine contained, you can also support the show by purchasing a Pawious wireless dog fence using our affiliate link and use the code "crimetoburn" at checkout to receive 10% off. Pawious, because our dog Winston needed a radius, not a rap sheet.  Sources: “The Man Who Bombed the DEA | The FBI Files | Real Crime”, Real Crime YouTube channel. Posted January 23, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57R6UN4kvtQ The Fort Myers Bomber, Middle District of Florida, United States District Court. Retrieved from the official court website: “The Fort Myers Bomber” page, Middle District of Florida https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/fort-myers-bomber  

On this episode, host Paul W. Grimm speaks with Professor Maura R. Grossman about the fundamentals of artificial intelligence and its growing influence on the legal system. They explore what AI is (and isn't), how machine learning and natural language processing work, and the differences between traditional automation and modern generative AI. In layman's terms, they discuss other key concepts, such as supervised and unsupervised learning, reinforcement training, and deepfakes, and other advances that have accelerated AI's development. Finally, they address a few potential risks of generative AI, including hallucinations, bias, and misuse in court, which sets the stage for a deeper conversation about legal implications on the next episode, "To Trust or Not to Trust: AI in Legal Practice." ABOUT THE HOSTJudge Paul W. Grimm (ret.) is the David F. Levi Professor of the Practice of Law and Director of the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law School. From December 2012 until his retirement in December 2022, he served as a district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, with chambers in Greenbelt, Maryland. Click here to read his full bio.

Host Paul W. Grimm continues his conversation with Professor Maura R. Grossman on the legal system's growing challenges with generative AI and deepfakes. They explore how AI-generated images, video, and audio differ from traditional fakes—and why they present unique evidentiary challenges and ethical problems for lawyers and judges. They also discuss the legal implications of the “liar's dividend,” the psychological impact of AI-generated evidence on juries, and potential updates to the Federal Rules of Evidence. In the absence of new rules dealing with AI evidence, they explain how early case management, protective orders, and Rules 403 and 901 can address a few of these challenges.ADDITIONAL RESOURCESGrossman, Grimm & Coglianese "AI in the Courts: How Worried Should We Be?" (Judicature)This Judicature article offers a discussion of the pros and cons of AI in the legal profession following the rise of ChatGPT and other large language models (LLMs).Federal Rules of Evidence – In particular, this episode focuses on:Rule 104(a) & (b): Preliminary vs. conditional relevanceRule 403: Exclusion of prejudicial evidenceRule 901: Authentication of evidenceRule 702: Expert testimony ABOUT THE HOSTJudge Paul W. Grimm (ret.) is the David F. Levi Professor of the Practice of Law and Director of the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law School. From December 2012 until his retirement in December 2022, he served as a district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, with chambers in Greenbelt, Maryland. Click here to read his full bio.

Accountability or weaponization? That's the question Andrew and Mary tackle in their 150th episode together, starting with the distraction of the Office of the Special Counsel's investigation into Jack Smith for possible Hatch Act violations. In other DOJ related matters, they give some context to the Trump administration's continued battle to keep Alina Habba, a Trump ally, as New Jersey U.S. Attorney, just as The Legal Accountability Center filed bar complaints against lawyers who have represented Trump's White House in court. In another sideshow, Andrew and Mary break down what to make of a report on the “Clinton Plan” emails, declassified amid the Epstein controversy. And last up, they detail the decision out of the 9th Circuit Court which upheld a pause on ICE raids in California.  Further Reading: Here is the piece Andrew and his colleague Ryan Goodman wrote for Just Security in October 2024: Refuting the Latest Baseless Attacks Against Special Counsel Jack SmithHere is the 9th Circuit Court decision on ICE Raids: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California And some exciting news: tickets are on sale now for MSNBC Live – our second live community event featuring more than a dozen MSNBC hosts. The day-long event will be held on October 11th at Hammerstein Ballroom in Manhattan. To buy tickets visit msnbc.com/live25.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

In this civil complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, plaintiffs Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 allege that they were sexually abused and trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and his associates while they were minors. The complaint is brought against the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein and a group of unidentified defendants labeled as “Sue Roe” and “Roes 2–10,” believed to have played roles in facilitating, enabling, or directly participating in the abuse. The plaintiffs claim that Epstein used his wealth, power, and network of co-conspirators to lure them into environments where they were manipulated and coerced into sexual acts, often under false pretenses such as employment or mentorship opportunities.The complaint outlines how Epstein's trafficking scheme functioned through a coordinated network that exploited young and vulnerable girls, with the plaintiffs seeking damages for the severe psychological, emotional, and physical harm they endured. It alleges that Epstein's associates—including unnamed individuals still unknown to the plaintiffs—helped maintain this system and continued to shield his conduct even after his 2008 conviction. The lawsuit demands a jury trial and aims to hold not only Epstein's estate accountable but also the living enablers who allegedly perpetuated or benefited from the abuse.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.521195.1.0.pdf

In this civil complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, plaintiffs Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 allege that they were sexually abused and trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and his associates while they were minors. The complaint is brought against the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein and a group of unidentified defendants labeled as “Sue Roe” and “Roes 2–10,” believed to have played roles in facilitating, enabling, or directly participating in the abuse. The plaintiffs claim that Epstein used his wealth, power, and network of co-conspirators to lure them into environments where they were manipulated and coerced into sexual acts, often under false pretenses such as employment or mentorship opportunities.The complaint outlines how Epstein's trafficking scheme functioned through a coordinated network that exploited young and vulnerable girls, with the plaintiffs seeking damages for the severe psychological, emotional, and physical harm they endured. It alleges that Epstein's associates—including unnamed individuals still unknown to the plaintiffs—helped maintain this system and continued to shield his conduct even after his 2008 conviction. The lawsuit demands a jury trial and aims to hold not only Epstein's estate accountable but also the living enablers who allegedly perpetuated or benefited from the abuse.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.521195.1.0.pdf

In this civil complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, plaintiffs Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 allege that they were sexually abused and trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and his associates while they were minors. The complaint is brought against the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein and a group of unidentified defendants labeled as “Sue Roe” and “Roes 2–10,” believed to have played roles in facilitating, enabling, or directly participating in the abuse. The plaintiffs claim that Epstein used his wealth, power, and network of co-conspirators to lure them into environments where they were manipulated and coerced into sexual acts, often under false pretenses such as employment or mentorship opportunities.The complaint outlines how Epstein's trafficking scheme functioned through a coordinated network that exploited young and vulnerable girls, with the plaintiffs seeking damages for the severe psychological, emotional, and physical harm they endured. It alleges that Epstein's associates—including unnamed individuals still unknown to the plaintiffs—helped maintain this system and continued to shield his conduct even after his 2008 conviction. The lawsuit demands a jury trial and aims to hold not only Epstein's estate accountable but also the living enablers who allegedly perpetuated or benefited from the abuse.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.521195.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The United States Supreme Court first acknowledged what would become the church autonomy doctrine, also known as the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, in the 1871 case of Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679 (1871). That case involved a schism in a Presbyterian church in Louisville, Kentucky, over the issue of slavery. The Court fashioned a principle that civil courts should not decide issues regarding faith, doctrine, and membership. Later, in Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94 (1952), the Court cemented the rule of deference to ecclesiastical bodies in internal church disputes, grounding the rule in the First Amendment and applying it to states through the Fourteenth Amendment. However, a competing rule emerged in certain circumstances in a 5-4 decision in Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595 (1979). In Jones, a divided Court held that civil courts may also use “neutral principles” of law to resolve church schisms involving property disputes. Today, courts wrestle with the dilemma of applying deference or neutral principles and face challenging questions regarding the nature of the church autonomy doctrine, including whether it is jurisdictional in nature and its application in a variety of circumstances.Join us for a conversation among religious liberty advocates on these and related topics.Featuring:Prof. Carl H. Esbeck, R. B. Price and Isabelle Wade & Paul C. Lyda Professor Emeritus of Law, University of Missouri School of LawL. Martin Nussbaum, Partner, First & Fourteenth PLLCEric Rassbach, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious LibertiesHiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel, First Liberty Institute(Moderator) Hon. Brantley Starr, District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

We're checking in on the latest news in tech and free speech. We cover the state AI regulation moratorium that failed in Congress, the ongoing Character A.I. lawsuit, the Federal Trade Commission's consent decree with Omnicom and Interpublic Group, the European Union's Digital Services Act, and what comes next after the Supreme Court's Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton decision. Guests: Ari Cohn — lead counsel for tech policy, FIRE Corbin Barthold — internet policy counsel, TechFreedom Timestamps:  00:00 Intro 02:38 State AI regulation moratorium fails in Congress 20:04 Character AI lawsuit 41:10 FTC, Omnicom x IPG merger, and Media Matters 56:09 Digital Services Act 01:02:43 FSC v. Paxton decision 01:10:49 Outro  Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to Substack's paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@thefire.org. Show notes: “The AI will see you now” Paul Sherman (2025) Megan Garcia, plaintiff, v. Character Technologies, Inc. et. al., defendants, United States District Court (2025) Proposed amicus brief in support of appeal - Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc. FIRE (2025) “Amplification and its discontents: Why regulating the reach of online content is hard” Daphne Kelly (2021) “Omnicom Group/The Interpublic Group of Co.” FTC (2025)

In the case of John Doe v. Sean Combs, Bad Boy Entertainment LLC, and associated entities, the plaintiff, John Doe, has filed a lawsuit against Sean Combs and various affiliated companies, including Bad Boy Entertainment LLC, Bad Boy Records LLC, and others. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under case number 1:25-CV-00996-JLR. The plaintiff, through his legal representation, The Bloom Firm, is seeking legal action based on the allegations made by John Doe, who asserts claims arising from his personal experience and information he has gathered about the actions of the defendants.John Doe's lawsuit includes several corporate entities affiliated with Sean Combs, such as Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings Inc., Bad Boy Productions Holdings Inc., and Bad Boy Books Holdings Inc. Additionally, the complaint also lists Doe Corporations 1-10 and Doe Defendants 11-20, indicating that the plaintiff may pursue further claims against other unidentified individuals or entities involved in the matter. The plaintiff is requesting a jury trial as part of his legal proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapuccisource:*Microsoft Word - 2025.01.17 Complaint REDACTEDBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the case of John Doe v. Sean Combs, Bad Boy Entertainment LLC, and associated entities, the plaintiff, John Doe, has filed a lawsuit against Sean Combs and various affiliated companies, including Bad Boy Entertainment LLC, Bad Boy Records LLC, and others. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under case number 1:25-CV-00996-JLR. The plaintiff, through his legal representation, The Bloom Firm, is seeking legal action based on the allegations made by John Doe, who asserts claims arising from his personal experience and information he has gathered about the actions of the defendants.John Doe's lawsuit includes several corporate entities affiliated with Sean Combs, such as Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings Inc., Bad Boy Productions Holdings Inc., and Bad Boy Books Holdings Inc. Additionally, the complaint also lists Doe Corporations 1-10 and Doe Defendants 11-20, indicating that the plaintiff may pursue further claims against other unidentified individuals or entities involved in the matter. The plaintiff is requesting a jury trial as part of his legal proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapuccisource:*Microsoft Word - 2025.01.17 Complaint REDACTEDBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the case of John Doe v. Sean Combs, Bad Boy Entertainment LLC, and associated entities, the plaintiff, John Doe, has filed a lawsuit against Sean Combs and various affiliated companies, including Bad Boy Entertainment LLC, Bad Boy Records LLC, and others. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under case number 1:25-CV-00996-JLR. The plaintiff, through his legal representation, The Bloom Firm, is seeking legal action based on the allegations made by John Doe, who asserts claims arising from his personal experience and information he has gathered about the actions of the defendants.John Doe's lawsuit includes several corporate entities affiliated with Sean Combs, such as Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings Inc., Bad Boy Productions Holdings Inc., and Bad Boy Books Holdings Inc. Additionally, the complaint also lists Doe Corporations 1-10 and Doe Defendants 11-20, indicating that the plaintiff may pursue further claims against other unidentified individuals or entities involved in the matter. The plaintiff is requesting a jury trial as part of his legal proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapuccisource:*Microsoft Word - 2025.01.17 Complaint REDACTEDBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case of John Doe v. Sean Combs, Bad Boy Entertainment LLC, and associated entities, the plaintiff, John Doe, has filed a lawsuit against Sean Combs and various affiliated companies, including Bad Boy Entertainment LLC, Bad Boy Records LLC, and others. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under case number 1:25-CV-00996-JLR. The plaintiff, through his legal representation, The Bloom Firm, is seeking legal action based on the allegations made by John Doe, who asserts claims arising from his personal experience and information he has gathered about the actions of the defendants.John Doe's lawsuit includes several corporate entities affiliated with Sean Combs, such as Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings Inc., Bad Boy Productions Holdings Inc., and Bad Boy Books Holdings Inc. Additionally, the complaint also lists Doe Corporations 1-10 and Doe Defendants 11-20, indicating that the plaintiff may pursue further claims against other unidentified individuals or entities involved in the matter. The plaintiff is requesting a jury trial as part of his legal proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapuccisource:*Microsoft Word - 2025.01.17 Complaint REDACTEDBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case of John Doe v. Sean Combs, Bad Boy Entertainment LLC, and associated entities, the plaintiff, John Doe, has filed a lawsuit against Sean Combs and various affiliated companies, including Bad Boy Entertainment LLC, Bad Boy Records LLC, and others. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under case number 1:25-CV-00996-JLR. The plaintiff, through his legal representation, The Bloom Firm, is seeking legal action based on the allegations made by John Doe, who asserts claims arising from his personal experience and information he has gathered about the actions of the defendants.John Doe's lawsuit includes several corporate entities affiliated with Sean Combs, such as Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings Inc., Bad Boy Productions Holdings Inc., and Bad Boy Books Holdings Inc. Additionally, the complaint also lists Doe Corporations 1-10 and Doe Defendants 11-20, indicating that the plaintiff may pursue further claims against other unidentified individuals or entities involved in the matter. The plaintiff is requesting a jury trial as part of his legal proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapuccisource:*Microsoft Word - 2025.01.17 Complaint REDACTEDBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the case of John Doe v. Sean Combs, Bad Boy Entertainment LLC, and associated entities, the plaintiff, John Doe, has filed a lawsuit against Sean Combs and various affiliated companies, including Bad Boy Entertainment LLC, Bad Boy Records LLC, and others. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under case number 1:25-CV-00996-JLR. The plaintiff, through his legal representation, The Bloom Firm, is seeking legal action based on the allegations made by John Doe, who asserts claims arising from his personal experience and information he has gathered about the actions of the defendants.John Doe's lawsuit includes several corporate entities affiliated with Sean Combs, such as Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings Inc., Bad Boy Productions Holdings Inc., and Bad Boy Books Holdings Inc. Additionally, the complaint also lists Doe Corporations 1-10 and Doe Defendants 11-20, indicating that the plaintiff may pursue further claims against other unidentified individuals or entities involved in the matter. The plaintiff is requesting a jury trial as part of his legal proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapuccisource:*Microsoft Word - 2025.01.17 Complaint REDACTEDBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the case of John Doe v. Sean Combs, Bad Boy Entertainment LLC, and associated entities, the plaintiff, John Doe, has filed a lawsuit against Sean Combs and various affiliated companies, including Bad Boy Entertainment LLC, Bad Boy Records LLC, and others. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under case number 1:25-CV-00996-JLR. The plaintiff, through his legal representation, The Bloom Firm, is seeking legal action based on the allegations made by John Doe, who asserts claims arising from his personal experience and information he has gathered about the actions of the defendants.John Doe's lawsuit includes several corporate entities affiliated with Sean Combs, such as Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings Inc., Bad Boy Productions Holdings Inc., and Bad Boy Books Holdings Inc. Additionally, the complaint also lists Doe Corporations 1-10 and Doe Defendants 11-20, indicating that the plaintiff may pursue further claims against other unidentified individuals or entities involved in the matter. The plaintiff is requesting a jury trial as part of his legal proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapuccisource:*Microsoft Word - 2025.01.17 Complaint REDACTEDBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the case of John Doe v. Sean Combs, Bad Boy Entertainment LLC, and associated entities, the plaintiff, John Doe, has filed a lawsuit against Sean Combs and various affiliated companies, including Bad Boy Entertainment LLC, Bad Boy Records LLC, and others. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under case number 1:25-CV-00996-JLR. The plaintiff, through his legal representation, The Bloom Firm, is seeking legal action based on the allegations made by John Doe, who asserts claims arising from his personal experience and information he has gathered about the actions of the defendants.John Doe's lawsuit includes several corporate entities affiliated with Sean Combs, such as Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings Inc., Bad Boy Productions Holdings Inc., and Bad Boy Books Holdings Inc. Additionally, the complaint also lists Doe Corporations 1-10 and Doe Defendants 11-20, indicating that the plaintiff may pursue further claims against other unidentified individuals or entities involved in the matter. The plaintiff is requesting a jury trial as part of his legal proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapuccisource:*Microsoft Word - 2025.01.17 Complaint REDACTEDBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case of John Doe v. Sean Combs, Bad Boy Entertainment LLC, and associated entities, the plaintiff, John Doe, has filed a lawsuit against Sean Combs and various affiliated companies, including Bad Boy Entertainment LLC, Bad Boy Records LLC, and others. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under case number 1:25-CV-00996-JLR. The plaintiff, through his legal representation, The Bloom Firm, is seeking legal action based on the allegations made by John Doe, who asserts claims arising from his personal experience and information he has gathered about the actions of the defendants.John Doe's lawsuit includes several corporate entities affiliated with Sean Combs, such as Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings Inc., Bad Boy Productions Holdings Inc., and Bad Boy Books Holdings Inc. Additionally, the complaint also lists Doe Corporations 1-10 and Doe Defendants 11-20, indicating that the plaintiff may pursue further claims against other unidentified individuals or entities involved in the matter. The plaintiff is requesting a jury trial as part of his legal proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapuccisource:*Microsoft Word - 2025.01.17 Complaint REDACTEDBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case of John Doe v. Sean Combs, Bad Boy Entertainment LLC, and associated entities, the plaintiff, John Doe, has filed a lawsuit against Sean Combs and various affiliated companies, including Bad Boy Entertainment LLC, Bad Boy Records LLC, and others. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under case number 1:25-CV-00996-JLR. The plaintiff, through his legal representation, The Bloom Firm, is seeking legal action based on the allegations made by John Doe, who asserts claims arising from his personal experience and information he has gathered about the actions of the defendants.John Doe's lawsuit includes several corporate entities affiliated with Sean Combs, such as Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings Inc., Bad Boy Productions Holdings Inc., and Bad Boy Books Holdings Inc. Additionally, the complaint also lists Doe Corporations 1-10 and Doe Defendants 11-20, indicating that the plaintiff may pursue further claims against other unidentified individuals or entities involved in the matter. The plaintiff is requesting a jury trial as part of his legal proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapuccisource:*Microsoft Word - 2025.01.17 Complaint REDACTEDBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The idea of Artificial Intelligence has long presented potential challenges in the legal realm, and as AI tools become more broadly available and widely used, those potential hurdles are becoming ever more salient for lawyers in their day-to-day operations. Questions abound, from what potential risks of bias and error may exist in using an AI tool, to the challenges related to professional responsibility as traditionally understood, to the risks large language learning models pose to client confidentiality. Some contend that AI is a must-use, as it opens the door to faster, more efficient legal research that could equip lawyers to serve their clients more effectively. Others reject the use of AI, arguing that the risks of use and the work required to check the output it gives exceed its potential benefit.Join us for a FedSoc Forum exploring the ethical and legal implications of artificial intelligence in the practice of law. Featuring: Laurin H. Mills, Member, Werther & Mills, LLCPhilip A. Sechler, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending FreedomProf. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, UCLA School of Law; Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University(Moderator) Hon. Brantley Starr, District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

Episode NotesSpeakers: Sean Fitzpatrick, after working for a few years as a prosecutor litigating felony and misdemeanor cases, started his firm FitzPatrick Law, LLC in 2016. FitzPatrick's current practice area is civil litigation focusing on insurance and injury law. FitzPatrick served on the Young Lawyers Division board for years as director and chair prior to his current term on the New Mexico Board of Bar Commissioners. FitzPatrick is also the current Chair of the New Mexico State Bar Well Being Committee and serves on the Uniform Civil Jury Instruction Committee. He believes a healthy work life balance makes better lawyers and you can find FitzPatrick running, biking, or participating in other Type 2 fun activities with his wife Eva and their son Liam when not practicing law.Noell Huffmyer is a civil litigator.  She currently serves as in-house counsel at Acadia Healthcare.  Prior to joining Acadia, Noell spent several years at the Rodey Law Firm and previously clerked for Judge William Johnson at the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. Noell is a proud graduate of the UNM School of Law.  Upon graduation, Noell was honored by the law school's faculty with their Faculty Award and, in 2024, the law school's alumni association recognized her with its Alumni Promise Award.  Noell is an active member of the New Mexico legal community, acting as adjunct faculty at the law school as well as serving on the Albuquerque Bar Association's Board of Directors. Steve Scholl loves being a trial lawyer and helping others learn and perfect the art and science of trial practice. Steve is a 1989 graduate of UNMSOL and describes himself as a “36L” because he's never really left Bratton Hall. He can be found almost any time roaming its hallways with a Rules of Evidence book in hand. Steve keeps his life in balance. Away from the office and law school, he and his wife of 46 years, Chris and their hound, Winnie the Pooch, will be found with their kids and grandkids on “the lake” on their boat Time Flies; driving one of their old vintage cars around in pursuit of the perfect huevos rancheros; camping in one of their restored 1950's canned-ham campers; traveling to some far off land; or, just hanging out or having a party at home. Steve is a member of Dixon Scholl Carrillo, PA and represents both plaintiffs and defendants in civil cases.Disclaimer: Thank you for listening! This episode was produced by the State Bar of New Mexico's Well-Being Committee and the New Mexico Lawyer Assistance Program. All editing and sound mixing was done by the State Bar of New Mexico and/or the State Bar Foundation. Intro music is by Gil Flores. The views of the presenters are that of their own and are not endorsed by the State Bar of New Mexico. The content is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment or legal advice. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition.The views expressed in this podcast are solely those of the participants and not intended as statements on behalf of their employers. 

Plaintiff John Doe, represented by Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, has filed a civil lawsuit against defendant Sean Combs in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges claims against Combs based on actions detailed through the plaintiff's personal knowledge, along with other facts and information. The lawsuit initiates formal litigation, aiming to hold Combs accountable for alleged wrongdoing, though the precise details of the claims are yet to be outlined publicly.The case, brought anonymously under the name "John Doe," suggests sensitivity surrounding the allegations or potential concerns for the plaintiff's safety or privacy. As the legal process advances, further specifics regarding the nature of the allegations and the damages sought are expected to emerge, clarifying the basis for this legal action against Combs.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.637615.1.0_1.pdf

Plaintiff John Doe, represented by Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, has filed a civil lawsuit against defendant Sean Combs in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges claims against Combs based on actions detailed through the plaintiff's personal knowledge, along with other facts and information. The lawsuit initiates formal litigation, aiming to hold Combs accountable for alleged wrongdoing, though the precise details of the claims are yet to be outlined publicly.The case, brought anonymously under the name "John Doe," suggests sensitivity surrounding the allegations or potential concerns for the plaintiff's safety or privacy. As the legal process advances, further specifics regarding the nature of the allegations and the damages sought are expected to emerge, clarifying the basis for this legal action against Combs.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.637615.1.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Plaintiff John Doe, represented by Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, has filed a civil lawsuit against defendant Sean Combs in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges claims against Combs based on actions detailed through the plaintiff's personal knowledge, along with other facts and information. The lawsuit initiates formal litigation, aiming to hold Combs accountable for alleged wrongdoing, though the precise details of the claims are yet to be outlined publicly.The case, brought anonymously under the name "John Doe," suggests sensitivity surrounding the allegations or potential concerns for the plaintiff's safety or privacy. As the legal process advances, further specifics regarding the nature of the allegations and the damages sought are expected to emerge, clarifying the basis for this legal action against Combs.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.637615.1.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Good morning, viewers. I'm reporting live from Washington, D.C., where the legal landscape surrounding former President Donald Trump continues to evolve rapidly. Just yesterday, a significant development emerged when Eric Iverson, a U.S. citizen and prosecutor at the International Criminal Court, filed a complaint against President Trump and several cabinet members including Attorney General Pamela Bondi, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.The case, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on May 5th, appears to involve Iverson's work as lead prosecutor in cases against individuals accused of war crimes in the Darfur region of Sudan. This adds yet another layer to the complex web of legal challenges facing the Trump administration.Meanwhile, the classified documents case in Florida has taken a dramatic turn. Judge Cannon granted Trump's motion to dismiss the superseding indictment based on allegations regarding Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment. The government quickly filed an appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, and a briefing schedule is now in place.In New York, defendants in the civil fraud case have appealed Justice Engoron's decisions from both September 2023 and February 2024. Attorney General Letitia James successfully requested the consolidation of these appeals, which will now proceed with a single record and set of briefs.Georgia's criminal case continues its complex journey through the courts. Former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows has petitioned the Supreme Court following the 11th Circuit's dismissal of his attempt to move his state criminal case to federal court. Additionally, defendants are appealing Judge McAfee's order regarding motions to disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis.In Manhattan, Trump is making another attempt to move District Attorney Alvin Bragg's state prosecution to federal court. After filing a second notice of removal that was rejected as deficient, Trump's request for leave was denied by Judge Hellerstein. He's now appealed to the Second Circuit, with his opening brief due October 14th.Just two days ago, on May 5th, the House floor proceedings reflected the contentious political climate surrounding these legal battles.Refugee rights organizations have also become entangled in the administration's legal issues. A court recently ordered the administration to process refugee cases, provide resettlement support, and fund organizations handling resettlement or face sanctions.As these legal proceedings continue to unfold across multiple jurisdictions, the impact on both the political landscape and policy implementation remains profound. We'll continue to bring you updates as this unprecedented situation develops.

Jonathan Fombonne is the Deputy County Attorney and First Assistant County Attorney in Harris County, Texas. After graduating from Swarthmore College and the University of Michigan Law School, he started his career with a clerkship for Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. Prior to his current appointment, he practiced law at law firms in Texas and New York, maintained a significant pro bono practice, and was a partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP. Jonathan, his wife Lauren, and their children live in Houston, Texas.

Speakers: Sean Fitzpatrick, after working for a few years as a prosecutor litigating felony and misdemeanor cases, started his firm FitzPatrick Law, LLC in 2016. FitzPatrick's current practice area is civil litigation focusing on insurance and injury law. FitzPatrick served on the Young Lawyers Division board for years as director and chair prior to his current term on the New Mexico Board of Bar Commissioners. FitzPatrick is also the current Chair of the New Mexico State Bar Well Being Committee and serves on the Uniform Civil Jury Instruction Committee. He believes a healthy work life balance makes better lawyers and you can find FitzPatrick running, biking, or participating in other Type 2 fun activities with his wife Eva and their son Liam when not practicing law.Noell Huffmyer is a civil litigator.  She currently serves as in-house counsel at Acadia Healthcare.  Prior to joining Acadia, Noell spent several years at the Rodey Law Firm and previously clerked for Judge William Johnson at the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. Noell is a proud graduate of the UNM School of Law.  Upon graduation, Noell was honored by the law school's faculty with their Faculty Award and, in 2024, the law school's alumni association recognized her with its Alumni Promise Award.  Noell is an active member of the New Mexico legal community, acting as adjunct faculty at the law school as well as serving on the Albuquerque Bar Association's Board of Directors.  Steve Scholl loves being a trial lawyer and helping others learn and perfect the art and science of trial practice. Steve is a 1989 graduate of UNMSOL and describes himself as a “36L” because he's never really left Bratton Hall. He can be found almost any time roaming its hallways with a Rules of Evidence book in hand. Steve keeps his life in balance. Away from the office and law school, he and his wife of 46 years, Chris and their hound, Winnie the Pooch, will be found with their kids and grandkids on “the lake” on their boat Time Flies; driving one of their old vintage cars around in pursuit of the perfect huevos rancheros; camping in one of their restored 1950's canned-ham campers; traveling to some far off land; or, just hanging out or having a party at home. Steve is a member of Dixon Scholl Carrillo, PA and represents both plaintiffs and defendants in civil cases.Disclaimer: Thank you for listening! This episode was produced by the State Bar of New Mexico's Well-Being Committee and the New Mexico Lawyer Assistance Program. All editing and sound mixing was done by the State Bar of New Mexico and/or the State Bar Foundation. Intro music is by Gil Flores. The views of the presenters are that of their own and are not endorsed by the State Bar of New Mexico. The content is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment or legal advice. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition.The views expressed in this podcast are solely those of the participants and not intended as statements on behalf of their employers. 

On this episode, host Paul W. Grimm speaks with retired U.S. Magistrate Judge Beth P. Gesner about settlement of civil cases in federal court, and in particular, the magistrate judge's role in facilitating settlement discussions. They also discuss several strategies judges can utilize to more effectively manage settlement of their cases, such as maintaining a calendar, holding everyone accountable to deadlines, memorializing agreements that are made between parties, and ensuring that key decision makers are always part of settlement discussions.ABOUT THE HOST Judge Paul W. Grimm (ret.) is the David F. Levi Professor of the Practice of Law and Director of the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law School. From December 2012 until his retirement in December 2022, he served as a district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, with chambers in Greenbelt, Maryland. Click here to read his full bio.

John R. Tunheim is an American lawyer who serves as a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Judge John Tunheim served as chairman of the Assassination Records Review Board which oversaw the collection of government records relating to the assassination of President Kennedy. This episode Judge Tunheim joins me to discuss the most recent JFK hearing and disclosure, while also discussing some of his time on the ARRB.

Since President Donald Trump took office, his administration has ignored court rulings on a range of issues from press access to deportations. Now, a federal judge might hold him in criminal contempt of court. We'll unpack the Zeno's paradox of constitutional crises. Plus, where luxury goods actually come from and why you may want to think twice before buying one. And if you're looking to zone out, turn on the “Great Moose Migration.”Here's everything we talked about today:@kyledcheney.bsky.social‬ on Bluesky“What happens if a president and the federal government fail to follow a judge's orders?” by NBC NewsJ.G.G., et al., v. Donald J. Trump, et al. from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia “What to do in case of a constitutional crisis” by CNN“How is civil society responding to the US constitutional crisis?” from the Brookings Institution“Trump's China tariffs spark viral TikTok work-arounds” from Fast Company“'Chinese Warehouse' TikTok Videos Urge Americans to Buy Directly From Them” from Newsweek“Ignore advice to buy direct from Chinese factories with DHGate, others” from The Washington Post“The ‘Great Moose Migration' Livestream Captivates Sweden” from The New York TimesGot a question or comment for the hosts? Email makemesmart@marketplace.org or leave us a voicemail at 508-U-B-SMART.

Since President Donald Trump took office, his administration has ignored court rulings on a range of issues from press access to deportations. Now, a federal judge might hold him in criminal contempt of court. We'll unpack the Zeno's paradox of constitutional crises. Plus, where luxury goods actually come from and why you may want to think twice before buying one. And if you're looking to zone out, turn on the “Great Moose Migration.”Here's everything we talked about today:@kyledcheney.bsky.social‬ on Bluesky“What happens if a president and the federal government fail to follow a judge's orders?” by NBC NewsJ.G.G., et al., v. Donald J. Trump, et al. from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia “What to do in case of a constitutional crisis” by CNN“How is civil society responding to the US constitutional crisis?” from the Brookings Institution“Trump's China tariffs spark viral TikTok work-arounds” from Fast Company“'Chinese Warehouse' TikTok Videos Urge Americans to Buy Directly From Them” from Newsweek“Ignore advice to buy direct from Chinese factories with DHGate, others” from The Washington Post“The ‘Great Moose Migration' Livestream Captivates Sweden” from The New York TimesGot a question or comment for the hosts? Email makemesmart@marketplace.org or leave us a voicemail at 508-U-B-SMART.

04/14/25: Joel Heitkamp is joined by the Executive Director of the North Dakota Ethics Commission, Rebecca Binstock. Prior to serving in this role, she had the privilege to serve as the pro se law clerk with the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota. A House recommended several sweeping changes to the North Dakota Ethics Commission’s budget, including cutting a new full-time staff member and adding a new six-month deadline for processing ethics complaints. (Joel Heitkamp is a talk show host on the Mighty 790 KFGO in Fargo-Moorhead. His award-winning program, “News & Views,” can be heard weekdays from 8 – 11 a.m. Follow Joel on X/Twitter @JoelKFGO.) See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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

What happens when a determination of death GOES WRONG?In this episode of the Standard of Care Podcast, hosts Samantha Johnson and Nick Adams break down a real and heartbreaking case where EMS medics declared a 14-year-old patient deceased—only for him to be resuscitated at the hospital nearly an hour later. The fallout? A legal battle that made its way to the Supreme Court, and a patient left with devastating consequences.With legal nuance and clinical insight, Samantha and Nick walk through the case from street to courtroom. They explore the intersection of qualified immunity, the complexities of assessing patients with conditions like cerebral palsy, and the chilling legal and ethical risks that come with the determination of death in the field. This episode will change the way you view determination of death—and might just save your career someday.Listen now on your favorite podcast platform or directly at https://flightbridgeed.com/standard-of-care/. While you're there, explore our award-winning and nationally recognized courses that are helping thousands of providers stay sharp, safe, and legally sound.Key TakeawaysDon't shortcut your assessment. "Cold to the touch" and single-lead asystole aren't enough—especially in patients with neurological conditions that can present atypically.Qualified immunity protects government providers—until it doesn't. It's not a license to cut corners.Thorough documentation and a second-by-second account of your decision-making process can be your legal lifeline.Cross-agency coordination and quality assurance are essential. What one crew misses, another might catch—but how that's handled matters.EMT and paramedic education rarely prepares you for the weight of calling a death. Clinical training must evolve to meet that responsibility.When in doubt, initiate resuscitation. Let the ER be the place of final determination—not the living room.ReferencesStacy Williams, on behalf of her minor grandson, J.J. v. Andrew Williams and Joe Spradlin, United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, Civil Action File No. 4:23-cv-289 (January 26, 2023), available at https://bencrump.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Doc.-1.-Plaintiffs-Original-Complaint.pdfFOX 26 Digital. (2023, February 2). Lawsuit Filed Against Houston Paramedics Who Refused Emergency Care to Disabled Teen. FOX 26 Houston. https://www.fox26houston.com/news/lawsuit-filed-against-paramedics-who-refused-emergency-care-to-disabled-teen Wallace, R. (2025, January 10). US Supreme Court Declines Case of 2 Houston Paramedics Who Mistakenly Declared Teen Dead. FOX 26 Houston. https://www.fox26houston.com/news/us-supreme-court-declines-case-2-houston-paramedics-who-mistakenly-declared-teen-dead FAST25 | May 19-21, 2025 | Lexington, KY

This week we are pleased to bring you one of our most popular episodes of 2024. Please enjoy, and we will be back next week with more insights from the Corruption, Crime, and Compliance podcast.Have you heard of the recent controversies around Boeing 737 MAX and its safety? Have you wondered what is being done about the concerns around it? In this episode of Corruption, Crime, and Compliance, Michael Volkov delves into the latest developments in the Boeing 737 MAX case, highlighting the recent plea agreement proposed by the Department of Justice (DOJ). The Boeing 737 MAX case took another dramatic turn. On July 24, 2024, the Department of Justice filed with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas a proposed plea agreement with Boeing. Under the Plea Agreement, Boeing will plead guilty to the original Information filed in 2021 with the Deferred Prosecution Agreement ("DPA"). The discussion focuses on Boeing's alleged failure to implement adequate compliance measures, leading to significant risks and violations, and the ongoing legal and ethical implications of the case. Tune in to hear a detailed analysis of the complexities and legal ramifications of Boeing's recent plea agreement and what it means for corporate compliance and accountability.You'll hear him talk about:Certification Issues: Boeing failed to ensure its 737 MAX certifications were accurate, risking false certifications to the FAA.DOJ Plea Deal: Boeing agreed to plead guilty to conspiracy to defraud the U.S., facing opposition from victims' families who find the resolution insufficient. The plea agreement, which has been filed under Federal Rule Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), requires the Court to approve and accept the deal. The Court can reject the plea deal and require the parties to renegotiate the terms.Victims' Rights: The proposed resolution has been controversial because of the opposition of the families of the victims, who have opposed the plea agreement and general disposition of DOJ's investigation and prior resolutions as insufficient to vindicate the public interest and their rights as victims of Boeing's malfeasanceCompliance Failures: Boeing breached its DPA by not implementing effective compliance controls, particularly in safety and quality processes.Independent Monitor: Boeing will be monitored for three years and must invest $455 million in compliance and safety improvements.Ongoing Challenges: Boeing's anti-fraud measures still have gaps, with broader implications for industries where safety is critical.Resources:Michael Volkov on LinkedIn | TwitterThe Volkov Law Group

Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán is one of the most notorious drug lords in history, known for his leadership of the Sinaloa Cartel, one of the most powerful drug trafficking organizations in the world. Here's a comprehensive summary of his arrest, extradition, and trial in the United States:Arrests:February 1993: El Chapo was first arrested in Guatemala and extradited to Mexico, where he faced charges related to drug trafficking. He was later transferred to a maximum-security prison in Mexico.January 2001: He managed to escape from the prison with the help of bribed prison guards, hiding in a laundry cart. Following his escape, he continued to lead the Sinaloa Cartel and expand its operations.February 2014: Mexican authorities captured El Chapo in Mazatlán, Mexico, after years of pursuit. This capture was a result of a joint operation by Mexican and U.S. law enforcement agencies.Extradition:January 2016: Guzmán was extradited to the United States to face charges related to drug trafficking, money laundering, and other criminal activities. His extradition came after a lengthy legal battle and diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico.January 2017: El Chapo was arraigned in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York, where he pleaded not guilty to a 17-count indictment.Trial:November 2018: The trial against El Chapo began in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The trial garnered significant media attention due to the high-profile nature of the case and the sensational details of Guzmán's alleged crimes.February 2019: After a three-month trial featuring testimonies from over 50 witnesses, including former associates and law enforcement officials, El Chapo was found guilty on all counts, including engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, drug trafficking, and firearms offenses.July 2019: Guzmán was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus an additional 30 years, and ordered to forfeit $12.6 billion. The sentence was handed down by Judge Brian Cogan in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York.Life in Prison: El Chapo is currently serving his sentence at the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility (ADX) in Florence, Colorado, often referred to as the "Supermax" prison, known for its strict conditions and high-security measures.El Chapo's arrest, extradition, and trial marked a significant victory for law enforcement agencies in their efforts to combat international drug trafficking and organized crime.(commercial at 8:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:chapo-us-resp.pdf (courthousenews.com)

Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán is one of the most notorious drug lords in history, known for his leadership of the Sinaloa Cartel, one of the most powerful drug trafficking organizations in the world. Here's a comprehensive summary of his arrest, extradition, and trial in the United States:Arrests:February 1993: El Chapo was first arrested in Guatemala and extradited to Mexico, where he faced charges related to drug trafficking. He was later transferred to a maximum-security prison in Mexico.January 2001: He managed to escape from the prison with the help of bribed prison guards, hiding in a laundry cart. Following his escape, he continued to lead the Sinaloa Cartel and expand its operations.February 2014: Mexican authorities captured El Chapo in Mazatlán, Mexico, after years of pursuit. This capture was a result of a joint operation by Mexican and U.S. law enforcement agencies.Extradition:January 2016: Guzmán was extradited to the United States to face charges related to drug trafficking, money laundering, and other criminal activities. His extradition came after a lengthy legal battle and diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico.January 2017: El Chapo was arraigned in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York, where he pleaded not guilty to a 17-count indictment.Trial:November 2018: The trial against El Chapo began in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The trial garnered significant media attention due to the high-profile nature of the case and the sensational details of Guzmán's alleged crimes.February 2019: After a three-month trial featuring testimonies from over 50 witnesses, including former associates and law enforcement officials, El Chapo was found guilty on all counts, including engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, drug trafficking, and firearms offenses.July 2019: Guzmán was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus an additional 30 years, and ordered to forfeit $12.6 billion. The sentence was handed down by Judge Brian Cogan in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York.Life in Prison: El Chapo is currently serving his sentence at the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility (ADX) in Florence, Colorado, often referred to as the "Supermax" prison, known for its strict conditions and high-security measures.El Chapo's arrest, extradition, and trial marked a significant victory for law enforcement agencies in their efforts to combat international drug trafficking and organized crime.(commercial at 8:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:chapo-us-resp.pdf (courthousenews.com)

Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán is one of the most notorious drug lords in history, known for his leadership of the Sinaloa Cartel, one of the most powerful drug trafficking organizations in the world. Here's a comprehensive summary of his arrest, extradition, and trial in the United States:Arrests:February 1993: El Chapo was first arrested in Guatemala and extradited to Mexico, where he faced charges related to drug trafficking. He was later transferred to a maximum-security prison in Mexico.January 2001: He managed to escape from the prison with the help of bribed prison guards, hiding in a laundry cart. Following his escape, he continued to lead the Sinaloa Cartel and expand its operations.February 2014: Mexican authorities captured El Chapo in Mazatlán, Mexico, after years of pursuit. This capture was a result of a joint operation by Mexican and U.S. law enforcement agencies.Extradition:January 2016: Guzmán was extradited to the United States to face charges related to drug trafficking, money laundering, and other criminal activities. His extradition came after a lengthy legal battle and diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico.January 2017: El Chapo was arraigned in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York, where he pleaded not guilty to a 17-count indictment.Trial:November 2018: The trial against El Chapo began in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The trial garnered significant media attention due to the high-profile nature of the case and the sensational details of Guzmán's alleged crimes.February 2019: After a three-month trial featuring testimonies from over 50 witnesses, including former associates and law enforcement officials, El Chapo was found guilty on all counts, including engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, drug trafficking, and firearms offenses.July 2019: Guzmán was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus an additional 30 years, and ordered to forfeit $12.6 billion. The sentence was handed down by Judge Brian Cogan in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York.Life in Prison: El Chapo is currently serving his sentence at the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility (ADX) in Florence, Colorado, often referred to as the "Supermax" prison, known for its strict conditions and high-security measures.El Chapo's arrest, extradition, and trial marked a significant victory for law enforcement agencies in their efforts to combat international drug trafficking and organized crime.(commercial at 8:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:chapo-us-resp.pdf (courthousenews.com)

Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán is one of the most notorious drug lords in history, known for his leadership of the Sinaloa Cartel, one of the most powerful drug trafficking organizations in the world. Here's a comprehensive summary of his arrest, extradition, and trial in the United States:Arrests:February 1993: El Chapo was first arrested in Guatemala and extradited to Mexico, where he faced charges related to drug trafficking. He was later transferred to a maximum-security prison in Mexico.January 2001: He managed to escape from the prison with the help of bribed prison guards, hiding in a laundry cart. Following his escape, he continued to lead the Sinaloa Cartel and expand its operations.February 2014: Mexican authorities captured El Chapo in Mazatlán, Mexico, after years of pursuit. This capture was a result of a joint operation by Mexican and U.S. law enforcement agencies.Extradition:January 2016: Guzmán was extradited to the United States to face charges related to drug trafficking, money laundering, and other criminal activities. His extradition came after a lengthy legal battle and diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico.January 2017: El Chapo was arraigned in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York, where he pleaded not guilty to a 17-count indictment.Trial:November 2018: The trial against El Chapo began in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The trial garnered significant media attention due to the high-profile nature of the case and the sensational details of Guzmán's alleged crimes.February 2019: After a three-month trial featuring testimonies from over 50 witnesses, including former associates and law enforcement officials, El Chapo was found guilty on all counts, including engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, drug trafficking, and firearms offenses.July 2019: Guzmán was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus an additional 30 years, and ordered to forfeit $12.6 billion. The sentence was handed down by Judge Brian Cogan in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York.Life in Prison: El Chapo is currently serving his sentence at the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility (ADX) in Florence, Colorado, often referred to as the "Supermax" prison, known for its strict conditions and high-security measures.El Chapo's arrest, extradition, and trial marked a significant victory for law enforcement agencies in their efforts to combat international drug trafficking and organized crime.(commercial at 8:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:chapo-us-resp.pdf (courthousenews.com)

Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán is one of the most notorious drug lords in history, known for his leadership of the Sinaloa Cartel, one of the most powerful drug trafficking organizations in the world. Here's a comprehensive summary of his arrest, extradition, and trial in the United States:Arrests:February 1993: El Chapo was first arrested in Guatemala and extradited to Mexico, where he faced charges related to drug trafficking. He was later transferred to a maximum-security prison in Mexico.January 2001: He managed to escape from the prison with the help of bribed prison guards, hiding in a laundry cart. Following his escape, he continued to lead the Sinaloa Cartel and expand its operations.February 2014: Mexican authorities captured El Chapo in Mazatlán, Mexico, after years of pursuit. This capture was a result of a joint operation by Mexican and U.S. law enforcement agencies.Extradition:January 2016: Guzmán was extradited to the United States to face charges related to drug trafficking, money laundering, and other criminal activities. His extradition came after a lengthy legal battle and diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico.January 2017: El Chapo was arraigned in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York, where he pleaded not guilty to a 17-count indictment.Trial:November 2018: The trial against El Chapo began in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The trial garnered significant media attention due to the high-profile nature of the case and the sensational details of Guzmán's alleged crimes.February 2019: After a three-month trial featuring testimonies from over 50 witnesses, including former associates and law enforcement officials, El Chapo was found guilty on all counts, including engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, drug trafficking, and firearms offenses.July 2019: Guzmán was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus an additional 30 years, and ordered to forfeit $12.6 billion. The sentence was handed down by Judge Brian Cogan in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York.Life in Prison: El Chapo is currently serving his sentence at the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility (ADX) in Florence, Colorado, often referred to as the "Supermax" prison, known for its strict conditions and high-security measures.El Chapo's arrest, extradition, and trial marked a significant victory for law enforcement agencies in their efforts to combat international drug trafficking and organized crime.(commercial at 8:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:chapo-us-resp.pdf (courthousenews.com)

A federal court heard arguments from Karen Read's defense team in a critical hearing Wednesday, as they pushed to dismiss two of the charges against her, citing double jeopardy. This was one of two hearings scheduled that day, and it could determine whether Read faces another trial for the 2022 death of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe. Read, 44, of Mansfield, is accused of striking O'Keefe with her SUV outside a home in Canton on January 29, 2022, then allegedly leaving him in a snowstorm after a night of drinking. The defense, however, has long maintained that she is the victim of a coverup and that O'Keefe's death was caused by others—potentially even law enforcement officers. For over 90 minutes, Chief Judge Dennis Saylor listened to arguments dissecting whether Judge Beverly Cannone properly declared a mistrial and whether she should have polled the jury before doing so. Read's attorneys claim they spoke to jurors after the trial, and those jurors confirmed they had reached a unanimous verdict: not guilty of second-degree murder, not guilty of leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death. If that's the case, the defense argues, retrying Read would be a blatant violation of her constitutional protection against double jeopardy. Defense attorney Martin Weinberg made the case clear: “We had a lengthy argument in front of the chief judge of the United States District Court on issues of profound constitutional significance. The question is whether or not the Norfolk District Attorney can reprosecute Ms. Read when there's such strong and compelling evidence that the prior jury acquitted her.” But the prosecution wasn't having it. Caleb Schillinger, representing the DA's office, countered that the jury never filled out verdict slips or sent any notes to Cannone indicating they had reached a partial verdict. His argument was simple: “There were no acquittals.” He pointed out that if the roles were reversed and the prosecution tried to argue the jury had found her guilty, Read's team would have objected just as strongly. Judge Saylor acknowledged the weight of the issue and promised to issue his opinion quickly, knowing that whoever loses will appeal. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking—the retrial is scheduled to begin on April 1. This federal hearing came hot on the heels of another major development. Just the day before, during a hearing in state court, Special Prosecutor Hank Brennan made a statement that raised eyebrows: The federal investigation into O'Keefe's death was officially closed. But outside the courtroom, Karen Read wasn't so sure. Speaking to reporters, she questioned whether the probe was actually over, referencing a letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office she received just a month earlier. “If I take him at his word, that would be a very dangerous endeavor of mine,” she said. “But I've seen a letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office from one month ago, and it said it was ongoing. It was a four-page, single-spaced letter.” The conflicting statements only add to the controversy surrounding the case, fueling speculation about the integrity of the investigation. If the probe was still active just weeks ago, what changed? And why the sudden declaration that it's over? Read's legal team isn't slowing down. They were right back in Norfolk Superior Court later that same day, continuing to fight through pretrial motions. Whether or not she faces trial again, one thing is certain—this case is far from over. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #TrueCrime #LegalDrama Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com 

A federal court heard arguments from Karen Read's defense team in a critical hearing Wednesday, as they pushed to dismiss two of the charges against her, citing double jeopardy. This was one of two hearings scheduled that day, and it could determine whether Read faces another trial for the 2022 death of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe. Read, 44, of Mansfield, is accused of striking O'Keefe with her SUV outside a home in Canton on January 29, 2022, then allegedly leaving him in a snowstorm after a night of drinking. The defense, however, has long maintained that she is the victim of a coverup and that O'Keefe's death was caused by others—potentially even law enforcement officers. For over 90 minutes, Chief Judge Dennis Saylor listened to arguments dissecting whether Judge Beverly Cannone properly declared a mistrial and whether she should have polled the jury before doing so. Read's attorneys claim they spoke to jurors after the trial, and those jurors confirmed they had reached a unanimous verdict: not guilty of second-degree murder, not guilty of leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death. If that's the case, the defense argues, retrying Read would be a blatant violation of her constitutional protection against double jeopardy. Defense attorney Martin Weinberg made the case clear: “We had a lengthy argument in front of the chief judge of the United States District Court on issues of profound constitutional significance. The question is whether or not the Norfolk District Attorney can reprosecute Ms. Read when there's such strong and compelling evidence that the prior jury acquitted her.” But the prosecution wasn't having it. Caleb Schillinger, representing the DA's office, countered that the jury never filled out verdict slips or sent any notes to Cannone indicating they had reached a partial verdict. His argument was simple: “There were no acquittals.” He pointed out that if the roles were reversed and the prosecution tried to argue the jury had found her guilty, Read's team would have objected just as strongly. Judge Saylor acknowledged the weight of the issue and promised to issue his opinion quickly, knowing that whoever loses will appeal. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking—the retrial is scheduled to begin on April 1. This federal hearing came hot on the heels of another major development. Just the day before, during a hearing in state court, Special Prosecutor Hank Brennan made a statement that raised eyebrows: The federal investigation into O'Keefe's death was officially closed. But outside the courtroom, Karen Read wasn't so sure. Speaking to reporters, she questioned whether the probe was actually over, referencing a letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office she received just a month earlier. “If I take him at his word, that would be a very dangerous endeavor of mine,” she said. “But I've seen a letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office from one month ago, and it said it was ongoing. It was a four-page, single-spaced letter.” The conflicting statements only add to the controversy surrounding the case, fueling speculation about the integrity of the investigation. If the probe was still active just weeks ago, what changed? And why the sudden declaration that it's over? Read's legal team isn't slowing down. They were right back in Norfolk Superior Court later that same day, continuing to fight through pretrial motions. Whether or not she faces trial again, one thing is certain—this case is far from over. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #TrueCrime #LegalDrama Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com 

Two-time Emmy and Three-time NAACP Image Award-winning, television Executive Producer Rushion McDonald interviewed Attorney S. Diane Clair. She is an Atlanta native who knows the city and metro counties very well. She received her Bachelor's degree from Georgia State University and her Juris Doctor degree from Florida A&M University College of Law. Diane Clair has courtroom and trial experience and is also great at negotiating resolutions outside the courtroom. She is admitted to practice law as a member of the Georgia Bar as well as the Georgia Court of Appeals, United States District Court of the Northern District of Georgia and Middle District of Georgia. Attorney Clair is also a Professor in the Paralegal Program for Kennesaw State University. We handle Real Estate Purchase Contracts, Residential and Commercial Closings, Landlord-Tenant matters, deed preparation, title searches, and HOA/COA law. If it's in the Real Estate legal field, we handle it. Have you prepared your estate? We can prepare your Will, Trust, or Power of Attorney. We can also prepare any deeds to manage your real property within your estate or place property in a Trust. Did you have a loved one pass without a Will? We can assist your family with filing a Petition for Letters of Administration to have a representative appointed to handle their estate. #BEST #STRAW #SHMSSupport the show: https://www.steveharveyfm.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Two-time Emmy and Three-time NAACP Image Award-winning, television Executive Producer Rushion McDonald interviewed Attorney S. Diane Clair. She is an Atlanta native who knows the city and metro counties very well. She received her Bachelor's degree from Georgia State University and her Juris Doctor degree from Florida A&M University College of Law. Diane Clair has courtroom and trial experience and is also great at negotiating resolutions outside the courtroom. She is admitted to practice law as a member of the Georgia Bar as well as the Georgia Court of Appeals, United States District Court of the Northern District of Georgia and Middle District of Georgia. Attorney Clair is also a Professor in the Paralegal Program for Kennesaw State University. We handle Real Estate Purchase Contracts, Residential and Commercial Closings, Landlord-Tenant matters, deed preparation, title searches, and HOA/COA law. If it's in the Real Estate legal field, we handle it. Have you prepared your estate? We can prepare your Will, Trust, or Power of Attorney. We can also prepare any deeds to manage your real property within your estate or place property in a Trust. Did you have a loved one pass without a Will? We can assist your family with filing a Petition for Letters of Administration to have a representative appointed to handle their estate. #BEST #STRAW #SHMSSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Two-time Emmy and Three-time NAACP Image Award-winning, television Executive Producer Rushion McDonald interviewed Attorney S. Diane Clair. She is an Atlanta native who knows the city and metro counties very well. She received her Bachelor's degree from Georgia State University and her Juris Doctor degree from Florida A&M University College of Law. Diane Clair has courtroom and trial experience and is also great at negotiating resolutions outside the courtroom. She is admitted to practice law as a member of the Georgia Bar as well as the Georgia Court of Appeals, United States District Court of the Northern District of Georgia and Middle District of Georgia. Attorney Clair is also a Professor in the Paralegal Program for Kennesaw State University. We handle Real Estate Purchase Contracts, Residential and Commercial Closings, Landlord-Tenant matters, deed preparation, title searches, and HOA/COA law. If it's in the Real Estate legal field, we handle it. Have you prepared your estate? We can prepare your Will, Trust, or Power of Attorney. We can also prepare any deeds to manage your real property within your estate or place property in a Trust. Did you have a loved one pass without a Will? We can assist your family with filing a Petition for Letters of Administration to have a representative appointed to handle their estate. #BEST #STRAW #SHMSSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.