Podcasts about United States district court

Every trial tells a story — but what happens when the storyteller becomes the judge? The honorable Judge Richard Franklin Boulware II speaks with Anora Wang and Jeny Maier on his remarkable journey from public defender to federal judge, lessons on persuasion, fairness, and the fine art of trial craft, and what it really means to keep score in the pursuit of justice. Along the way, we'll talk about competition on the field and in the courtroom, the evolving role of lawyers in upholding trust in the judiciary, and how the legal profession can help protect the judiciary from rising threats. With special guest: Judge Richard Franklin Boulware II, United States District Court for the District of Nevada Related Links: Le et al v. Zuffa, LLC, No. 2:2015cv01045 - Document 839 (D. Nev. 2023) Hosted by: Anora Wang, Arnold & Porter and Jeny Maier, Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

This is one in a series about possible futures, which will be published in Booch News over the coming weeks. Episode 7 appeared last week. New episodes drop every Friday. Overview Peer-to-peer flavor-sharing platforms enabled home brewers to distribute taste profiles as digital files. Blockchain-verified SCOBY genetics allowed anyone to recreate award-winning kombucha flavors. Traditional beverage companies lost control as open-source fermentation recipes spread globally. This episode follows teenage hacker Luna Reyes as she reverse-engineers Heineken’s proprietary “A-yeast” strain and the century-old master strain used for Budweiser, releasing them under Creative Commons license, triggering a flavor renaissance that made corporate beverages taste like cardboard by comparison. Luna Reyes: The Seventeen-Year-Old Who Liberated Flavor Luna Reyes was brewing kombucha in her Oakland garage when she changed the course of human history. The daughter of Mexican immigrants, she had learned fermentation from her grandmother while teaching herself bioinformatics through YouTube tutorials and volunteering at the Counter Culture Labs Maker Space on Shattuck Avenue. By fifteen, she was running the Bay Area’s most sophisticated home laboratory, utilizing jury-rigged DNA sequencers and microscopes constructed from smartphone cameras. Her breakthrough came in February 2043 while investigating why her kombucha never tasted quite like expensive craft varieties and was different again from her grandmother’s home brew. Using Crispr techniques learned from online forums, Luna began reverse-engineering the microbial genetics of premium alcoholic beverages. Her target wasn’t kombucha—it was the closely guarded yeast strains that gave corporate beers their distinctive flavors. Luna hunched over her microscope, examining bacterial cultures from her latest kombucha batch. Around her, salvaged DNA sequencers hummed, fermentation vessels bubbled, and computer screens displayed multi-hued patterns of genetic sequences. Her grandmother, Rosa, entered carrying a tray with three glasses of homemade kombucha. “Mija, you’ve been working for six hours straight. Drink something.” Luna accepted the glass without looking up. “Abuela, your kombucha tastes better than anything I can buy in stores and the ones I’ve experimented with. Why? I’m using the same base ingredients—tea, sugar, water—but mine never has this complexity.” Her grandmother laughed. “Because I’ve been feeding this SCOBY for forty years. It knows what to do. You can’t rush relationships.” Luna’s sister Maya, lounging against a workbench, waved her phone. “Luna, people have noticed your forum post about Health-Ade’s fermentation process. Someone says you’re wasting your time trying to replicate commercial kombuchas.” “I’m not trying to replicate them,” Luna said, finally looking up. “I’m trying to understand why their kombucha tastes different than that I make at home. It’s not the ingredients. It’s not the process. It’s the microbial genetics.” Rosa sat down beside her granddaughter. “When I was young in Oaxaca, every family had their own kombucha culture, passed down generation to generation. Each tasted different because the bacteria adapted to their environment, their ingredients, their care. We had a saying, Hay tantas fermentaciones en el mundo como estrellas en el cielo nocturno – there are as many ferments in the world as stars in the night sky. The big companies want every bottle to be identical. That kills what makes fermentation special.” “Exactly!” Luna pulled up genetic sequences on her screen. “I’ve been reverse-engineering samples from different commercial kombuchas. Health-Ade, GT’s, Brew Dr—they all have consistent microbial profiles.” The Great Heist: Cracking Corporate DNA Luna’s first major hack targeted Heineken’s legendary “A-yeast” strain, developed in 1886 by Dr. Hartog Elion—a student of renowned chemist Louis Pasteur—in the company’s Amsterdam laboratory and protected by over 150 years of trade secret law. Using samples obtained from discarded brewery waste (technically legal under the “garbage doctrine”), she spent six months mapping the strain’s complete genetic sequence in her makeshift lab. The breakthrough required extraordinary ingenuity. Luna couldn’t afford professional gene sequencers, so she modified a broken Illumina iSeq100 purchased on eBay for $200. Her sequencing runs took weeks rather than hours; her results were identical to those produced by million-dollar laboratory equipment. Her detailed laboratory notebooks, later published as The Garage Genomics Manifesto, became essential reading for the biotech hacker movement. The Budweiser project proved even more challenging. Anheuser-Busch’s century-old master strain had been protected by layers of corporate secrecy rivaling classified military programs. The company maintained multiple backup cultures in cryogenic facilities across three continents, never allowing complete genetic mapping by outside researchers. Luna’s success required infiltrating the company’s waste-disposal systems at four breweries, collecting samples over 18 months while evading corporate security. The Decision The night before Luna was scheduled to meet her fellow bio-hackers at Oakland’s Counter Culture Labs, she sat at her workstation, hesitant, wondering if she was doing the right thing. Her sister Maya came in, looking worried. “Luna, I found something you need to see,” she says. “Remember Marcus Park? He tried releasing proprietary yeast information in 2039. Heineken buried him. He lost everything. His daughter dropped out of college. His wife left him. He’s working at a gas station now.” Luna spent the night researching what happened to Park. She found that almost everyone who challenged corporate IP ended up on the losing side of the law. It was not pretty. In the morning, Abuela Rosa finds her crying in her room. “Mija, what’s wrong?” she asks. “Oh, Abuela,” Luna says between sobs. “What am I doing? What if I’m wrong? What if I destroy our family? What if this ruins Mom and Dad? What if I’m just being selfish?” “That’s the fear talking.” Her grandmother reassured her. “Fear is wisdom warning you to be careful. But fear can also be a cage.” That evening at the Counter Culture Labs, Luna assembled a small group of advisors. She needed their guidance. She had the completed genetic sequences for Heineken A-yeast and Budweiser’s master strain on her laptop, ready for release. But is this the time and place to release them to the world? Dr. Marcus Webb, a bioinformatics researcher in his forties and Luna’s mentor, examined her sequencing data. “This is solid work, Luna. Your jury-rigged equipment is crude. The results are accurate. You’ve fully mapped both strains.” “The question isn’t whether I can do it,” Luna said. “It’s whether I should let the world know I did it.” On screen, Cory Doctorow, the author and digital rights activist, leaned forward. “Let’s be clear about what you’re proposing. You’d be releasing genetic information that corporations have protected as trade secrets for over a century. They’ll argue you stole their intellectual property. You’ll face lawsuits, possibly criminal charges.” “Is it their property?” Luna challenged. “These are naturally occurring organisms. They didn’t create that yeast. Evolution did. They just happened to be there when it appeared. That does not make it theirs any more than finding a wildflower means they own the species. Can you really own something that existed before you found it?” Doctorow, the Electronic Frontier Foundation representative spoke up. “There’s legal precedent both ways. Diamond v. Chakrabarty established that genetically modified organisms can be patented. But naturally occurring genetic sequences? That’s murky. The companies will argue that their decades of cultivation and protection created protectable trade secrets.” “Trade secrets require keeping information secret,” Luna argued. “They throw this yeast away constantly. If they’re not protecting it, how can they claim trade secret status?” Dr. Webb cautioned, “Luna, even if you’re legally in the right—which is debatable—you’re seventeen years old. You’ll be fighting multinational corporations with unlimited legal resources. They’ll bury you in litigation for years.” “That’s where we come in,” Doctorow said. “The EFF can provide legal defense. Creative Commons can help structure the license. You need to understand: this will consume your life. College, career plans, normal teenage experiences—all on hold while you fight this battle.” Luna was quiet for a moment, then pulled up a photo on her laptop: her grandmother Rosa, teaching her to ferment at age seven. “My abuela says fermentation is about sharing and passing living cultures between generations. Corporations have turned it into intellectual property to be protected and controlled. If I can break that control—even a little—isn’t that worth fighting for?” Maya spoke up from the back. “Luna, I love you, but you’re being naive. They won’t just sue you. They’ll make an example of you. Your face on every news channel, portrayed as a thief, a criminal. Our family harassed. Your future destroyed. For what? So people can brew beer with the same yeast as Heineken?” “Not just beer,” Luna responded passionately. “This is about whether living organisms can be owned. Whether genetic information—the code of life itself—can be locked behind intellectual property law. Yes, it starts with beer yeast. But what about beneficial bacteria? Life-saving microorganisms? Medicine-producing fungi? Where does it end?” Dr. Webb nodded slowly. “She’s right. This is bigger than beer. As biotech advances, genetic control becomes power over life itself. Do we want corporations owning that?” Doctorow sighed. “If you do this, Luna, do it right. Release everything simultaneously—BitTorrent, WikiLeaks, Creative Commons servers, distributed networks worldwide. Make it impossible to contain. Include complete cultivation protocols so anyone can reproduce your results. Make the data so damn widely available that suppressing it becomes futile.” “And write a manifesto,” he added. “Explain why you’re doing this. Frame the issue. Make it about principles, not piracy.” Luna nodded, fingers already typing. “When should I release?” “Pick a date with symbolic meaning,” Dr. Webb suggested. “Make it an event, not just a data dump.” Luna smiled. “December 15. The Bill of Rights Day. Appropriate for declaring biological rights, don’t you think?” Maya groaned. “You’re really doing this, aren’t you?” “Yes. I’m really doing this.” The Creative Commons Liberation On Tuesday, December 15, 2043—a date now celebrated as “Open Flavor Day”—Luna released the genetic sequences on multiple open-source networks. Her manifesto, titled Your Grandmother’s Yeast Is Your Birthright, argued that microbial genetics belonged to humanity’s shared heritage rather than corporate shareholders. It stated: Commercial companies have protected yeast strains for over a century. They’ve used intellectual property law to control flavor itself. But genetic information isn’t like a recipe or a formula—it’s biological code that evolved over millions of years before humans ever cultivated it. These strains are protected as trade secrets—the bacteria don’t belong to anyone. They existed before Heineken, before Budweiser, before trademark law. The companies just happened to isolate and cultivate them. Her data packages included DNA sequences and complete protocols for cultivating, modifying, and improving the strains. Luna’s releases came with user-friendly software that allowed amateur brewers to simulate genetic modifications before attempting them in real fermentations. Within 24 hours, over ten thousand people worldwide downloaded the files. The Creative Commons community erupted in celebration. Cory Doctorow’s blog post, The Teenager Who Stole Christmas (From Corporate Beer), went viral within hours. The Electronic Frontier Foundation immediately offered Luna legal protection, while the Free Software Foundation created the “Luna Defense Fund” to support her anticipated legal battles. The Legal Assault Heineken’s response was swift. The company filed emergency injunctions in 12 countries simultaneously, seeking to prevent the distribution of its “stolen intellectual property.” Their legal team, led by former U.S. Attorney General William Barr III, demanded Luna’s immediate arrest for “economic terrorism” and “theft of trade secrets valued at over $50 billion.” Anheuser-Busch’s reaction was even more extreme. CEO Marcel Telles IV appeared on CNBC, calling Luna “a bioterrorist who threatens the foundation of American capitalism.” The company hired private investigators to surveil Luna’s family and offered a $10 million reward for information leading to her prosecution. Their legal filing compared Luna’s actions to “stealing the formula for Coca-Cola and publishing it in the New York Times.” In Heineken’s Amsterdam headquarters, executives convened an emergency meeting. “Who is Luna Reyes?” the CEO demanded. The legal counsel pulled up information. “She’s a seventeen-year-old high school student in Oakland, California. No criminal record. Volunteers at a maker space. Has been posting about fermentation on various forums for years.” “A child released our proprietary yeast strain to the world, and we didn’t know she was even working on this?” The CEO’s face reddened. “How do we contain it?” “We can’t. It’s distributed across thousands of servers in dozens of countries with different IP laws. We can sue Reyes, but the information is out there permanently.” An executive interjected, “What about the other breweries? Will they join our lawsuit?” “Some are considering it. Others…” The counsel paused. “Others are quietly downloading the sequences themselves. They see an opportunity to break our market dominance.” “She obtained samples from our waste disposal,” another executive explained. “Technically legal under the garbage doctrine. The sequencing itself isn’t illegal. The release under Creative Commons…” “Is theft!” the CEO shouted. “File emergency injunctions. Twelve countries. Get her arrested for economic terrorism.” Similar scenes played out at Anheuser-Busch headquarters in St. Louis. CEO Telles addressed his team: “This is bioterrorism. She’s destroyed intellectual property worth billions. I want her prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Hire private investigators. Find everything about her and her family. Make her life hell!” By noon, both companies had filed lawsuits. By evening, Fox News was running stories about the “teenage bioterrorist” who “stole American corporate secrets.” Back in Oakland, Luna’s phone rang constantly. Her parents discovered what she’d done. Her mother cried. Her father was furious and terrified. Friends called with either congratulations or warnings. She was convinced that private investigators were photographing their house. Maya suspected she was followed to work. On Wednesday morning, Dr. Webb calls: “Luna, they’re offering me $2 million to testify against you. They’re going after everyone in your network.” Luna has a sickening feeling that she’s put everyone at risk. By Thursday, she is considering taking it all back somehow, sending an apology to the corporations, anything to protect her family. Luna turned off her phone and sat with her grandmother. “It’s started,” Luna said quietly. “Sí, mija. You’ve declared war. Now we see if you can survive it.” Maya burst in, laptop in hand. “Luna, you need to see this. The downloads aren’t slowing—they’re accelerating. Every time Heineken or Budweiser shuts down a website, ten mirror sites appear. People are treating this like a digital freedom fight. You’ve become a symbol.” Luna pulled up her own screen. The #FreeLuna hashtag was trending. Crowdfunding campaigns for her legal defense had raised $400,000 in twelve hours. Academic institutions were publicly endorsing her release, calling it “essential scientific information.” “They’re trying to destroy you,” Maya said, “but they’re making you famous instead.” Rosa handed Luna a fresh kombucha. “This is what happens when you fight for what’s right, mija. Sometimes the world surprises you by supporting you.” Luna’s Fame The corporations’ attempts to suppress Luna’s releases had the opposite effect. Every cease-and-desist letter generated thousands of new downloads. The genetic data became impossible to contain once the academic community embraced Luna’s work. Dr. Jennifer Doudna, the legendary Crispr pioneer now in her eighties, publicly endorsed Luna’s releases in a Science magazine editorial: Ms. Reyes has liberated essential scientific information that corporations held hostage for commercial gain. Genetic sequences from naturally occurring organisms should not be locked behind intellectual property law. They belong to humanity’s knowledge commons. While corporations claim Luna stole trade secrets, I argue she freed biological knowledge that was never theirs to own. There are no trade secrets in biology—only knowledge temporarily hidden from the commons. This is civil disobedience of the highest order—breaking unjust laws to advance human freedom. Ms. Reyes didn’t steal; she liberated. MIT’s biology department invited Luna to lecture, while Harvard offered her a full scholarship despite her lack of a high school diploma. The legal battles consumed corporate resources while generating negative publicity. Heineken’s stock price dropped 34% as consumers organized boycotts in support of Luna’s “yeast liberation.” Beer sales plummeted as customers waited for home-brewed alternatives using Luna’s open-source genetics. The Flavor Renaissance Luna’s releases triggered an explosion of creativity that corporate R&D departments had never imagined. Within six months, amateur brewers worldwide were producing thousands of flavor variations impossible under corporate constraints. The open-source model enabled rapid iteration and global collaboration, rendering traditional brewing companies obsolete. The world was engaged. In some of the most unlikely places. In Evanston, Illinois, a group of former seminary students who discovered fermentation during a silent retreat, transformed Gregorian chants into microbial devotionals. Tenor Marcus Webb (Dr. Webb’s nephew) realized symbiosis mirrored vocal harmony—multiple voices creating something greater than their parts. “In honoring the mystery of fermentation we express our love of the Creator,” he said. Here's ‘Consortium Vocalis' honoring the mother SCOBY. [Chorus]Our SCOBYIs pureOur SCOBYIs strongOur SCOBYKnows no boundariesOur SCOBYStrengthens as it fermentsOur SCOBYIs bacteria and yeast Our SCOBYTurns sucrose into glucose and fructoseIt ferments these simple sugars into ethanol and carbon dioxide,Acetic acid bacteria oxidize much of that ethanol into organic acidsSuch as acetic, gluconic, and other acids.This steadily lowers the pHMaking the tea taste sour-tangy instead of purely sweet. [Chorus] Our SCOBYThen helps microbes produce acids, enzymes, and small amounts of B‑vitaminsWhile probiotics grow in the liquid.The pH falls to help inhibit unwanted microbesOur SCOBY creates a self-preserving, acidic environment in the tea [Chorus] In Kingston, Jamaica, Rastafarian’s combined an award-winning kombucha sequenced in Humboldt County, California, with locally grown ganja into a sacramental beverage to help open their mind to reasoning and focus on Jah. Once fermented, it was consumed over the course of a three-day Nyabinghi ceremony. “Luna Reyes is truly blessed. She strengthened our unity as a people, and our Rastafari’ booch help us chant down Babylon,” a Rasta man smiled, blowing smoke from a spliff the size of his arm. The Groundation Collective’s reggae anthem ‘Oh Luna’ joyfully celebrated Luna Reyes’ pioneering discovery. Oh Luna, Oh Luna, Oh Luna ReyesI love the sound of your nameYou so deserve your fame Luna, Luna, Oh Luna ReyesShining brightYou warm my heart Luna, Luna, Oh Luna ReyesYou cracked the codeTeenage prophet, fermentation queenSymbiosis roadA genius at seventeen Oh Luna, Luna, Luna ReyesBeautiful moonMakes me swoon Oh Luna, Luna, Luna ReyesFreedom to fermentYou are heaven sentTo save us Luna, Luna, Oh Luna ReyesYou opened the doorTo so much moreKombucha tastes so goodLike it should Oh Luna, Oh Luna, Oh LunaI love you, love you, love youOh Luna, Luna, LunaLove you, love you,Love Luna, Luna love. In São Paulo, Brazil, MAPA-certified Brazilian kombucha brands combined Heineken and cacao-fermenting yeasts with cupuaçu from indigenous Amazonian peoples, to create the chocolate-flavored ‘booch that won Gold at the 20th World Kombucha Awards. A cervejeiro explained to reporters: “Luna Reyes gave us the foundation. We added local innovation. This is what happens when you democratize biology.” The Brazilian singer Dandara Sereia covered ‘Our Fermented Future’—The Hollow Pines tune destined to become a hit at the 2053 Washington DC Fermentation Festival. Baby sit a little closer, sip some ‘booch with meI brewed this batch with the SCOBY my grandma gave to me.On the back porch swing at twilight, watching fireflies danceYour hand in mine, kombucha fine, the sweetest sweet romance. They say that wine and roses are the way to win the heartBut your kombucha warmed me right up from the start.Fermentation makes the heart grow fonder, truer words they ain’t been saidYour SCOBY’s got a place forever — in my heart, and in my bed. Let’s share our SCOBYs, baby, merge our ferments into oneLike cultures in a crock jar dancing, underneath the sun.The tang of your Lactobacillus is exactly what I’m missingYour Brettanomyces bacteria got this country girl reminiscing. Oh yeah, let’s share those SCOBYs, baby, merge our ferments into oneYour yeasts and my bacteria working till the magic’s doneYou’ve got the acetic acid honey, I’ve got the patience and the timeLet’s bubble up together, let our cultures intertwine. I’ve got that symbiotic feeling, something wild and something trueYour SCOBY’s in my heart, right there next to youThe way your Acetobacter turns sugar into goldIs how you turned my lonely life into a hand to hold. We’ve got the acetic acid and the glucuronic tooWe’ve got that symbiotic feeling, so righteous and so trueOne sip of your sweet ‘booch, Lord, and you had me from the start,It’s our fermented future, that no-one can tear apart. It’s our fermented future…It’s our fermented future…It’s our fermented future… “Luna Variants”—strains derived from her releases—began winning international brewing competitions, embarrassing corporate entries with their complexity and innovation. Traditional beer flavors seemed flat and artificial compared to the genetic symphonies created by collaborative open-source development. Despite the outpouring of positive vibes, the corporations spared no expense to hold Luna to account in the courts. The Preliminary Hearing A preliminary hearing was held in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 14, 2044. Luna sat at the defendant’s table, her hands folded so tightly her knuckles had gone white. She wore a borrowed blazer—too big in the shoulders—over a white button-down shirt Maya had ironed that morning. At seventeen, she looked even younger under the courtroom’s fluorescent lights. Across the aisle, Heineken’s legal team occupied three tables. Fifteen attorneys in matching navy suits shuffled documents and whispered into phones. Their lead counsel, William Barr III, wore gold cufflinks that caught the light when he gestured. Luna recognized him from the news—the former Attorney General, now commanding $2,000 an hour to destroy people like her. Her own legal representation consisted of two people: Rose Kennerson from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a public interest lawyer who’d flown in from DC on a red-eye, and Dr. Marcus Webb, technically a witness but sitting beside Luna because she’d asked him to. Behind them, the gallery was packed. Luna’s parents sat in the second row, her father’s face gray, her mother clutching a rosary. Maya had taken the day off work. Abuela Rosa sat in the front row directly behind Luna, her ancient SCOBY wrapped in silk in her lap, as if its presence might protect her granddaughter. Judge Catherine Ironwood entered—sixty-ish, steel-gray hair pulled back severely, known for pro-corporate rulings. She’d been a pharmaceutical industry lawyer for twenty years before her appointment. “All rise,” the bailiff called. Judge Ironwood settled into her chair and surveyed the courtroom with the expression of someone who’d already decided the outcome and resented having to perform the formalities. “We’re here for a preliminary injunction hearing in Heineken International B.V. versus Luna Marie Reyes.” She looked directly at Luna. “Ms. Reyes, you’re seventeen years old?” Luna stood, hesitant. “Yes, your honor.” “Where are your parents?” “Here, your honor.” Luna’s mother half-rose, then sat back down. “Ms. Kennerson, your client is a minor. Are the parents aware they could be held liable for damages?” Rose Kennerson stood smoothly. “Yes, your honor. The Reyes family has been fully advised of the legal implications.” Luna glanced back. Her father’s jaw was clenched so tight she could see the muscles working. He wouldn’t meet her eyes. “Very well. Mr. Barr, you may proceed.” Barr rose like a battleship emerging from fog—massive, expensive, inevitable. He buttoned his suit jacket and approached the bench without notes. “Your honor, this is the simplest case I’ve argued in thirty years. The defendant admits to obtaining my client’s proprietary biological materials. She admits to sequencing their genetic information. She admits to distributing that information globally, in deliberate violation of trade secret protections that have existed for over 150 years. She did this knowingly, systematically, and with the explicit intent to destroy my client’s competitive advantage.” Luna felt Sarah’s hand on her arm—stay calm. Barr continued. “Heineken International has invested over $200 million in the development, cultivation, and protection of the A-yeast strain. Then this teenager”—he pointed at Luna—”obtained samples from our waste disposal systems, reverse-engineered our genetic sequences, and released them to the world via BitTorrent, deliberately placing them beyond retrieval.” He paced now, warming to his theme. “The damage is incalculable. We estimate lost market value at $50 billion. But it’s not just about money. The defendant has destroyed the possibility of competition in the brewing industry. When everyone has access to the same genetic materials, there’s no innovation, no differentiation, no reason for consumers to choose one product over another. She has, in effect, communized an entire industry.” Luna couldn’t help herself. “That’s not—” Sarah grabbed her wrist. “Don’t.” Judge Ironwood’s eyes narrowed. “Ms. Reyes, you will have your opportunity to speak. Until then, you will remain silent, or I will have you removed from this courtroom. Do you understand?” “Yes, your honor.” Luna’s voice came out smaller than she intended. Barr smiled slightly. “Your honor, the relief we seek is straightforward. We ask this court to order the defendant to provide us with a complete list of all servers, websites, and distribution networks where the stolen genetic data currently resides. We ask that she be ordered to cooperate fully in suppressing the data. We ask that she be enjoined from any further distribution. And we ask that she be ordered to pay compensatory damages of $5 billion, plus punitive damages to be determined at trial.” He returned to his seat. One of his associate attorneys handed him a bottle of Pellegrino. He took a sip and waited. Judge Ironwood looked at Sarah. “Ms. Kennerson?” Sarah stood. She looked tiny compared to Barr—five-foot-three, maybe 110 pounds, wearing a suit from Target. But when she spoke, her voice filled the courtroom. “Your honor, Mr. Barr has given you a compelling story about a corporation that’s been wronged. But it’s not the right story. The right story is about whether naturally occurring organisms—creatures that evolved over millions of years, long before humans ever existed—can be owned by a corporation simply because that corporation happened to isolate them.” She walked toward the bench. “Let’s be clear about what the A-yeast strain is. It’s not a genetically modified organism. It’s not a patented invention. It’s a naturally occurring yeast. Heineken didn’t create it. Evolution created it. Heineken merely found it. And for 158 years, they’ve claimed that finding something gives them the right to prevent anyone else from studying it, understanding it, or using it.” Barr was on his feet. “Objection, your honor. This is a preliminary hearing about injunctive relief, not a philosophical debate about intellectual property theory.” “Sustained. Ms. Kennerson, please focus on the specific legal issues before this court.” “Your honor, the specific legal issue is whether naturally occurring genetic sequences constitute protectable trade secrets. My client contends they do not. She obtained the yeast samples from Heineken’s waste disposal—materials they had discarded. Under the garbage doctrine, she had every right to analyze those materials. The genetic sequences she discovered are factual information about naturally occurring organisms. You cannot trade-secret facts about nature.” Luna watched Judge Ironwood’s face. Nothing. No reaction. Sarah pressed on. “Mr. Barr claims my client ‘stole’ genetic information worth $5 billion. But information cannot be stolen—it can only be shared. When I tell you a fact, I don’t lose possession of that fact. We both have it. That’s how knowledge works. Heineken hasn’t lost their yeast. They still have it. They can still brew with it. What they’ve lost is their monopoly on that knowledge. And monopolies on facts about nature should never have existed in the first place.” “Your honor—” Barr tried to interrupt. Judge Ironwood waved him down. “Continue, Ms. Kennerson.” “Your honor, Heineken wants this court to order a seventeen-year-old girl to somehow suppress information that has already been distributed to over 100,000 people in 147 countries. That’s impossible. You can’t unring a bell. You can’t put knowledge back in a bottle. Even if this court ordered my client to provide a list of servers—which she shouldn’t have to do—that list would be incomplete within hours as new mirror sites appeared. The information is out. The only question is whether we punish my client for sharing factual information about naturally occurring organisms.” She turned to face Luna’s family. “Ms. Reyes taught herself bioinformatics from YouTube videos. She works at home with equipment she bought on eBay. She has no criminal record. She’s never been in trouble. She saw a question that interested her—why do commercial beers taste like they do?—and she pursued that question with the tools available to her. When she discovered the answer, she shared it with the world, under a Creative Commons license that specifically protects sharing for educational and scientific purposes. If that’s terrorism, your honor, then every scientist who’s ever published a research paper is a terrorist.” Sarah sat down. Luna wanted to hug her. Judge Ironwood leaned back. “Ms. Reyes, stand up.” Luna rose, her legs shaking. “Do you understand the seriousness of these proceedings?” “Yes, your honor.” “Do you understand that Heineken International is asking me to hold you in contempt of court if you refuse to help them suppress the information you released?” “Yes, your honor.” “Do you understand that contempt of court could result in your detention in a juvenile facility until you reach the age of eighteen, and potentially longer if the contempt continues?” Luna’s mother gasped audibly. Her father put his arm around her. “Yes, your honor,” Luna said, though her voice wavered. “Then let me ask you directly: If I order you to provide Heineken with a complete list of all locations where the genetic data you released currently resides, will you comply?” The courtroom went silent. Luna could hear her own heartbeat. Sarah started to stand—”Your honor, I advise my client not to answer—” “Sit down, Ms. Kennerson. I’m asking your client a direct question. She can choose to answer or not.” Judge Ironwood’s eyes never left Luna. “Well, Ms. Reyes? Will you comply with a court order to help Heineken suppress the information you released?” Luna looked at her parents. Her mother was crying silently. Her father’s face was stone. She looked at Abuela Rosa. Her grandmother nodded once—tell the truth. Luna looked back at the judge. “No, your honor.” Barr shot to his feet. “Your honor, the defendant has just admitted she intends to defy a court order—” “I heard her, Mr. Barr.” Judge Ironwood’s voice was ice. “Ms. Reyes, do you understand you’ve just told a federal judge you will refuse a direct order?” “Yes, your honor.” “And you’re still refusing?” “Yes, your honor.” “Why?” Sarah stood quickly. “Your honor, my client doesn’t have to explain—” “I want to hear it.” Judge Ironwood leaned forward. “Ms. Reyes, tell me why you would risk jail rather than help undo what you’ve done.” Luna took a breath. Her whole body was shaking, but her voice was steady. “Because it would be wrong, your honor.” “Wrong how?” “The genetic sequences I released evolved over millions of years. Heineken didn’t create that yeast. They isolated one strain and claimed ownership of it. The code of life belongs to everyone. That’s humanity’s heritage. Even if you send me to jail, I can’t help suppress the truth.” Judge Ironwood stared at her for a long moment. “That’s a very pretty speech, Ms. Reyes. But this court operates under the law, not your personal philosophy about what should or shouldn’t be owned. Trade secret law exists. Heineken’s rights exist. And you violated those rights.” Luna did not hesitate. “With respect, your honor, I don’t think those rights should exist.” Barr exploded. “Your honor, this is outrageous! The defendant is openly stating she believes she has the right to violate any law she disagrees with—” “That’s not what I said.” Luna’s fear was transforming into something else—something harder. “I’m saying that some laws are unjust. And when laws are unjust, civil disobedience becomes necessary. People broke unjust laws during the civil rights movement. People broke unjust laws when they helped slaves escape. The constitution says members of the military do not have to obey illegal orders, despite what those in power might claim. Sometimes the law is wrong. And when the law says corporations can own genetic information about naturally occurring organisms, the law is wrong.” Judge Ironwood’s face flushed. “Ms. Reyes, you are not Rosa Parks. This is not the civil rights movement. This is a case about intellectual property theft.” “It’s a case about whether life can be property, your honor.” “Enough.” Judge Ironwood slammed her gavel. “Ms. Kennerson, control your client.” Sarah pulled Luna back into her chair. “Luna, stop talking,” she hissed. Judge Ironwood shuffled papers, visibly trying to compose herself. “I’m taking a fifteen-minute recess to consider the injunction request. We’ll reconvene at 11:30. Ms. Reyes, I strongly suggest you use this time to reconsider your position.” The gavel fell again, and Judge Ironwood swept out. The hallway outside the courtroom erupted. Reporters swarmed. Luna’s father grabbed her arm and pulled her into a witness room. Her mother followed, still crying. Maya slipped in before Sarah closed the door. “What were you thinking?” Luna’s father’s voice shook. “You just told a federal judge you’ll defy her orders. They’re going to put you in jail, Luna. Do you understand that? Jail!” “Ricardo, please—” Her mother tried to calm him. “No, Elena. Our daughter just committed contempt of court in front of fifty witnesses. They’re going to take her from us.” He turned to Luna, his eyes wet. “Why? Why couldn’t you just apologize? Say you made a mistake? We could have ended this.” “Because I didn’t make a mistake, Papa.” “You destroyed their property!” “It wasn’t their property. It was never their property.” “The law says it was!” “Then the law is wrong!” Her father stepped back as if she’d slapped him. “Do you know what your mother and I have sacrificed to keep you out of trouble? Do you know how hard we’ve worked since we came to this country to give you opportunities we never had? And you throw it away for yeast. Not for justice. Not for people. For yeast.” Luna’s eyes filled with tears. “It’s not about yeast, Papa. It’s about whether corporations get to own life. If Heineken can own yeast, why not bacteria? Why not human genes? Where does it stop?” “It stops when my daughter goes to jail!” He was shouting now. “I don’t care about Heineken. I don’t care about yeast. I care about you. And you just told that judge you’ll defy her. She’s going to put you in jail, and there’s nothing I can do to stop it.” “Ricardo, por favor—” Elena put her hand on his arm. He shook it off. “No. She needs to hear this. Luna, if you go to jail, your life is over. No college will accept you. No company will hire you. You’ll have a criminal record. You’ll be marked forever. Is that what you want?” “I want to do what’s right.” “What’s right is protecting your family! What’s right is not destroying your future for a principle!” he said. Luna responded, “What’s right is not letting corporations own the code of life!”They stared at each other. Maya spoke up quietly from the corner. “Papa, she can’t back down now. The whole world is watching.” “Let the world watch someone else!” Ricardo turned on Maya. “You encourage this. You film her, you post her manifestos online, you help her become famous. You’re her sister. You’re supposed to protect her, not help her destroy herself.” “I am protecting her,” Maya said. “I’m protecting her from becoming someone who backs down when the world tells her she’s wrong, even though she knows she’s right.” Ricardo looked between his daughters. “Ambos están locos! You’re both insane.” Abuela Rosa opened the door and entered. She’d been listening from the hallway. “Ricardo, enough.” “Mama, stay out of this.” “No.” Rosa moved between Ricardo and Luna. “You’re afraid. I understand. But fear makes you cruel, mijo. Your daughter is brave. She’s doing something important. And you’re making her choose between you and what’s right. Don’t do that.” “She’s seventeen years old! She’s a child!” “She’s old enough to know right from wrong.” Rosa put her hand on Ricardo’s cheek. “When I was sixteen, I left Oaxaca with nothing but the clothes on my back and this SCOBY. Everyone said I was crazy. Your father said I would fail. But I knew I had to go, even if it cost me everything. Sometimes our children have to do things that terrify us. That’s how the world changes.” Ricardo pulled away. “If they put her in jail, will that change the world, Mama? When she’s sitting in a cell while Heineken continues doing whatever they want, will that have been worth it?” “Yes,” Luna said quietly. “Even if I go to jail, yes. Because thousands of people now have the genetic sequences, Heineken can’t put that back. They can punish me, but they can’t undo what I did. The information is free. It’s going to stay free. And if the price of that is me going to jail, then that’s the price.” Her father looked at her as if seeing her for the first time. “I don’t know who you are anymore.” “I’m still your daughter, Papa. I’m just also someone who won’t let corporations own life.” A knock on the door. Sarah poked her head in. “They’re reconvening. Luna, we need to go.” Back in the courtroom, the atmosphere had shifted. The gallery was more crowded—word had spread during the recess. Luna recognized several people from online forums. Some held signs reading “FREE LUNA” and “GENETICS BELONG TO EVERYONE.” Judge Ironwood entered and sat without ceremony. “I’ve reviewed the submissions and heard the arguments. This is my ruling.” Luna’s hand found Maya’s in the row behind her. Squeezed tight. “The question before this court is whether to grant Heineken International’s motion for a preliminary injunction requiring Ms. Reyes to assist in suppressing the genetic information she released. To grant such an injunction, Heineken must demonstrate four things: likelihood of success on the merits, likelihood of irreparable harm without the injunction, balance of equities in their favor, and that an injunction serves the public interest.” Barr was nodding. These were his arguments. “Having considered the evidence and the applicable law, I find that Heineken has demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits. Trade secret law clearly protects proprietary business information, and the A-yeast strain appears to meet the legal definition of a trade secret.” Luna’s stomach dropped. “However, I also find that Heineken has failed to demonstrate that a preliminary injunction would effectively prevent the irreparable harm they claim. Ms. Kennerson is correct that the genetic information has already been distributed to over 100,000 people worldwide. Ordering one teenager to provide a list of servers would be, in technical terms, pointless. New copies would appear faster than they could be suppressed.” Barr’s face tightened. “Furthermore, I find that the balance of equities does not favor Heineken. They ask this court to potentially incarcerate a seventeen-year-old girl for refusing to suppress information that is, by her account, factual data about naturally occurring organisms. The potential harm to Ms. Reyes—including detention, criminal record, and foreclosure of educational and career opportunities—substantially outweighs any additional harm Heineken might suffer from continued distribution of information that is already widely distributed.” Luna felt Maya’s grip tighten. Was this good? This sounded good. “Finally, and most importantly, I find that granting this injunction would not serve the public interest. The court takes judicial notice that this case has generated substantial public debate about the scope of intellectual property protection in biotechnology. The questions raised by Ms. Reyes—whether naturally occurring genetic sequences should be ownable, whether facts about nature can be trade secrets, whether knowledge can be property—are questions that deserve answers from a higher authority than this court. These are questions for appellate courts, perhaps ultimately for the Supreme Court. And they are questions best answered in the context of a full trial on the merits, not in an emergency injunction hearing.” Barr was on his feet. “Your honor—” “Sit down, Mr. Barr. I’m not finished.” He sat, his face purple. “Therefore, Heineken International’s motion for preliminary injunction is denied. Ms. Reyes will not be required to assist in suppressing the genetic information she released. However,”—Judge Ironwood looked directly at Luna—”this ruling should not be construed as approval of Ms. Reyes’ actions. Heineken’s claims for damages and other relief remain viable and will proceed to trial. Ms. Reyes, you may have won this battle, but this war is far from over. Anything you want to say?” Luna stood slowly. “Your honor, I just want to say… thank you. For letting this go to trial. For letting these questions be answered properly. That’s all I ever wanted—for someone to seriously consider whether corporations should be allowed to own genetic information about naturally occurring organisms. So thank you.” Judge Ironwood’s expression softened slightly. “Ms. Reyes, I hope you’re prepared for what comes next. Heineken has unlimited resources. They will pursue this case for years if necessary. You’ll be in litigation until you’re twenty-five years old. Your entire young adulthood will be consumed by depositions, court appearances, and legal fees. Are you prepared for that?” “Yes, your honor.” “Why?” Luna glanced at her grandmother, who nodded. “Because some questions are worth answering, your honor. Even if it takes years. Even if it costs everything. The question of whether corporations can own life—that’s worth answering. And if I have to spend my twenties answering it, then that’s what I’ll do.” Judge Ironwood studied her for a long moment. “You remind me of someone I used to know. Someone who believed the law should serve justice, not just power.” She paused. “That person doesn’t exist anymore. The law ground her down. I hope it doesn’t do the same to you.” She raised her gavel. “This hearing is adjourned. The parties will be notified of the trial date once it’s scheduled. Ms. Reyes, good luck. I think you’re going to need it.” The gavel fell. Outside the courthouse, the scene was chaotic. News cameras surrounded Luna. Reporters shouted questions. But Luna barely heard them. She was looking at her father, who stood apart from the crowd, watching her. She walked over to him. “Papa, I’m sorry I yelled.” He didn’t speak for a moment. Then he pulled her into a hug so tight it hurt. “Don’t apologize for being brave,” he whispered into her hair. “I’m just afraid of losing you.” “You won’t lose me, Papa. I promise.” “You can’t promise that. Not anymore.” He pulled back, holding her shoulders. “But I’m proud of you. I’m terrified, but I’m proud.” Her mother joined them, tears streaming down her face. “No more court. Please, no more court.” “I can’t promise that either, Mama.” Elena touched Luna’s face. “Then promise me you’ll be careful. Promise me you’ll remember that you’re not just fighting for genetics. You’re fighting for your life.” Luna smiled. “I promise.” Abuela Rosa appeared, carrying her SCOBY. “Come, mija. We should go before the reporters follow us home.” As they pushed through the crowd toward Maya’s car, Luna's phone buzzed continuously. Text messages and emails pouring in. But what caught her attention was a text from Dr. Webb: You were right. I’m sorry I doubted. Check your email—Dr. Doudna wants to talk. Luna opened her email. The subject line made her stop walking: From: jennifer.doudna@berkeley.eduSubject: Civil Disobedience of the Highest Order She started to read: Dear Ms. Reyes, I watched your hearing this morning. What you did in that courtroom—refusing to back down even when threatened with jail—was one of the bravest things I’ve seen in forty years of science. You’re not just fighting for yeast genetics. You’re fighting for the principle that knowledge about nature belongs to humanity, not to corporations. I want to help… Luna looked up at her family—her father’s worried face, her mother’s tears, Maya’s proud smile, Abuela Rosa’s serene confidence. Behind them, the courthouse where she’d nearly been sent to jail. Around them, reporters and cameras and strangers who’d traveled across the country to support her. She thought about Judge Ironwood’s warning: This war is far from over. She thought about Barr’s face when the injunction was denied. She thought about the thousands who’d downloaded the genetic sequences and were, right now, brewing with genetics that had been locked away for 158 years. Worth it. All of it. Even the fear. Maya opened the car door. “Come on, little revolutionary. Let’s go home.” The Corporate Surrender By 2045, both Heineken and Anheuser-Busch quietly dropped their lawsuits against Luna. Their legal costs had exceeded $200 million while accomplishing nothing except generating bad publicity. More importantly, their “protected” strains had become worthless in a market flooded with superior alternatives. Heineken’s CEO attempted to salvage the company by embracing open-source brewing. His announcement that Heineken would “join the La Luna Revolution” was met with skepticism from the brewing community, which recalled the company’s aggressive legal tactics. The craft brewing community’s response was hostile. “They spent two years trying to destroy her,” a prominent brewmaster told The New Brewer Magazine. “Now they want credit for ’embracing’ the revolution she forced on them? Heineken didn’t join the Luna Revolution—they surrendered to it. There’s a difference.” The global brands never recovered their market share. Luna’s Transformation Luna’s success transformed her from a garage tinkerer into a global icon of the open knowledge movement. Her 2046 TED Talk, “Why Flavor Belongs to Everyone,” went viral. She argued that corporate control over living organisms represented “biological colonialism” that impoverished human culture by restricting natural diversity. Rather than commercializing her fame, Luna founded the Global Fermentation Commons, a nonprofit organization dedicated to preserving and sharing microbial genetics worldwide. Their laboratories operated as open-access research facilities where anyone could experiment with biological systems. The headquarters of the Global Fermentation Commons occupied a former Genentech facility donated by Dr. Webb. Six continents, forty researchers, one mission: preserve and share microbial genetics worldwide. Luna addressed a crowded auditorium at the organization’s third anniversary. “When I released Heineken and Budweiser’s yeast strains, some people called it theft. Others called it liberation. I called it returning biological knowledge to the commons, where it belongs. Three years later, so-called Luna Variants have created economic opportunities for thousands of small brewers, improved food security in developing regions, and demonstrated that genetic freedom drives innovation faster than corporate control.” She continued. “We’re not stopping with beer. The same principles apply to all fermentation: cheese cultures, yogurt bacteria, koji fungi, sourdough starters. Every traditionally fermented food relies on microorganisms that corporations increasingly claim to own. We’re systematically liberating them.” A World Health Organization representative raised a concern: “Ms. Reyes, while we support democratizing food fermentation, there are legitimate concerns about pharmaceutical applications. What prevents someone from using your open-source genetics to create dangerous organisms?” Luna nodded. “Fair question. First, the organisms we release are food-safe cultures with centuries of safe use. Second, dangerous genetic modifications require sophisticated laboratory equipment and expertise—far beyond what releasing genetic sequences enables. Third, determined bad actors already have access to dangerous biology, enabled by AI. We’re not creating new risks; we’re democratizing beneficial biology.” “Pharmaceutical companies argue you’re undermining their investments in beneficial organisms,” another representative pressed. “Pharmaceutical companies invest in modifying organisms,” Luna clarified. “Those modifications can be patented. What we oppose is claiming ownership over naturally occurring organisms or their baseline genetics. If you genetically engineer a bacterium to produce insulin, patent your engineering. Don’t claim ownership over the bacterial species itself.” A Monsanto representative stood. “Your organization recently cracked and released our proprietary seed genetics. That’s direct theft of our property.” Luna didn’t flinch. “Seeds that farmers cultivated for thousands of years before Monsanto existed? You didn’t invent corn, wheat, or soybeans. You modified them. Your modifications may be protectable; the baseline genetics are humanity’s heritage. We’re liberating what should never have been owned.” “The ‘Luna Legion’ has cost us hundreds of millions!” the representative protested. “Good,” Luna responded calmly. “You’ve cost farmers their sovereignty for decades. Consider it karma.” After the presentation, Dr. Doudna approached Luna privately. “You’ve accomplished something remarkable,” the elderly scientist said. “When I developed Crispr, I never imagined a teenager would use similar principles to challenge corporate biology. You’re forcing conversations about genetic ownership that we’ve avoided for decades.” “It needed forcing,” Luna replied. “Corporations were quietly owning life itself, one patent at a time. Someone had to say no.” “The pharmaceutical industry is terrified of you,” Doudna continued. “They see what happened to brewing and imagine the same for their carefully controlled bacterial strains. You’re going to face even more aggressive opposition.” “I know. Once people understand that biological knowledge can be liberated, they start questioning all biological ownership. We’re not stopping.” The New Economy of Taste Following Luna’s breakthrough, peer-to-peer flavor-sharing platforms emerged as the dominant force in food culture. The “FlavorChain” blockchain allowed brewers to track genetic lineages while ensuring proper attribution to original creators. SCOBY lineages were carefully sequenced, catalogued, and registered on global blockchain ledgers. Each award-winning kombucha strain carried a “genetic passport”—its microbial makeup, the unique balance of yeasts and bacteria that gave rise to particular mouthfeel, fizz, and flavor spectrum, was mapped, hashed, and permanently recorded. Brewers who created a new flavor could claim authorship, just as musicians once copyrighted songs. No matter how many times a SCOBY was divided, its fingerprint could be verified. Fermentation Guilds formed to share recipes through FlavorChain, enabling decentralized digital markets like SymbioTrdr, built on trust and transparency rather than speculation. They allowed people to interact and transact on a global, permissionless, self-executing platform. Within days, a SCOBY strain from the Himalayas could appear in a brew in Buenos Aires, its journey traced through open ledgers showing who tended, adapted, and shared it. Kombucha recipes were no longer jealously guarded secrets. They were open to anyone who wanted to brew. With a few clicks, a Guild member in Nairobi could download the blockchain-verified SCOBY genome that had won Gold at the Tokyo Fermentation Festival. Local biotech printers—as common in 2100 kitchens as microwave ovens had once been—could reconstitute the living culture cell by cell. Children began inheriting SCOBY lineages the way earlier generations inherited family names. Weddings combined SCOBY cultures as symbolic unions. (Let’s share our SCOBYs, baby, merge our ferments into one.) When someone died, their SCOBY was divided among friends and family—a continuation of essence through taste. Kombucha was no longer merely consumed; it was communed with. This transparency transformed kombucha from a minority regional curiosity into a universal language. A festival in Brazil might feature ten local interpretations of the same “Golden SCOBY” strain—one brewed with passionfruit, another with cupuaçu, a third with açaí berries. The core microbial signature remained intact, while the terroir of fruit and spice gave each version a unique accent. Brewers didn’t lose their craft—they gained a canvas. Award-winning SCOBYs were the foundations on which endless new flavor experiments flourished. Many people were now as prolific as William Esslinger, the founder of St Louis’s Confluence Kombucha, who was renowned for developing 800 flavors in the 2020s. Code of Symbiosis The Symbiosis Code, ratified at the first World Fermentation Gathering in Reykjavik (2063), bound Fermentation Guilds to three principles: Transparency — All microbial knowledge is to be shared freely. Reciprocity — No brew should be produced without acknowledging the source. Community — Every fermentation must nourish more than the brewer. This code replaced corporate law. It was enforced by reputation, not by governments. A Guild member who betrayed the code found their SCOBYs mysteriously refusing to thrive—a poetic justice the biologists never quite explained. Every Guild had elders—called Mothers of the Jar or Keepers of the Yeast. They carried living SCOBYs wrapped in silk pouches when traveling, exchanging fragments as blessings. These elders became moral anchors of the age, counselors and mediators trusted more than politicians. When disputes arose—over territory, resources, or ethics—brewers, not lawyers, met to share a round of Truth Brew, a ferment so balanced that it was said to reveal dishonesty through bitterness. The Fullness of Time The International Biotech Conference of 2052 invited Luna to give the closing keynote—a controversial decision that prompted several corporate sponsors to withdraw support. The auditorium was packed with supporters, critics, and the merely curious. “Nine years ago, I released genetic sequences for beer yeast strains protected as trade secrets. I was called a thief, a bioterrorist, worse. Today, I want to discuss what we’ve learned from those years of open-source biology.” She displayed a chart showing the explosion of brewing innovation since 2043. “In the traditional corporate model, a few companies control a few strains, producing a limited variety. With the open-source model, thousands of brewers using thousands of variants, producing infinite diversity. As Duff McDonald wrote “Anything that alive contains the universe, or infinite possibility. Kombucha is infinite possibility in a drink.” And the results speak for themselves—flavor innovation accelerated a thousand-fold when we removed corporate control.” A student activist approached the microphone. “Ms. Reyes, you’ve inspired movements to liberate seed genetics, soil bacteria, and traditional medicine cultures. The ‘Luna Legion’ is spreading globally. What’s your message to young people who want to continue this work?” Luna smiled. “First, understand the risks. I was sued by multinational corporations, received death threats, spent years fighting legal battles. This work has costs. Second, be strategic. Release information you’ve generated yourself through legal methods—no hacking, no theft. Third, build communities. I survived because people supported me—legally, financially, emotionally. You can’t fight corporations alone. Finally, remember why you’re doing it: to return biological knowledge to the commons where it belongs. That purpose will sustain you through the hard parts.” Teaching By twenty-eight, Luna was a MacArthur Fellow, teaching fermentation workshops in a converted Anheuser-Busch facility. As she watched her students—former corporate employees learning to think like ecosystems rather than factories—she reflected that her teenage hack had accomplished more than liberating yeast genetics. She had helped humanity remember that flavor, like knowledge, grows stronger when shared rather than hoarded. Luna’s garage had evolved into a sophisticated community biolab. The original jury-rigged equipment had been replaced with professional gear funded by her MacArthur Fellowship. Abuela Rosa still maintained her fermentation crocks in the corner—a reminder of where everything started. A group of five

Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California joins host Renée Rothauge to reflect on how his civil rights-era upbringing in Mississippi, his clerkship for U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas – where he contributed to Roe v. Wade and Sierra Club v. Morton – and his experiences as a trial attorney all shaped his judicial philosophy. He discusses his transition from private practice to the federal bench, his belief in the jury trial, and his enduring respect for the United States District Court. Alsup also shares insights from his novel The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald and his memoir Won Over, revealing a lifetime devoted to fairness, truth, and the pursuit of justice.

It's late October 2025, and I'm sitting here at my desk, sorting through yet another thick stack of court filings, headlines, and political tweets—the most newsworthy legal battles in the country right now center on Donald Trump, and trust me, if you've been listening to the news these past few days, you already know it's a lot. Let me bring you up to speed.We start with the Supreme Court. Right now, Trump finds himself as the lead petitioner in a consolidated case on the docket as Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al., v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., et al., No. 25-250. This case, originally heard in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, was docketed by the Supreme Court on September 4, 2025. The Justices granted certiorari and set the case for oral arguments in the first week of November, with argument specifically scheduled for Wednesday, November 5, 2025. One hour is allotted for oral argument, and the docket is loaded with amicus briefs from groups like Advancing American Freedom, Washington State Amici, and We Pay the Tariffs.But the Supreme Court case is just one thread of a much larger web. Out west, in Portland, Oregon, things have reached a fever pitch. The State of Oregon and the City of Portland sued President Trump, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, and the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, in the United States District Court. The case, 3:25-cv-01756-IM, centers on the federal government's deployment of National Guard troops to Portland—over the objection of Oregon Governor Tina Kotek. According to the court opinion, on September 27, 2025, Trump posted on Truth Social, directly ordering Hegseth to provide troops to protect Portland from what he called Antifa and other domestic terrorists, authorizing “full force, if necessary.” By the next day, Secretary Hegseth federalized 200 members of the Oregon National Guard.The reaction was immediate. The plaintiffs filed for a temporary restraining order on September 28, arguing that the President's actions violated federal law, including the Posse Comitatus Act and 10 U.S.C. § 12406, and trampled on Oregon's sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. Governor Kotek pushed back hard, insisting that Portland had not seen the kind of violent, sustained protests Trump described for months—local law enforcement had handled earlier summer disruptions, and by late September, protests outside key locations like the ICE facility were small and uneventful. Trump, however, doubled down in a Truth Social post on October 1, saying that conditions in Portland were deteriorating, “lawless mayhem” was taking hold, and that the National Guard was needed to restore order.While this Oregon drama unfolds, there's another story developing behind closed doors. The Lawfare Litigation Tracker notes that a coalition of states is suing the Trump administration over the suspension of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for November 2025. This case hasn't hit the headlines as hard, but for thousands of families, it's a life-or-death matter—another legal flashpoint in an increasingly litigious era.Now, by the time you hear this, today is October 29, 2025, and the Supreme Court's reply brief is due tomorrow, October 30. The nation is waiting—and not just on the legal questions. The constitutional balance between federal and state power is being tested, and the President's use of the military at home is under a microscope. Legal scholars from Trade Scholars in Economics, Politics, and Law—alongside former U.S. Trade Representative Carla Anderson Hills and former WTO Deputy Director-General Alan William Wolff—have filed briefs that may influence the Justices' thinking. And for everyday listeners, there's a nervous feeling in the air, a sense that all it takes is one more Tweet or court order to send everything spiraling.Let me close by saying thanks for tuning in. No matter where you stand on these issues, we're all trying to make sense of the storm, and stories like these define the moment. Come back next week for more—until then, this has been a Quiet Please production. For more on the week's biggest stories, visit Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Sean Combs, the music icon known as Puffy or P Diddy, has captured headlines throughout 2025 following his highly publicized federal criminal trial in New York. Listeners, the latest breaking news centers on the sentencing that took place just days ago, on October 3rd, 2025. The United States District Court found Combs guilty on two counts of transporting people for prostitution under the Mann Act, after acquitting him of racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking charges. The verdict followed months of intense proceedings, culminating in Judge Arun Subramanian sentencing Combs to four years and two months in federal prison, with an added five years of supervised release. The court also fined Combs $500,000.Federal prosecutors had sought a much harsher sentence, hoping for over eleven years, while Combs's defense advocated for time served and release. Notably, Combs taught a course in business called “Free Game with Diddy” while incarcerated, which reportedly became very popular. Plans were underway to expand this program, partnering with nonprofit organizations to help people re-enter society and avoid repeat offenses, drawing on Combs's own experiences and lessons learned during his time inside, according to Essence.The trial and sentencing mark the latest chapter in a turbulent period that began with multiple lawsuits and allegations of sexual misconduct. Starting in late 2023, Combs faced lawsuits from former partner Cassie Ventura and several other plaintiffs, citing sexual assault, battery, and abuse going back decades. By March 2024, Homeland Security agents raided Combs's homes in Los Angeles, Miami, and New York, seizing electronics, narcotics, and weapons during their investigation. The indictment in September 2024 included racketeering, sex trafficking, and prostitution charges. Bail requests were repeatedly denied amid concerns about witness intimidation.In addition to the recent legal battles, Combs's legacy as a business mogul and entertainer remains in the spotlight. His ventures in music, fashion, and beverages—such as his lucrative partnership with Diageo for Cîroc vodka—have helped him amass an estimated net worth of $1 billion, according to reports from FandomWire and Celebrity Net Worth. He once held the number one spot on Forbes' hip-hop rich list and remains one of the genre's most influential figures.Combs's attorneys have recently requested that the music mogul serve his prison sentence at a low-security federal facility in New Jersey. Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump claims that Diddy approached him for a pardon, though the details of this appeal remain unclear, as reported by FOX 5 New York.Listeners, these developments surrounding Sean Combs are still unfolding, and his story continues to captivate not only the world of entertainment, but also broader conversations about power and accountability.Thank you for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

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  

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.

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.

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-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.

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.

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.