Podcasts about ussc

4:10 PM - Focus on the Family a ‘hate group’? SPLC's designation is ‘dangerous and reckless,’ ministry says. Guest: Glenn T. Stanton is the director of Global Family Formation Studies at Focus on the Family. He debates and lectures extensively on the issues of gender, sexuality, marriage and parenting at universities and churches around the world. Stanton also served the George W. Bush administration for many years as a consultant on increasing fatherhood involvement in the Head Start program. Stanton is the author of nine books and is senior contributor to the Federalist blog. His latest book is “The Myth of the Dying Church: How Christianity is Actually Thriving in America and the World.” 5:35 PM – Kathy has been doing a lot of reading on one of the most mysterious parts of the Constitution, the Ninth Amendment. It tells us that we have rights in addition to those in the first 8 Amendments, but it does not say what they are, where or how they may be found, or if it is the job of the USSC to find them. It’s a mess.… GUEST Prof Bruce Antkowiak … law professor at Saint Vincent College … (received his law degree from Harvard magna cum laude, served as federal prosecutor, criminal defense attorney, and prof of law at Duquesne Law School, where he received the Excellence in Teaching Award from the grad class in both 2011 and 2007, and was named Duquesne Law School’s 2007 Teacher of the Year by the Association of American Law Schools … author of two major works on criminal law and has published 11 law review articles in various journals across the country)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

4:10 PM - Focus on the Family a ‘hate group’? SPLC's designation is ‘dangerous and reckless,’ ministry says. Guest: Glenn T. Stanton is the director of Global Family Formation Studies at Focus on the Family. He debates and lectures extensively on the issues of gender, sexuality, marriage and parenting at universities and churches around the world. Stanton also served the George W. Bush administration for many years as a consultant on increasing fatherhood involvement in the Head Start program. Stanton is the author of nine books and is senior contributor to the Federalist blog. His latest book is “The Myth of the Dying Church: How Christianity is Actually Thriving in America and the World.” 5:35 PM – Kathy has been doing a lot of reading on one of the most mysterious parts of the Constitution, the Ninth Amendment. It tells us that we have rights in addition to those in the first 8 Amendments, but it does not say what they are, where or how they may be found, or if it is the job of the USSC to find them. It’s a mess.… GUEST Prof Bruce Antkowiak … law professor at Saint Vincent College … (received his law degree from Harvard magna cum laude, served as federal prosecutor, criminal defense attorney, and prof of law at Duquesne Law School, where he received the Excellence in Teaching Award from the grad class in both 2011 and 2007, and was named Duquesne Law School’s 2007 Teacher of the Year by the Association of American Law Schools … author of two major works on criminal law and has published 11 law review articles in various journals across the country)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There's a lot going on in The America. You may have noticed. So as the summer series grinds on — way behind schedule — we're joined by Associate Professor David Smith from the United States Study Centre.In this episode we talk, obviously, about the powers of POTUS and his Yalta 2.0 imperialist desires to annex Canada. And Greenland. And Mexico. We discuss how the new Trumpian America might affect Australia's favourite government program, AUKUS. And inevitably, we talk about Trump's weird relationship with Elon Musk.Full podcast details and credits at:https://the9pmedict.com/edict/00244/Please consider supporting this podcast with your cash-type money:https://the9pmedict.com/tip/https://skank.com.au/subscribe/

Susan Wall is a living historian who can often be found doing her thing at the George Spangler Farm. If you haven't gone out there yet, make sure you do as soon as you get the chance. The farm was carefully and truthfully restored to its 1863 appearance through diligent research by the Gettysburg Foundation and is well worth your time. In this episode, Susan tells us what the USSC did to assist the troops while here in Gettysburg.   Oh boy! There are hundreds of episodes on our Patreon page and they feature historians from all over the Civil War field, Licensed Battlefield Guides and more! If you're thinking you can go without these episodes before taking the guide exam, you might kick yourself come January. That's why 6 out 10 botonists agree that being a 1st or 2nd Lieutenant on Patreon is a game changer for anyone who wants to really understand the battle and the war. So join us at www.patreon.com/addressinggettysburg.com

The Iowa caucuses on 15 January were the first test of whether any GOP challengers can make a dent on former president Trump's dominating lead in the Republican race to be the presidential nominee. From February, the primary races will accelerate in the lead up to a climactic Super Tuesday set to occur around the same time as some of the pending Trump trials. In the midst of this, President Biden will deliver possibly his final State of the Union address, making a direct appeal to the American people about his accomplishments and vision for the future.Can President Biden cut through the noise around the Trump campaign? Do any GOP challengers have a shot at dethroning Trump? What should we expect in the lead up to Super Tuesday?To discuss these issues, USSC hosted a panel discussion with US politics USSC experts Associate Professor in American Politics and Foreign Policy David Smith, Director of Research Jared Mondschein and Research Editor Victoria Cooper who provided a readout on the Iowa caucus results and what it portends for the year ahead.

The Albanese and Biden governments are united in positing that climate change poses an existential threat and are modernising their alliance relationship to tackle it. Major efforts are underway to boost renewable technology innovation, harness critical minerals and bolster domestic manufacturing to accelerate the clean energy transition. Yet significant hurdles remain to realising bilateral climate ambitions.Australia and the United States must navigate the simultaneous challenges of decarbonising, building their domestic industrial bases, supporting the energy transition across their region, and competing with China for new sectors.Are Australia and the United States competing when it comes to the clean energy transition? What has Australia-US climate cooperation promised and can it deliver? How can Australia and the United States balance their international climate efforts with boosts to manufacturing at home?To answer these questions, USSC hosted a live event with Australia's Ambassador for Climate Change Kristin Tilley, USSC Women in the Alliance Visiting Fellow Jane Nakano, and USSC Non-Resident Senior Fellow Meg McDonald in conversation with USSC Director of Economic Security Hayley Channer.This event was hosted by the United States Studies Centre's Women in the Alliance initiative.

The United States Studies Centre hosted a launch event for the USSC major report, Aligning values and interests: Japanese and Australian democracy support in the Pacific and Southeast Asia.No issues have aligned Japan and Australia more than the multi-faceted challenges China poses, particularly in the Pacific and Southeast Asia. Yet as Japan and Australia have drawn closer than ever in areas of security, trade and regional aid, there remains far more work to be done in response to China's erosion of democratic norms.How can Australia and Japan — two of the largest regional development partners — better support democracy in the region? How can they align their strategic priorities with the needs of a complex and emerging region? What role should the United States have in their efforts?To answer these questions, USSC CEO Dr Michael Green moderated a discussion with report editor USSC Non-Resident Senior Fellow Dr Lavina Lee and report author Dr John Lee, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute.

One year out from the presidential election, and less than three months until the first of the Republican primary contests, the coming year is set to be a whirlwind of political drama — primaries, debates, conventions, the unprecedented legal trials of a former president and the US Constitution being tested as never before. With Joe Biden looking to cement his legacy as president, Republican candidates crisscrossing the country to shore up support, and Donald Trump ploughing his own path back to the Oval Office, on-the-ground insights are key to understanding a presidential race like no other.What are the key issues and trends to watch as we head into an election year? What happens if Donald Trump wins his party's nomination, but is convicted of a crime? What does the future of US politics look like?To answer these questions, USSC hosted a live event with Politico Chief Washington Correspondent Ryan Lizza, and New York Magazine Washington Correspondent Olivia Nuzzi in conversation with USSC Director of Research Jared Mondschein.Ryan Lizza is Politico's Chief Washington Correspondent. He was formerly Senior Political Analyst for CNN and The New Yorker's Washington correspondent from 2007 to 2017.Olivia Nuzzi is Washington Correspondent for New York Magazine. She has also written for Politico Magazine and The Washington Post. She was named in Forbes' 2018 “30 under 30” list.

Although global attention is focused on the upcoming US presidential election in November 2024, a key regional election looms much sooner — the Taiwanese presidential election on 13 January. The contest to succeed the term-limited President Tsai Ing-Wen has already seen intrigue and drama, with four candidates vying for Taiwan's highest office and, at one stage, two of them mulling a joint bid to unseat the ruling Democratic Progressive Party. Frontrunner and current vice president William Lai's views on independence have been the source of much discussion and, with high tensions in the Taiwan Strait and belligerent rhetoric from Beijing, the results of the election will hold significant implications for the entire region.How might the election affect cross-strait relations? What are the possible implications of the election for Australia? How could the election shift Taiwan policies in Washington and other allied capitals?To answer these questions, USSC hosted a panel discussion with Lowy Institute Senior Fellow for East Asia Richard McGregor, USSC Non-Resident Senior Fellow Dr Lavina Lee and USSC CEO Dr Michael Green in conversation with USSC Research Director Jared Mondschein, with opening remarks from Taiwanese Representative to Australia Douglas Hsu.Douglas Hsu is Taiwan's Representative to Australia. He was previously Director General of North American Affairs within Taiwan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and served in the Political and Congressional Liaison divisions of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States.Richard McGregor is a Senior Fellow for East Asia at the Lowy Institute and a Senior Associate (Non-resident) at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in the United States. He is a former Beijing and Washington bureau chief for the Financial Times and the author of numerous books on East Asia.Dr Lavina Lee is a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the United States Studies Centre and a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Security Studies and Criminology at Macquarie University, Sydney. Prior to joining Macquarie University in 2007, she was a political risk consultant with Control Risks Group.Dr Michael Green is Chief Executive Officer at the United States Studies Centre. Previously Dr Green was Senior Vice President for Asia, Japan Chair, and Henry A. Kissinger Chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and served on the staff of the National Security Council from 2001 through 2005.

Liz talks to podcaster Andrew Torrez about Trump's Manhattan prosecution and the debacle at the Supreme Court Thursday when Trump made his magical, perpetual, presidential immunity argument.   Links: Arizona v. Ward — Indictment https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2024-04/Indictment.pdf  People v. Trump — Transcripts https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/  People v. Trump — Evidence https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/Evidence/  Trump  v. US — SCOTUS Docket https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-939.html  SCOTUS oral argument https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/23-939 Trump DC MTD Presidential immunity https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.74.0_3.pdf SCOTUS docket in US v. Trump (DC) https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trump-v-united-states-3/ DC Circuit Opinion https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/1AC5A0E7090A350785258ABB0052D942/$file/23-3228-2039001.pdf Trump SCOTUS Brief https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-939/303418/20240319150454815_23-939%20-%20Brief%20for%20Petitioner.pdf US SCOTUS Opposition https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-939/306999/20240408191803801_United%20States%20v.%20Trump%20final%20for%20filing.pdf Trump Reply Brief https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-939/307578/20240415133854183_USSC%2023-939%20-%20Reply%20Brief%20of%20Petitioner.pdf Constitutional Scholars Amicus https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-939/306994/20240408102651774_Trump%20v.%20US%20CAC%20Scholars%20Brief%2023-929.pdf Marbury v. Madison https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/#tab-opinion-1958607   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod Patreon: patreon.com/LawAndChaosPod  

Special Episode: Big Data, Emerging Technology & National Security Decision-Making Lecture *Unfortunately, the episode we had planned to release today is still in production. Our guest was recalled to deal with a major cyber incident on the day of recording. This episode will hopefully be released soon.*   Instead, by popular request, we are bringing you a special episode. This is an edited lecture I gave at ANU which covers big data and emerging technologies, their impacts on national security and how they create friction in national security decision-making. Big data isn't just a buzzword anymore; it's fundamentally altering the landscape of national security. Data abundance, digital connectivity, and ubiquitous technology form what I call the big data landscape. They are a trifecta shaping the future of national security. This lecture highlights how the big data landscape and technologies like AI are broadening out and challenging our understanding of national security. It also shows that they are centralising informational, computation and commercial power. It then explores the way new technologies create friction in national security agencies and in policymaking process. Friction from within shows how intelligence and decision-making are impacted and friction from outside looks at the information environment. Resources mentioned in the recording: ·       ·       Miah Hammond-Errey (2024) Big Data, Emerging Technologies and Intelligence: National Security Disrupted (20% discount code for book AFL04)·       Jennifer Jackett (2023) Black Swan Strategy paper, Defence Innovation and The Australian National Interest·       Miah Hammond-Errey  (2020) Chapter 18, Transformational Technology and Strategy In: N. Finney, ed., On Strategy,1st ed. Army University Press  ·       Feb 2023, Secrecy, sovereignty and sharing: How data and emerging technologies are transforming intelligence, USSC ·       Blake Johnson, Miah Hammond-Errey, Daria Impiombato, Albert Zhang (2022) Suppressing the truth and spreading lies. How the CCP is influencing Solomon Islands' information environment·       Miah Hammond-Errey (2023) Big data, emerging technologies and the characteristics of ‘good intelligence', Intelligence and National Security ·      15 July 2023, Twitter Is Becoming a Sewer of Disinformation, Foreign Policy https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/07/15/elon-musk-twitter-blue-checks-verification-disinformation-propaganda-russia-china-trust-safety/·       Zedner, Lucia. 2009. Security (Routledge: London).·       Véliz, Carissa. 2021. 'Privacy and digital ethics after the pandemic', Nature Electronics, 4: 10-11.·       Buzan, Barry, Ole Waever, and Jaap de Wilde. 1998. Security : a new framework for analysis (Boulder, Colo. : Lynne Rienner Pub. , 1998.).·       Kent, Sherman. 1966. Strategic intelligence for American world policy (Princeton University Press: Princeton, N.J.,).·       Lowenthal, Mark M. 2012. Intelligence: from secrets to policy (SAGE/CQ Press: Los Angeles Thousand Oaks, California).·       Omand, David. 2010. Securing the state (Columbia University Press: New York).       This podcast was recorded on the lands of the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people, and we pay our respects to their Elders past, present and emerging — here and wherever you're listening. We acknowledge their continuing connection to land, sea and community, and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Thanks to the talents of those involved. Recording by ANU, music by Dr Paul Mac and production by Elliott Brennan. Transcript, check against delivery  Dr Miah Hammond-Errey: [00:00:02] Welcome to Technology and Security. TS is a podcast exploring the intersections of emerging technologies and national security. I'm your host, Doctor Miah Hammond-Errey. Today we are bringing you a special episode. Our planned guest was recalled to deal with a major cyber incident on the day of recording. The episode we had planned to release today is still under production and we hope to get it to you soon. So instead, we're bringing you a special episode. It's a recording of a lecture I gave at the Australian National University on the impact of big data and emerging technologies on national security decision making. It's based on my book, Big Data Emerging Technologies and Intelligence: National security disrupted released by Routledge in January.  Prof Toni Erskine: [00:00:51] Good afternoon. My name is Toni Erskine, and I'm a Professor of international politics at the Coral Bell School of Asia Pacific Affairs here at the ANU. I'd like to begin by celebrating and paying my respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples, ancestors and elders, the traditional custodians of the land on which we meet this afternoon, and also extend that respect to First Nations peoples from elsewhere across this country. It's my absolute pleasure to welcome you today to the second seminar in a new seminar series on AI, Automated Systems and the Future of War. This is a project that's being generously funded by the Australian Department of Defence. I'm absolutely delighted to have Doctor Miah Hammond-Errey here with us this afternoon. And Miah's exciting research, I think, speaks to this theme in a number of respects. And actually, I don't think I can think of a better speaker to be part of this series. Just to tell you a little bit about Miah, her important work explores the intersection of emerging technology and security, and she's published widely on technology, intelligence, national security, and information warfare. Miah's forthcoming book is called Big Data Emerging Technologies and Intelligence. National Security Disrupted, and we need to all look out for that book. Miah will speak to us this afternoon on the impacts of big data and emerging technologies on national security and decision making. Miah, I think I'll pass over to you. Thank you so much for being here this afternoon. Thank you. Dr Miah Hammond-Errey: [00:02:30] I just want to start by also acknowledging we're on the lands of the Ngunnawal and Nambri people and pay my respects to their elders, past, present and emerging. Thank you so much for inviting me, Toni, and for running this important series. Toni has asked me to kind of talk throug...

Dr Michael Green, CEO of the United States Studies Centre provides welcome remarks for the inaugural Sydney International Strategy Forum held at the Four Seasons Sydney on 1 November 2023. Jared Mondschein, Director of Research and Victoria Cooper, Research Editor at the United States Studies Centre then discussed the findings of a public opinion survey conducted by the United States Studies Centre In August 2023 in Australia, the United States and Japan. The poll measured public sentiment in each nation on a variety of issues one year out from the 2024 US presidential election.The Sydney International Strategy Forum brought together prominent thought leaders, policymakers and industry experts to tackle the big issues confronting Australia, the United States and the Indo-Pacific. From bolstering supply chain resilience to turning AUKUS into reality, the forum discussed the enormous opportunities and risks posed by such cross-cutting challenges and what they mean for the future of our region. The forum was held at the Four Seasons Sydney on 1 November 2023.

In August 2023, the United States Studies Centre conducted a public opinion survey in Australia, the United States and Japan to understand the public sentiment in each nation on a variety of issues one year out from the 2024 US presidential election. Jared Mondschein, Director of Research and Victoria Cooper, Research Editor at the United States Studies Centre discussed findings of the poll during a presentation to the Sydney International Strategy Forum. This is the second of two presentations. The Sydney International Strategy Forum brought together prominent thought leaders, policymakers and industry experts to tackle the big issues confronting Australia, the United States and the Indo-Pacific. From bolstering supply chain resilience to turning AUKUS into reality, the forum discussed the enormous opportunities and risks posed by such cross-cutting challenges and what they mean for the future of our region. The forum was held at the Four Seasons Sydney on 1 November 2023.

President and CEO of Democracy Forward Skye Perryman, a leading figure in fight to safeguard our valued constitutional and civil liberties, shares her views on the key cases before the United States Supreme Court this term. Join hosts Dee Martin and Senior Principal Josh Zive as they engage Skye on a wide range of cases and their implications for democracy. Reproductive choice, gun control laws, and Chevron deference are all on the table. Plus, hear from Skye about being an advocate and shaping policy, as well as her advice on going to law school! Tune in to learn about all of this and more!

On this week's episode, Tel Aviv-based journalist and Israel Policy Forum Policy Advisor Neri Zilber hosts Israel Piekrash, the co-founder and director of the Anahnu Movement, to discuss Israel's crumbling social cohesion and whether a new national consensus and a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are possible. They dive into Israel Piekrash's unique upbringing in the religious Zionist community, his shift in thinking about the Palestinians, and the vision of the Anahnu Movement before moving to current events, including the present state of the settler movement, protests against the judicial overhaul, and the likely reaction by far-right politicians to an Israel-Saudi normalization deal. Last Thursday, Senators Ossoff, Young, Booker, and Lankford introduced the Middle East Security Coordination Act, which seeks to strengthen the critical work of the United States Security Coordinator in Jerusalem to help stabilize the security situation in the West Bank in the service of a future two-state outcome. As a longtime champion of this issue, Israel Policy Forum has persistently maintained that the USSC is vital to security, stability, and a better future for Israelis and Palestinians, and we are pleased to partner with this bipartisan group of senators on this important bill. Listeners can expect to hear more about it soon. Read our statement here: https://israelpolicyforum.org/2023/09/28/statement-welcoming-the-introduction-of-the-middle-east-security-coordination-act/Last week, Chief Policy Officer Michael Koplow testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee in its hearing on the implementation of the Taylor Force Act. Read or watch here: https://israelpolicyforum.org/2023/09/27/michael-koplows-testimony-before-house-committee-on-foreign-affairs/Michael also recently penned an op-ed in The Liberal Patriot explaining why U.S. policy must take into account Israel's democracy, not just its security, as a core value of the relationship. Read here: https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/israeli-democracy-and-the-futureThis week, Israel Policy Forum released the latest installment of Critical Neighbors, featuring four perspectives—Israeli, Palestinian, Saudi, and American— on the potential for an Israel-Saudi deal to include a meaningful Palestinian component. Read here: https://israelpolicyforum.org/critical-neighbors/#navigating-normalizationSupport the show

Republican presidential candidates gathered in Milwaukee for the biggest event of the 2024 election cycle so far: the first Republican presidential debate. With the power to make or break the candidates jockeying to stand out in the crowded GOP field, the first debate is a critical step in deciding who will ultimately face off against likely Democratic nominee Joe Biden in the 2024 presidential election. While the stage may be set, much remains unknown.Does anyone stand a chance to dethrone frontrunner Donald Trump? Who were the winners and losers of the expectation game? As the dust settles, what did the debate tell us about what to expect in the road to the 2024 presidential election?To explore these questions, USSC hosted a public forum featuring politics experts Associate Professor David Smith, Senior Lecturer Dr Gorana Grgic and Research Editor Victoria Cooper in conversation with Director of Research Jared Mondschein.

The past few years have seen an unprecedented use of economic coercion as a tool of international relations, from sanctions placed on Russia, Iran, and North Korea to the ongoing export control battle between China and the United States. How far will these tools go? Would sanctions work in China in the event of a Taiwan crisis? What would it mean for the private sector and businesses?To discuss this, USSC hosted a discussion with Adam Smith, a world-leading international trade compliance lawyer and former advisor to President Obama, in conversation with Hayley Channer, Director of Economic Security at the United States Studies Centre.Adam Smith is a partner and co-chair of the International Trade Practice at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, based in Washington DC. He served as a senior advisor in the Obama Administration, providing guidance for strengthening sanctions (Russia and Syria) and easing measures (Burma and Cuba), and on enforcement actions following sanctions violations. He frequently chaired the US Treasury delegation to EU/G7 consultations regarding Russia sanctions and worked on Iran sanctions in conjunction with the nuclear deal. He is the author of three legal texts and dozens of articles and book chapters, and has testified on sanctions before the US Congress and the UK Parliament.

In a special episode, Dr Miah Hammond-Errey is joined by Michael Green, CEO of the United States Studies Centre, to consider the conversations and developments around technology decoupling between the United States and China across the past six months. Drawing on insights from previous guests on the podcast, Miah and Mike cover topics from international standards, subsea cables and individual user trust in technology to the role of Japan and Australia. They also discuss the role of alliances, digital infrastructure, national security and historical lessons that can inform this evolving area of debate.Technology and Security is hosted by Dr Miah Hammond-Errey, the inaugural director of the Emerging Technology program at the United States Studies Centre, based at the University of Sydney. Clips used in this recording:Jessica Hunter, First Assistant Director-General Access & Effects Operations at the Australian Signals Directorate, recorded in Canberra, February 2023 for Technology and Security Episode 1.Alex Lynch, Google Australia Public Policy Manager, recorded in Sydney, March 2023 for Technology and Security Episode 2.Julie Inman Grant, Australia's eSafety Commissioner, recorded in Sydney, March 2023 for Technology and Security Episode 3.Dr Robert Atkinson, President and Founder of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, recorded in Sydney in March 2023 while at the USSC as a Visiting Fellow.The Hon Dr Andrew Leigh MP, Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury and Assistant Minister for Employment, and Dr Robert Atkinson, President and Founder of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, recorded in Canberra, March 2023 at the USSC's ‘Technology, Innovation And Strategic Competition' event.Sue Gordon, former Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, recorded in Washington, May 2023 for Technology and Security Episode 4.Resources mentioned in the recording:  (USSC Polling Explainer) Collaboration with trusted allies and distrust in Chinese technology: American, Australian and Japanese views on technology (Standards Australia Report) Iconic Nation(ASD Resources) Protecting your devices and cybersecurity(USSC Report) Secrecy, sovereignty and sharing: How data and emerging technologies are transforming intelligence (Elisabeth Braw, Foreign Policy article on subsea cables) Decoupling Is Already Happening – Under the Sea (White House) CHIPS and Science Act (US Bureau of Industry and Security) Commerce Implements New Export Controls on Advanced Computing and Semiconductor Manufacturing Items to the People's Republic of China (PRC)(Australian Defence Force) Defence Strategic Review 2023(White House) National Security Strategy(Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan) National Security Strategy (Wall Street Journal) Potato Chips Vs. Computer Chips – High Technology Any Way You Slice ItMaking great content requires fabulous teams. Thanks to the great talents of the following. Special co-host: Dr Mike GreenResearch support and assistance: Tom BarrettProduction: Elliott BrennanPodcast Design: Susan BealeMusic: Dr Paul MacThis podcast was recorded on the lands of the Gadigal people, and we pay our respects to their Elders past, present and emerging — here and wherever you're listening. We acknowledge their continuing connection to land, sea and community, and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. 

Lindsey and Robert break down recent rule changes and opinions from June. Rule 9.130, FSC (rule change adding to list of nonfinal, appealable orders).In Re: Code for Resolving Professionalism Referral and Amends. to R. Regulating Fla. Bar 6-10.3, FSC. State v. Walker, 1st DCA (motion in limine; petition for cert.).  Coates v. R.J. Reynolds, FSC (section 768.79 is not a prevailing party statute). Coinbase v. Bielski, USSC (mandatory stay during interlocutory appeal on the question of arbitrability). Muniz v. King, 4th (adopting verbatim proposed orders).  Groff v. Dejoy, USSC (religious accommodation under Title VII). Counterman v. Colorado, USSC (mens rea; First Amendment). Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast's advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast's creator is prohibited.

Good to be back in the kdhx studio talking national politics with Tangazo commentators from around the country. ----- President Joe Biden, former President Donald Trump, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and California Governor, Gavin Newson and how the 2024 presidential election will play out, was the focus of a vigorous discussion last evening. ------ Our panel included former Tallahassee Florida Mayor Dorothy Inman-Johnson, former Story County Iowa, Supervisor Wayne Clinton and Democratic operative, Attorney Ludlow B. Creary II of Long Beach California. ------ Local Republican Paul Berry III, joined me in studio for a very interesting conversation on various topics, surrounding the upcoming presidential election. ------ How will recent USSC rulings impact the turnout in 2024, should Iowa continue to be the first primary, are should a more diverse state host the all important first primary election, given its importance to the outcome. ------ One of the most interesting topics was, the idea that African American voters concerns, have to take a back seat to Pro Choice and LGBTQ matters. ------ The panel lamented the lack of focus, on core “black issues”such as poor schools, police abuse, crime and poverty.  This was a great discussion that you will enjoy hearing. ------

Price tag aside, one of the biggest obstacles to the success of AUKUS is export controls. Stakeholders in all three AUKUS countries are increasingly concerned that the United States International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) present a significant challenge to the timely sharing of equipment, information, and technology between the three countries. These challenges are not new, but the stakes have never been higher. Realising the full potential of AUKUS hinges on timely ITAR reform. Indeed, ITAR reform is essential to the delivery of Australia's nuclear-powered submarines under AUKUS Pillar I and fostering genuinely trilateral collaboration on advanced capabilities under AUKUS Pillar II.How might ITAR provisions hamper the implementation of the AUKUS agreement? Why did previous efforts to reform US export controls for Australia and the United Kingdom fall short? What sorts of revisions are being considered across the US system? Is the best route to enduring ITAR reform through legislative action or an executive order?In a report released prior to this webinar, non-resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, Dr William Greenwalt and USSC Research Fellow in the Foreign Policy and Defence program Tom Corben tackled these questions and provided a roadmap towards reforming ITAR to realise the full potential of AUKUS. The Centre hosted a webinar with the authors, along with USSC non-resident fellow Jennifer Jackett, for a discussion on reforming US export controls to realise the potential of AUKUS.

The United States Studies Centre and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) hosted a special event to hear from leaders across the region about the state of play for democracy and how aligned countries can work together. The event featured a keynote address followed by a panel discussion.Keynote addressAustralian economist Professor Sean Turnell spent much of his professional career studying the Myanmar economy and moved there to advise the State Counsellor of Myanmar Aung San Suu Kyi. After the February 2021 coup d'état toppled the democratically-elected government and the military assumed control of the country, Turnell was detained and imprisoned for nearly two years along with almost 6,000 others while more than 800 people were killed in the violent uprising.Panel discussion: Regional approaches to supporting democracy Ambassador Yukio Takasu, Chair, Future of Democracy Study Project and Former Permanent Representative of Japan to the United Nations Dr Sook Jong Lee, President Emeritus, Senior Fellow and Professor of Public Administration, Sungkyunkwan University Dr Henry Ivarature, Deputy Director, Strategic Engagement, Australia Pacific Security College, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University Moderated by Dr Michael Green, CEO, United States Studies Centre  The panel reported on the Sydney round of the Sunnylands Initiative co-sponsored by the NED and USSC to assess the state of democracy in the Indo-Pacific and identify pathways to strengthen democratic partnership. Other participants in the conversation included representatives of Freedom House, the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute, and thought leaders from across the Indo-Pacific.

With the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines through AUKUS, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said Australia is on the cusp of “the single biggest leap in our defence capability in our history.”Now, 18 months since the original surprise announcement, the highly-anticipated AUKUS report shares the “optimal pathway” to acquire the nuclear-powered submarines. But the pathway is fraught with challenges and aligned intentions do not guarantee delivery. Where is the greatest daylight between the three countries in terms of the nuclear submarine production? What role will the advanced capabilities pillar play during the long lead-up to acquisition of the submarines? How should, or shouldn't, we read the AUKUS report?To discuss these issues, USSC hosted a webinar discussion with United States Studies Centre CEO Dr Michael Green, Director of Foreign Policy and Defence, and lead author of the 2023 Defence Strategic Review, Professor Peter Dean and Director of Economic Security Hayley Channer.

Dr Mike Green is CEO of the United States Studies Centre. Mike has a long and distinguished career in foreign policy working at a number of think tanks including CSIS and CNAS. An Asia expert, he served on the staff of the National Security Council in the Bush Administration, first as director for Asian affairs with responsibility for Japan, Korea, Australia, and New Zealand, and then as special assistant to the president for national security affairs and senior director for Asia. He has authored numerous books and articles on East Asian security, including most recently, By More Than Providence: Grand Strategy and American Power in the Asia Pacific Since 1783 (Columbia University Press, 2017) and Line of Advantage: Japan's Grand Strategy in the Era of Abe Shinzō (Columbia University Press, 2022).  Misha and Mike caught up for a chinwag about all things AUKUS, including why the US has shared its ‘Crown Jewels' of nuclear propulsion for the first time in 70 years, the huge national mission Australia must undertake to get subs in the water as quickly as possible, why Xi Jinping is the godfather of AUKUS, how advanced military kit acts as a deterrence to war, the possibilities of new technology transfers under phase two of AUKUS, how having nuclear submarines increases Australia's national sovereign agency and why flat whites will need to be served by the US Navy. It's a huge, huge chat rich in detail answering so many questions about AUKUS. We hope you enjoy it. As ever, please rate and review — thanks to everyone who has been so generous following and supporting the show. We love you.  Follow Mike and the USSC here: @DrMichaelJGreen and @USSC Follow Misha and the show here: @mishazelinsky @diplomatesshowSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of Serious Privacy, Paul Breitbarth of Catawiki and Dr. K Royal of Outschool chat with Amy Worley, the Managing Director & Associate General Counsel at BRG on topics such as the enforcement letters sent out by the California Attorney General's office on the do not sell / share my data requirement of the CCPA (as amended by the CPRA). We also discuss key US Supreme Court hearings in Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh and Gonzalez v. Google LLC, involving Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act. Join us to hear some wonderful open conversation on these critical events.As always, if you have comments or questions, let us know - LinkedIn, Twitter @podcastprivacy @euroPaulB @heartofprivacy @trustArc and email podcast@seriousprivacy.eu. Please do like and write comments on your favorite podcast app so other professionals can find us easier. The Annual TrustArc Global Privacy Benchmarks survey is open until March 31st, and we want to hear from you. How is the industry shifting, and what trends do you foresee? This doesn't assess individual or company privacy competency. Rather, it allows you to shape the future of privacy protection initiatives. Please, share your views on how enterprise's manage data protection and privacy. As always, if you have comments or questions, find us on LinkedIn, Twitter @podcastprivacy @euroPaulB @heartofprivacy and email podcast@seriousprivacy.eu. Rate and Review us! #heartofprivacy #seriousprivacy #privacy #dataprotection #cybersecuritylaw #CPO #DPO

On today's episode of the TFB Behind the Gun Podcast, we're back again with Pete at SHOT Show 2023 to speak with Clark Aposhian. Clark is the chairman of the Board of the USSC, as well as the host of Gun Radio Utah. While Clark is mostly known for his political activism borne from his love of firearms, Clark is also an NRA Master Training Counselor and a Utah Certified Concealed Carry Instructor as well as a Certified NRA Law Enforcement Instructor. Clark uses his Credentials to train through his company FairWarning Training which offers basic to advanced tactical firearms training as well as weapons handling consulting for film and television productions. In today's episode, Pete and Clark discuss what gun he'd bring to the apocalypse, as well as some of his thoughts on the current direction of gun laws in this rapidly changing political landscape. Please welcome Clark Aposhian to the show! 

Time for another spooktac.... no, wait, we're definitely not doing that. This is a serious cannabis podcast don't you know! So here's the latest from the "Cannabis Daily" podcast team!!Get your ticket for Business of Cannabis: New York. here!Today's stories:Marijuana Moment reports that the federal U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC) says it is considering possible amendments to guidelineCanopy Growth recently announced it would be acquiring three US assets and consolidating them into a new US holding company – Canopy USAOne expert has said that Canopy Growth's reorganization plan is a creative one, and other Cannabis LPs could follow suit, reports Benzinga. Demecan has welcomed proposals which will see all cannabis for Germany's forthcoming adult-use market grown domestically, reports BusinessCann. Tweet us and let us know your thoughts on today's episode, here.Email us about our stories, here.Missed the previous episode? You can catch up with it here.  About Cannabis Daily.Cannabis Daily is a cannabis news and interview program from Business of Cannabis. We highlight the companies, brands, people and trends driving the cannabis industry.Business of Cannabis is a cannabis industry platform marrying cannabis news, video and podcast content, newsletters and online and real-world cannabis events.Visit Business of Cannabis online:http://businessofcannabis.comTwitter: https://twitter.com/bofc_mediaLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/businessofcannabisInstagram: https://instagram.com/businessofcannabisFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/bofcmediaSpotify: http://bofc.me/spotifyApple: http://bofc.me/applepodPodcasts Online: https://bofc.me/bofclive

What you'll learn in this podcast episode “Thirty years of innovation and influence” is the subtitle of the recent report issued by the United States Sentencing Commission. But what does that really mean in the context of the organizational sentencing guidelines? In this episode of LRN's Principled Podcast, Eric Morehead, LRN Director of Advisory Services Solutions, is joined by one of the report's authors: Kathleen Grilli, the General Counsel for the US Sentencing Commission. Listen in as the two discuss how the commission impacts business leaders and the creation of compliance programs.    Read LRN's takeaways from the report here.  Principled Podcast Show Notes coming soon   Featured guest: Kathleen Grilli Kathleen Cooper Grilli is the General Counsel for the United States Sentencing Commission, having been appointed to the position on October 7, 2013. Ms. Grilli has been on the staff of the Commission since 2003, serving as an assistant general counsel from 2003-2007 and deputy general counsel from 2007-2013. As the General Counsel, Ms. Grill provides legal advice to the Commissioners on sentencing issues and other matters relating to the operation of the Commission. Ms. Grilli is the agency's Ethics Officer and has conducted training on white collar crime and the organizational guidelines at numerous training events.Prior to working for the Sentencing Commission, Ms. Grilli was with the Office of Staff Counsel for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Before relocating to Virginia, Ms. Grilli was a partner in a small firm in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, handling civil and criminal litigation. Her previous work experience includes serving as an Assistant Federal Public Defender in the Southern District of Florida and as an associate at Akerman, Senterfitt and Edison, handling commercial litigation. Ms. Grilli is a member of the Bars of Florida and Virginia. She received a Bachelor of Arts in International Relations, with honors, from Florida International University. She graduated cum laude from the University of Miami School of Law.   Featured Host: Eric Morehead Eric Morehead is a member of LRN's Advisory Services team and has over 20 years' experience working with organizations seeking to address compliance issues and build effective compliance and ethics programs. Eric conducts program assessments and examines specific compliance risks, he drafts compliance policies and codes of conduct, works with organizations to build and improve their compliance processes and tools, and provides live training for Boards of Directors, executives, managers and employees.    Eric ran his own consultancy for six years where he advised clients on compliance program enhancements and assisted in creating effective compliance solutions.  Eric was formally the Head of Advisory Services for NYSE Governance Services, a leading compliance training organization, where he was responsible for all aspects of NYSE Governance Services' compliance consulting arm. Prior to joining NYSE, Eric was an Assistant General Counsel of the United States Sentencing Commission in Washington, DC. Eric served as the chair of the policy team that amended the Organizational Sentencing Guidelines in 2010. Eric also spent nearly a decade as a litigation attorney in Houston, Texas where he focused on white-collar and regulatory cases and represented clients at trial and before various agencies including SEC, OSHA and CFTC.     Principled Podcast Transcript Intro: Welcome to the Principled Podcast, brought to you by LRN. The Principled Podcast brings together the collective wisdom on ethics, business and compliance, transformative stories of leadership, and inspiring workplace culture. Listen in to discover valuable strategies from our community of business leaders and workplace change makers.   Eric Morehead: 30 Years of Innovation and Influence is the subtitle of the recent report issued by the United States Sentencing Commission, but what does that really mean in the context of the organizational sentencing guidelines?   Hello, and welcome to another episode of LRN's Principled Podcast. I'm your host today, Eric Morehead, Director of Advisory Service Solutions at LRN. Today, Kathleen Grilli, the General Counsel of the United States Sentencing Commission is joining us. She's one of the authors of this recent report, and we're going to be talking about how the commission impacts business leaders and the creation of compliance programs across the world. Kathleen is a real expert in this space and is a guest of ours last season where we talked about the seven hallmarks of an effective ethics and compliance program enshrined in the US Sentencing Commission's federal sentencing guidelines. Kathleen Grilli, thanks for joining us again on the Principled Podcast.   Kathleen Grilli: Well, thanks for inviting me, Eric. I appreciate it.   Eric Morehead: The commission just released this new report, The Organizational Sentencing Guidelines: 30 Years of Innovation and Influence. Even after more than 30 years, there are still, I think, at least from my perspective, many people who, when they start their career in compliance, are confused a little bit about why the Sentencing Commission is involved in corporate compliance. Can you talk just a little bit about how the US Sentencing Commission came to assume the role it has regarding compliance standards?   Kathleen Grilli: Sure. You say that people in compliance are confused about it, but the truth is, even in the criminal justice arena where the commission operates... Our guidelines are used in federal courts for sentencing organizations and offenders. Even in that arena, there's not really widespread knowledge about Chapter 8 and the hallmarks for an effective compliance and ethics program. That's because there aren't a lot of organizational cases sentenced every year.   But the reason the commission got into the business of corporate compliance has to do with its statutory mission. The commission was created in 1984 through a bipartisan piece of legislation called the Sentencing Reform Act, and that act did a couple of things as it related to sentencing of organizations. It provided that organizations could be sentenced to a term of probation, sentenced by way of a fine, and it required that at least one of those be imposed. This was something new.   It also subjected organizations to orders of criminal forfeiture, meaning the proceeds of the criminal activity could be taken from them, order of notice to victims, and orders of restitution. That act also created the commission, which is a bipartisan agency and tasked the commission with developing guidelines for use in criminal cases for sentencing. It told us what the purposes of sentencing are, which is just punishment, deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation of the offender. The commission had to decide what to do for sentencing of an organization. Obviously, you cannot put an organization in prison. Unlike individual offenders where sentencing ranges in terms of incarceration are something of the norm, you had to figure out what to do to sentence organizations.   With an organization, as we know, the bottom line is they're in business to make money. In developing the organizational guidelines, the commission came up with its notion that it should use fines to incentivize self-policing. It would punish organizations who were not self-policing or not trying to prevent a crime or commit the offense with certain aggravating factors more severely than those who were trying to prevent and detect crime. That's how we got into the business of corporate compliance.   Eric Morehead: Yeah. And it is interesting that the original writ was from the statute that you examine this. Can you talk a little bit about how the commission got specifically to those hallmarks, those programmatic pieces that we talked about a little bit on our last podcast a while ago? What was the process for the commission to get to those standards, those specific compliance pieces of the puzzle, if you will?   Kathleen Grilli: The commission started its work in 1986 on organizational guidelines with a public hearing at which it received testimony from a variety of witnesses across various different wakes of the world: academics, people in business, government agencies, and the like. Over about a five-year period, because as I said, the Commission started its business in 1986 and didn't actually promulgate the organizational guidelines until 1991. During that period of time, there were numerous public hearings attended by a wide range of witnesses from different areas of the law, academics, government agencies, business owners, representatives of just different industries, and the like. The Commission had these hearings, they heard testimony, the Commission went back and developed drafts with proposals for how organizations would be sentenced. They published those drafts. The process of publishing is really a solicitation for public comment, so they got public comment on the drafts. This went on for a good period of time.   In the meantime, the Commission was doing research. We had academics writing proposals and giving us ideas on how to implement the purposes of sentencing, which again, as I said, were just punishment, deterrents, protection of the public, and rehabilitation. Eventually, it came back to how does an organization get in trouble to begin with? An organization doesn't act alone. We have this theory in the law called vicarious liability where an organization is held responsible for the acts of its agents, meaning its employees. If the employees are the bad actors, everyone finally came to the conclusion that the best way to incentivize or prevent corporate crime was for the organization itself to self-police and to direct its employees and talk about what is and is not appropriate. That's how we ended up with compliance standards.   At the time that they started all this work, compliance and ethics was not widely accepted in the industry. There was a little bit of compliance in the context of antitrust and then there was, in the defense industry, there was an initiative relating to that. Those ideas got floated before the commission and it generated a lot of interest. That's how they started developing the standards.   Again, the standards were included in proposed guidelines that were published and they got public comment and not long before the actual vote where they adopted these guidelines. Even folks who were skeptical about whether this was going to work or not thought that the Commission had gotten the hallmarks of a compliance program right. They thought that they made sense and that they gave sufficient guidance to folks on what would and would not work.   Eric Morehead: That's a really important point too, and I often will say this when I'm talking to people and I talk about my background. Full disclosure, I'm a former employee of the US Sentencing Commission, so I have a strong belief in the mission of the organization. But oftentimes, I will say, "Well, they were first," and part of being first is you've tried different things and maybe you don't know exactly what's going to work and what is going to be successful. But I think over time, and this report really homes in on that, this notion that the direction that the Commission took from '86 to '91 really has paid off a lot of benefits.             One of the conclusions, one of the key conclusions from the report is that perhaps one of the biggest wins for the organization over the years is the widespread of adoption of the guidance and, in particular, the standards for what makes an effective compliance program.   I have a two-parter here. Do you think the Commission recognized in '91 how important that might be? And does the Commission today understand the overall importance of the organizational guidelines, and in particular, 8B2.1, those compliance hallmarks? Did they understand it then and what's the understanding of the Commission now of the relative importance of these?   Kathleen Grilli: Well, let me just back up a minute and just say that the commissioners who promulgated the organizational guidelines in 1991 no longer serve on the Commission. Commissioners have term limits. It's a different group then. It was a different group in 2004 that made the changes that brought ethics into the standards for compliance and ethics programs. As we were talking about before we started this podcast, we have a brand new group of seven new commissioners recently nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. You have different folks working on it. I can say that in the process of doing the research for this publication and others that I've worked on in this area, the Commission I don't think ever expected what we see today 30 years later. This widespread influence not only in terms of its use in the criminal justice arena, but how it has impacted other agencies.   And we'll talk about that and the global reach. The Commission itself said, "This is an experiment." They had hopes that it would lead to better actors in the corporate world, but those were hopes and there was a lot of skepticism from the business community when this process was ongoing about whether this was going to work or not. I think we're always blown away when we realize the impact of it, and I say that from a personal point of view, too. Because when I came to the Commission and I've been on the staff for some time, I was not aware of Chapter 8. I had never represented in court an organization, but only individuals.   And the first time I went to a compliance and ethics program where I saw and understood how well received and well regarded and what an impact we had had outside of the criminal justice arena, it sort of blew my mind that I know Judge Murphy and her Commission in 2004 or just before 2004, when they adopted the changes, they learned about it too when they came on board and it sort of blew them away. And I don't know with my current new bosses how well informed they are about this. This is really one of the reasons why, before they came on board, the staff and the then Commission, the one member, Judge Brier wanted to put this report out, memorializing the 30-year anniversary of the organizational guidelines. We're very excited about it, I have to say.   Eric Morehead: No, it is an amazingly effective rubric that the Commission put together and that the Commission is taken a measured approach from my opinion, both in 2004. And then I had an up-close look in 2010 when I was on staff through that process. I think that its impact is pretty incredible 30 years later, looking back.   One of the other things that's incredible... And I talk about new things when you come to the Commission. I had never really paid much attention to sentencing data until I joined the Commission in 2007. And the majority of the actual pages of this report have a lot of really interesting data about the organizations that have been sentenced over 30 years. Some key takeaways include trends that many of us, for those of us who are sentencing nerds, have seen over the years about the impact on small organizations, for example, versus larger organizations, making up the vast majority of defendants in that data set.   To me, a lot of looking for what makes... Because compliance professionals that are listening to this podcast and that are not necessarily interested in sentencing per se, but interested in the sentencing guidelines because of compliance, they're looking for what makes a successful compliance program from sentencing data. To me, a lot of it is what you don't see. It's sort of like looking for... I liken it to looking for a black hole when you're an astronomer. You can kind of tell the telltale characteristics of a black hole existing because of how it affects everything else. And we don't really see organizations that have successful programs in this data. There were just 12 organizations out of those 5,000 or so in 30 years.   Kathleen Grilli: 11.   Eric Morehead: 11. See? I even increased the number. It's just 11 organization out of 5,000 or so, 4,900 and some change, that have ever been deemed to have a successful program. What are some other striking things that you and the team noticed looking over this data and these trends for 30 years?   Kathleen Grilli: Let me just first say what this data is and what it is not so that listeners can understand why they may not find what they're looking for as to what makes a successful compliance program from the data. This data is for organizations, whether it be a corporation, a closely held corporation, partnership, whatever, but organizations that a federal prosecutor has decided to charge and gets convicted of a federal crime. It doesn't include organizations that the prosecutors decide, "Oh, we're going to enter into a deferred prosecution agreement or a non-prosecution agreement." It doesn't include organizations where a regulatory agency has seen that they violated some of the regulations, but they've decided not to proceed against them criminally but to pursue civil adjudications. I mean, in some ways, this data is about the folks that prosecutors decided were the worst of the worst organizations. You don't see what makes a successful compliance program in this data, but I like to say what we do see is that some of the things that the Department of Justice says to you about what they're looking for in deciding whether to prosecute an organization or not might find support in this data. We concluded that the lack of an effective compliance and ethics program might be a contributing factor to criminal prosecutions against organizations. And what specifically led us to that?   Well, in the 30 years that we've been collecting data, overwhelming majority of the organizational offenders in our data set didn't have any program at all, much less an effective program. 89.6%, as you said, as you mentioned and asked me the question, there were only 11 sentences in fiscal year 1992 that got a culpability score reduction for having an effective compliance and ethics program. And I want to stop on those 11 because we went back. Everybody's always interested in what happens with those organizations or why was their program effective? And we were not able to suss a lot of information from the documentation to sort of tell people what it was. There wasn't a lot of descriptive information in the documents we received that would answer that question, but there's only 11 of them. And most of those 11 were very small organizations. It means they didn't have to have a very complex type of program.             More than half, 58.3%, of organizational offenders sentenced under the fine guidelines got a culpability score increase for involvement in or tolerance of criminal activity by upper management would suggest to you. If the management or the substantial authority personnel are in on it, they may well end up sentenced before a federal court. I think that's an important point, too. And very few of these organizations, we'd only saw 1.5% overall that did the three things that get you the maximum reduction off your culpability score, which is self-report, cooperate, and accept responsibility. There were very few organizations, even though there were many that pleaded guilty and accepted responsibility, that actually self-reported. That's important because you hear the Department of Justice talk about why that matters. And this data sort of offers support for the fact that it does.             And then the other thing we saw is that courts are now ordering organizations to implement effective programs in about 20%, one-fifth of the cases that come before them when they impose probation. This was the kind of data that we thought would help fuel the discussion or the debate on the importance of having an effective compliance and ethics program. The other thing you should note about our data, I think it's important too, is that a good percentage of the organizations that have been sentenced over the last 30 years are smaller organizations. It's not large publicly-traded Fortune 500 companies. It's smaller, less number of employees. I think that matters too.   Eric Morehead: That's a trend that I think we've noted in the data, because the size of organizations, the number of employees has been a data point that the commission has released over the years on an annual basis. And by the way, as it's worth mentioning for people who are interested, there'll be a link in the show notes here for this particular report we're talking about. But the Commission puts out data all the time. And at least on an annual basis, there's the Sentencing Commission's Sourcebook on sentencing, which has discussion on organizational cases and includes some of this data. You don't have to wait 30 years to see the trends again. You can keep up with it at the Sentencing Commission website.   Yeah. The small organizations... I think a big surprise to people who have first heard about this because we see the headlines all the time about the Enrons and, I'm going to date myself here, World Comps and Volkswagen and some of the other organizations. Some of those aren't actually even criminal sentences, as you point out. Those are deferred prosecution agreements or civil settlements of some sort, but those are the companies that make the headlines. It's the little guys, small and medium-sized organizations, that take these big hits more frequently than the larger organizations. That, I think, is surprising to people who aren't familiar with the data, but that's a consistent trend throughout the entirety of the enforcement, at least throughout the 30 years that the Commission's been keeping track.   Kathleen Grilli: Yeah. It may change now, given what the Department of Justice said last week.   Eric Morehead: Yeah. You never know. Yeah never know. We'll have to pay attention and then look at the Sourcebook next year and see what the differences are. The other impact beyond our friends at the Department of Justice and the courts throughout the United States is the impact that the Commission and the organizational sentencing guidelines and these standards have had on other enforcement agencies besides the criminal enforcement and also internationally, which I think is very interesting.   Can you talk a little bit... And that's documented in chapter three of this report. The first chapter is talking a little bit about the history. The second chapter is the data that we were just discussing. And then chapter three talks about how the USSC has encouraged other enforcement agencies and regulators to focus on good governance and compliance. Can you discuss a little bit about what the team found when you researched that?   Kathleen Grilli: Yeah. I think that using the word that the USSC has encouraged suggests that there's some sort of active work going on by the Commission. Let me just say that I don't think that is a fair statement. The Commission did its work and let its work speak for itself, and it has sort of spread throughout regulatory agencies and/or the globe just because it makes sense, I think. Anyway, that's my personal opinion. But I made reference to the Department of Justice, and so I'll start with a Department of Justice if I could.   The Attorney General, where it's his designee is an ex-officio member of the Commission, a non-voting member. Obviously, the Attorney General Department of Justice were actively involved in the development of the chapter eight itself and then the subsequent amendments in 2004 and 2010. But you see the impact of the guidelines in their evaluation of corporate compliance programs and all of the information that they release and discuss on how they focus on compliance in deciding how to prosecute an organization.   Just last week, the Deputy Attorney General, Lisa Monaco, talked about changes that they're going to make. There was sort of an oblique reference to our data, which is that there's been a drop in corporate prosecutions that we see in the data. I think there were less than a hundred last year, and they talked about sort of reversing that trend and looking at that, that the department thinks this is important. And they've placed a lot of importance recently on compliance programs because she said companies need to actively review their compliance program to ensure that they adequately monitor for and remediate misconduct or it's going to cost them down the line.   Kenneth Polite, who is the... I think it's Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division. He's a former chief compliance officer and they've made a lot of emphasis in the department on active review of programs and true independence for the chief compliance officer. That's the Department of Justice who obviously are actively involved in using the guidelines in federal courthouses, but then you have other regulatory agencies.   I'm going to run through them real quick and just say the SEC, HHS, EPA, FERC, which is Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the FAR all have requirements built into them about compliance programs. And most of them say that they're looking to the guidance on the guidelines. Some of them adopted them full scale, some of them may have modified them a little bit. And all of that came after chapter eight in 1991. All of those agencies look to the guidelines.             And then we see that if you look internationally at what's happening around the world in terms of anti-corruption, anti-bribery, and all the like, that elements of the hallmarks for an effective compliance and ethics program found in the guidelines are making their way into legislation, into programs, into initiatives that foreign governments are releasing. And I can't even keep track of it, truthfully, but it seems to be coming up more and more and more.             When the Commission promulgating the guidelines in 1991, they described them as an experiment. We wanted in this publication to sort of show, did the experiment bear fruit? And I think all of that suggests that it did. These changes and everything that goes back to those original seven steps laid out in the guidelines and elevated in 2004 to give them a little more prominence. It really is very, very exciting. I feel bad. I sound sort of like I'm patting myself on the back, and so I want to make it really clear to the listeners. I was not on this staff in 1991. I wasn't working on this. I did not have anything to do with the 2004 amendments. I came into it after the fact, but it's just really exciting to see it and to see the impact and how well regarded the Commission's work is.   Eric Morehead: No, I think that's right. I think the report really sums up what I think a lot of us have felt. Again, I'm probably biased, but a lot of us have felt this way for a while, that the standards, really, have set the bar and provided kind of a North Star for compliance programs for that whole generation, that whole 30 years. And it's made a difference in millions of people's daily lives in their working lives, because it affects how their company operates for the good or for the bad. And that really makes all the difference to us. I think you guys can successfully pat yourselves on the back a little bit.   Well, last thing, again, knowing that we're talking to a lot of compliance officers who hopefully have, if they're new, have a little bit more appreciation as to why the US Sentencing Commission is involved in their lives, are there other takeaways from the research and work that the team put into this report that you think are particular importance for compliance professionals or things they should be aware of? Kathleen Grilli: Well, one of the things that I hear when I intend conferences and one of the things that I think folks [inaudible 00:26:26] is the fact that there's not enough investment in compliance. The bottom line in business is money and making money, and you can't necessarily provide metrics that show how your work is going to add to the bottom line. Then it's hard to make the case. Now, I know these days, in recent years, folks have come up with ways to measure how compliance and ethics does contribute to the bottom line, and I really believe it does. But this data can offer you the picture of what happens if you don't.   Eric Morehead: Yeah.   Kathleen Grilli: Because since 1992, courts have imposed nearly $33 billion in fines on organizational offenders. The average fine was over $9 million. Although the median was a little lower, it was only $100,000. But for a small mom and pop organization, a hundred grand is a lot of money. And the other thing is that courts will sentence organizations to probation. Over two thirds of the organizational offenders in the last 30 years have been placed on probation with an average term of 39 months, where you're going to have to be reporting to a probation officer and complying with all these requirements. And that's time consuming and costly, too, when you think about it. There's a little bit there that can answer the mail in terms of why am I going to invest in compliance and ethics.   Eric Morehead: I'm a big believer in making the positive business case, but you also need to make the "everybody's going to go to jail" case too.   Kathleen Grilli: Well, especially in light of the recent guidance that the Department of Justice, I mean, where they're going to be looking at individuals and they're going to be requiring organizations to give up all individuals who might be involved, I think that's something that folks should keep in mind as well. It's important because it's not just going to be the company, it's going to be the employees too.   Eric Morehead: Yeah. And again, that's important data. That's in chapter two of this report, that over 50% of the time over the period, you've got at least one living, breathing human being who's also faced charges consistent with the charges that the organizations faced. It includes actual human beings in this process, not just the organization.   Kathleen Grilli: I think we're only going to see an increase if the department's guidance holds true that those numbers may go up.   Eric Morehead: Yeah. We'll have to check. We'll check in next year after the Sourcebook comes out and see if the trend has moved. Kathleen Grilli, it's been a tremendous honor again to have you on our podcast and really appreciate you taking the time.   Kathleen Grilli: Oh, it's an honor for me to be here. Thank you so much for inviting me.   Eric Morehead: No problem. My name is Eric Morehead and I want to thank all of you for tuning in once again to the Principled Podcast by LRN. Outro: We hope you enjoyed this episode. The Principled Podcast is brought to you by LRN. At LRN, our mission is to inspire principled performance in global organizations by helping them foster winning ethical cultures rooted in sustainable values. Please visit us lrn.com To learn more. And if you enjoyed this episode, subscribe to our podcast on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Google Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and don't forget to leave us a review.  

What you'll learn in this podcast episode A few weeks ago, the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) issued a report titled The Organizational Sentencing Guidelines: Thirty Years of Innovation and Influence. The publication summarizes the history of Chapter Eight's development and discusses the two substantive changes made to the elements of an effective compliance and ethics program. So, what does this mean for compliance professionals? In this episode of the Principled Podcast, host Jen Uner, Strategic Communications Director at LRN, talks about the guidelines with Eric Morehead, Director of Advisory Services at LRN. Listen in as the two discuss how these updates—and the wider USSC—impact corporate governance. The purpose of the U.S. Sentencing Commission is to study and develop sentencing policies for the federal courts. The Commission serves as an information resource for Congress, the executive, the courts, and the public on matters relating to federal crime and sentencing. Our episode today focuses on Chapter 8, which addresses organizational sentencing guidelines, not individual sentencing guidelines which is also a significant focus for the USSC.     Principled Podcast Show Notes [1:24] – Explanation of the new publication from the U.S. Sentencing Commission and why it matters. [6:42] - How the original standards have held up over the last 30 years. [7:51] - Eric outlines some of the highlights of the most recent publication. [12:53] - The real repercussions for organizations. [14:58] - The relationship of the Sentencing Commission with the DOJ and SEC. [18:33] - Steps organizations should take when crafting their own E&C programs. [21:43] - The role of company culture in determining how effective the program will be.   Featured guest: Eric Morehead Eric Morehead is a member of LRN's Advisory Services team and has over 20 years of experience working with organizations seeking to address compliance issues and build effective compliance and ethics programs. Eric conducts program assessments and examines specific compliance risks, he drafts compliance policies and codes of conduct, works with organizations to build and improve their compliance processes and tools, and provides live training for Boards of Directors, executives, managers, and employees. Eric ran his own consultancy for six years where he advised clients on compliance program enhancements and assisted in creating effective compliance solutions. Eric was formally the Head of Advisory Services for NYSE Governance Services, a leading compliance training organization, where he was responsible for all aspects of NYSE Governance Services' compliance consulting arm. Prior to joining NYSE, Eric was an Assistant General Counsel of the United States Sentencing Commission in Washington, DC. Eric served as the chair of the policy team that amended the Organizational Sentencing Guidelines in 2010. Eric also spent nearly a decade as a litigation attorney in Houston, Texas where he focused on white-collar and regulatory cases and represented clients at trial and before various agencies including SEC, OSHA and CFTC.       Featured Host: Jen Üner Jen Üner is the Strategic Communications Director for LRN, where she captains programs for both internal and external audiences. She has an insatiable curiosity and an overdeveloped sense of right and wrong which she challenges each day through her study of ethics, compliance, and the value of values-based behavior in corporate governance. Prior to joining LRN, Jen led marketing communications for innovative technology companies operating in Europe and the US, and for media and marketplaces in California. She has won recognition for her work in brand development and experiential design, earned placements in leading news publications, and hosted a closing bell ceremony of the NASDAQ in honor of the California fashion industry as founder of the LA Fashion Awards. Jen holds a B.A. degree from Claremont McKenna College.        Principled Podcast Transcript Intro:   Welcome to the Principled Podcast brought to you by LRN. The Principled Podcast brings together the collective wisdom on ethics, business and compliance, transformative stories of leadership, and inspiring workplace culture. Listen in to discover valuable strategies from our community of business leaders and workplace change makers. Jen Uner: A few weeks ago, the United States Sentencing Commission issued a report titled The Organizational Sentencing Guidelines: 30 Years of Innovation and Influence. The publication summarizes the history of Chapter Eight's development and discusses the two substantive changes made to the elements of an effective compliance and ethics program. Hello, and welcome to another episode of LRN's Principled Podcast. I'm your host, Jen Uner, strategic communications director at LRN, and today, I'm joined by my colleague, Eric Morehead, director of advisory services solutions at LRN. We're going to be talking about the guidelines, and how it impacts corporate governance and what compliance professionals need to know. Eric Morehead is a real expert in the space as he once worked on these guidelines in a prior role at the US Sentencing Commission. He advises LRN clients now on these topics. Eric, thank you for coming on the Principled Podcast. Eric Morehead: Thanks, Jen. It's good to be here. Jen Uner: So hot off the press is this new publication from the US Sentencing Commission. Tell us about what it is, why it matters, and especially to owners of compliance programs at their organizations. Eric Morehead: Well, it's sort of a look back over the last 30 years. The Sentencing Guidelines for organizations were first promulgated and came into effect in 1991, so technically the 30th anniversary was last year, but the report has just come out now, and over those 30 years, there's been about 5,000 organizations that have been sentenced under the US Sentencing Guidelines. The Sentencing Commission and the Sentencing Guidelines have to do with federal sentencing, so either individuals or organizations who have been charged with a federal offense and find themselves in a federal district court, somewhere in the United States, and they either have pled guilty, or been found guilty by a jury, or found guilty by a judge after a bench trial, and now they're being sentenced. So when you sentence an individual, obviously, that can include a fine in restitution, but also time in a federal penitentiary. You can't jail an organization, but the Organizational Guidelines have put together over the last 30 years standards by which the judge can assess fines, restitution, and also order when necessary compliance reforms and implementation. Since you can't put the organization behind bars, you can however, put the organization on probation and require the organization to make some necessary reforms, if you will. So that's a kind of quick background of what the guidelines are for those of you who weren't sure, and why they matter to us, because the implementation of compliance standards is baked into any kind of probationary sentence or sentence that's handed down to an organization, or can be baked into, I should say. Jen Uner: And you have personal experience at the USSC. Eric Morehead: Yes, I worked at the Sentencing Commission from about 2007 to 2011, and during that period, there have been two amendments to the original guidelines that were first put out in 1991 for organizations. The first was in 2004, partly in response to Sarbanes-Oxley and the legislation that came out at that point around implementing reforms for organizations and their governance, but also there was back at the time in the early 2000s, a task force put together that the Sentencing Commission took some advice from. And so they made some amendments in 2004. The primary thing that happened in 2004 is that these compliance standards that are in the Sentencing Guidelines were put more front and center. They had been what are called application notes before, and they were actually promoted, if you will, to an actual textual listing in the guidelines. Just making them more prominent is really what it boiled down to. Also, putting a little further definition around the components of an effective program, training, governance and oversight, written standards, and procedures in place, reporting mechanisms, that we all know most organizations have an anonymous reporting mechanism, a hotline or helpline out there. That comes out of these standards that were first put together by the US Sentencing Commission. They were the first national standard in the United States anyway that suggested having a reporting mechanism, including with an anonymous option. Enforcement, discipline, and incentives often overlooked, but the Sentencing Guidelines have been talking about incentives for the past couple decades as well. And then in 2010 while I was there, the second amendment to the Organizational Sentencing Guidelines was undertaken, and that also strengthened that relationship between the governing authority of the organization, the board of directors, or whatever the oversight of a particular organization might be, because these guidelines affect not just public companies, but any kind of organization, so nonprofits, governmental agencies. Any kind of organizational structure is contemplated by the guidelines, and the 2010 amendments strengthened that relationship between the people actually responsible for the program and the governing authority of the organization, and also provided some incentives for organizations to come forward and to reform their programs. So those things have all happened over the years. Given the length of time that the Sentencing Guidelines have been in effect, now 30 years plus, to only have gone back and revisited them twice is not that significant. So they've been kind of bedrock standards that have existed and been well known. We often talk about them as the hallmarks of an effective program for this entire time, and the commission gathers data, and so the other big piece of this report that's very interesting is there's 30 years worth of data. And in fact, the majority of the report goes through in much detail about the demographic characteristics of organizations that have been sentenced over the years, how many organizations have received credit for having an effective program. Spoiler alert, not very many out of the 5,000, less than a dozen. So that's the other great thing about this report for those of us who are interested in compliance is you have a great wealth of data to see what the characteristics are, and how organizations have gotten into real serious trouble in the past. Jen Uner: So you were saying there have only been two amendments since inception? Eric Morehead: Yes. Jen Uner: That's pretty interesting, because it kind of speaks to how enduring. Eric Morehead: Yeah, they got it right, and the primary takeaway in this report in the executive summary in the beginning is that the biggest impact that the commission sees for its work is that these standards have become so universally accepted, and that's not just in the United States. That's across the world. These standards are seen to be when you're talking about effective compliance programs, they're seen to be sort of the bedrock, if you will. There are obviously other international standards out there in Europe, and Asia, and other places where government agencies and international agencies like the OECD Good Guidance that came out well over two decades ago itself. They all kind of trend and follow the same path, if you will, that the Sentencing Guidelines started 30 years ago. So it really has been the guiding light for not just individual organizations that want to build a better program, but also other regulators out there, whether that's the Department of Justice, or other agencies here in the United States, or international organizations that are adopting compliance standards. Jen Uner: So the most recent publication, it provides great historical context about the commission and its impact. Can you outline some of those highlights? I remember that the report is chock full of charts, data, as you were saying, which is great if you're needing to report about program effectiveness, for example. What do you think is most salient for leaders in that report? Eric Morehead: Yeah, as far as those particular pieces of data, nothing here if you've been paying attention to the sentencing guideline data over the years, and every year, I should mention that the Sentencing Commission puts out what they call the Sentencing Source Book, and that has a lot of data about not only individual's sentencing, which is the primary thing that the Sentencing Commission collects data on is the actual, real living human beings that are being sentenced year in, year out in federal courts around the nation, but it also includes data on the organizations that have been sentenced in that prior year. So if you've been paying attention over the years and looking at these source books, you will have noted that pretty much year in, year out, the vast majority of organizations that are sentenced, 70% of them have less than 50 employees, and 12.1% have 99 to 400 employees. And just a very small percentage, 8%, have more than 500 employees. So the vast majority of organizations that get sentenced are very small, but if you think about it, that makes logical sense, because smaller organizations tend to have less governance structure, probably have less resources, probably don't have a compliance program, and that's certainly the finding that courts when they review these cases 89.6% of the time, so almost 90% of the time organizations have been found not to have a program in place, or what was in place was not significant enough to be considered a compliance program. So those two figures seem to correlate well, right? The organizations that face the most serious repercussions are small and also don't have a program, so probably hadn't even contemplated having a program before misconduct occurred. The other real striking piece of information that comes out of this report and is also something that's been consistent through the years is the number of actual living human beings that are being sentenced along with the organizations in these cases. When we look at these cases, often we're talking about the demographics of the company, how many employees they have, what sort of crimes they have been found guilty of, how big the fines are, et cetera, but sometimes what gets lost in that discussion is the fact that if there's misconduct that's occurred, very often, there are individuals who are charged right along with the company for violations of the law. And in fact, over time, 53% of these cases include at least one other individual, and sometimes multiple individuals, who've also been charged with crime. The other really striking piece of data out of this that I think a lot of people don't realize is the vast majority of individuals who are charged are not considered "high level", so these are folks that have some authority to engage in whatever behavior underlies the conduct that led to a criminal offense. So they probably are not at the very lowest level of the organization most of the time, but they are not necessarily in the C-suite. Only 25.7% of the individuals charged with an offense along with an organization were considered high level. So almost three quarters of those individuals who find themselves facing criminal sanction, potentially going off to the federal penitentiary are folks that are not considered high level in their organization, and I think that is perhaps counterintuitive, because we oftentimes hear the headlines of executives and other senior folks in organizations getting in trouble and facing criminal sanction, but the reality is the opposite of that. Jen Uner: That's kind of scary, I got to say. I mean, it makes me as an individual in the company really want to pay attention to my compliance training. Eric Morehead: Certainly. Anytime an organization... And granted these cases are not as numerous as situations where organizations may have an investigation and might settle with either the Department of Justice or an agency, like have a civil settlement, something short of a criminal conviction, and there are a lot of situations where organizations might receive a subpoena or have some sort of investigation that occurs, that just ends without any kind of charges or settlements being attained. So there's a lot of data that we don't have, right? Where things may not go perfectly, but don't go quite as bad as ending up with a criminal conviction, but it is scary to consider that there are individuals that are being charged right along with these organizations for this misconduct. Jen Uner: It's really interesting, because so often inside organizations, you've got pressure on one side to perform or deliver in a certain way, and then you can find maybe shortcuts. I mean, I don't know how else to describe it, but a quicker way to get there that maybe is potentially outside the law. So it's true that there are real repercussions for taking those shortcuts, and also for not speaking up, if you see something. Eric Morehead: Yeah, and the real repercussions here for organizations, again, you can't jail a company. You can only fine them. You can order restitution. A federal judge can order them to implement compliance reforms, put together a program if they don't have a program. Those are all things they can do, but the other thing to consider here too is if you take a federal felony conviction, and you are an organization that does any amount of work with the federal government, you can be debarred from future federal contracting, so that can very often... Taking a federal conviction beyond the fines and the costs associated with having to defend the organization against those charges, if it actually ends up with a conviction, and your organization relies heavily or primarily on government contracting, that's the end of the organization. I mean that's the death penalty. The best example of that that we all can probably remember is Arthur Andersen. When they took the federal conviction in Houston for conduct involving Enron, that was the end of Arthur Andersen. They could no longer audit public companies, and they were debarred from government contracting, obviously, after that point too, and that was just the death sentence. Oftentimes when we're looking at these cases, when we look at the data, those are organizations that just had no options, because if there were any options before that to settle the case, to make reforms, to have some sort of civil settlement, those on-ramps just weren't available to them. Jen Uner: I do remember that whole upheaval. My father was in accounting at I think Ernst & Young at the time. I can't even remember, but I do remember that massive upheaval for Arthur Andersen, and how they had to completely pivot the entire business. Eric Morehead: Yeah. The consequences reputational and lost opportunity, real bottom line business costs involved in having misconduct, even if it doesn't rise to the level where we're talking about Sentencing Guidelines or having to implement Sentencing Guidelines for the organization, just an investigation can really derail an organization in a significant way. Jen Uner: I'm going to ask kind of a uninformed question now. It's because I'm not a lawyer. This is going to be maybe really obvious for others, but in case you're like me, can you describe what the Sentencing Commission's relationship is with the DOJ and the SEC, and how do these organizations sort of interrelate? We so often hear about DOJ guidance, for example. How is that different from Sentencing Commission? Eric Morehead: Over the years, we've seen more and more guidance both here in the United States and abroad from prosecuting entities like the DOJ, but also other regulatory agencies like SEC, and many of these regulatory organizations have compliance standards they put together. As far as I'm aware, they're pretty universally based on the same basic standards that we talk about in the Sentencing Guidelines. The DOJ guidance, and primarily we're talking about the memoranda that the criminal division has put out periodically since I think 2017 with the most recent iteration being the 2020 summer one, I believe, that guidance is based and explicitly cites the Sentencing Guidelines as its fundamental basis. Now, obviously there's a lot more detail and specificity within the DOJ guidance. The difference between guidance from the Department of Justice, other guidance that you might see in other agencies, but particularly the memoranda that we're talking about from the DOJ, is that can be withdrawn at any time, and as we've seen over the past few years, it can be amended at any time. It's only a few years old, and it's been amended twice. The DOJ, if there's a change of administration or a change within the hierarchy of the criminal division, those new officials that come in may want to make a change. The former deputy attorney general in the prior administration had talked about doing away with memoranda from the department altogether and codifying everything in as much as you can codify it in the US Attorney's Manual. So there are various things that could potentially happen at any time.           Because the US Sentencing Commission is a rule making organization, there's a whole process that the commission has to go through before there are changes made to the Sentencing Guidelines. That's one of the reasons why there have been very few amendments to the Organizational Sentencing Guidelines over the years is because there's a whole process involved. The commission first has to publicly publish its intention to make any changes. It'll often, if there are proposals to make changes, it will seek public comment, often have a public hearing, and then it votes. And once a commission votes, if a new amendment is promulgated, then it's sent to Congress to both the House and the Senate, and they have a period of time to either make changes or not allow those guideline amendments to come into effect, but if they don't do anything, they automatically come into effect and basically have the force of law as the Sentencing Guidelines. Now, granted the Sentencing Guidelines don't officially apply to your organization except when you're in front of a federal judge being sentenced, right? So if there's no sentence, there's no criminal offense where the sentence is being determined, the guidelines don't have any official capacity, but we've all taken them as the standards by which we measure the effectiveness of a program. So I guess what I'm saying here is I think any guidance is helpful guidance. Certainly the DOJ guidance has been very helpful and added more detail into what regulators are looking for when they peer into an organization, but just the sort of bread and butter basic pieces of a compliance program are always going to reflect back to those seven hallmarks of an effective program within the Sentencing Guidelines, because they're pretty immutable. Jen Uner: So if you're building an E&C program, what are the steps that organizations should be taking to lower their risk? Can you go into a little bit more detail on that? How do you unearth all the rules that apply, and how can you effectively transmit them to the people in your organization? Eric Morehead: Yeah. Whether you're using the Sentencing Guidelines, looking at the guidance from the Department of Justice, or guidance from international organizations like the OECD or others, I feel like, and this is backed up by the specific guidance that the department has given over the past few years of what they look for, every organization is unique. It's its own unique snowflake, right? And so you're going to have your own unique risk profile, and you're going to have to develop your own unique compliance program to be an effective control for those risks. So you evaluate all of these standards, but you put together a program, and you put together standards that really address what your program needs. One of the key provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines, by the way, is what I would call the not one size fits all provision. The guidelines from the very beginning stages of when they were developed had this notion that not every program is going to look the same, not every program is going to be as extensive as other programs. Smaller organizations that are purely domestic here in the United States, for example, and maybe are smaller probably don't have the same exposure to anti-corruption concerns, for example, foreign bribery anti-corruption concerns that international organizations might have for just as an example. So really the best advice is to make sure that your program meets your needs, and so the first step along that process is evaluating and figuring out what your needs are. What are compliance risks that your organization faces, and how are you addressing those risks, and do you need to reform those controls, put more resources behind training or monitoring and auditing, or whatever it might be to address those particular risks? So it's really an investigation of what you face as an organization, what are the risks you face, looking at all these standards, reading the guidance from the department, reading specific guidance that might apply to your organizations, for example, if there are particular compliance requirements. If you're a government contractor, you have to have a written code of conduct. You have to post certain reporting materials if you're a government contractor. So there are some particularized compliance requirements, depending on who you are, and how your business is operating, and you have to be aware of all those standards, but you develop a program that fits your organization, that is very specific and customized to the risks you face, the resources you have to use, because not everybody has the same resources. So you have to make some tough calls sometimes as a compliance officer or the person responsible for compliance at an organization, because you may not be able to do all the things you really want to do, but you have to figure out and prioritize the things you need to do. Jen Uner: Which makes me think about corporate culture, right? Because every company's culture is also unique and completely attuned to its own size and position of the marketplace, and where it trades, and who it does business with, and all of those pieces. Eric Morehead: Yeah, the ethics side of compliance and ethics is the determining factor very often, right? The culture of the organization really tell the tale as to how effective or ineffective ultimately you're going to be. You may need more controls. You may have some potential risks that need to be addressed. Even if you have a super strong culture, you can't just get by on culture alone, because organizations are made up of a lot of individuals, and some of those individuals may have bad intent, but it's hard to imagine how you could properly resource an organization that had a poisonous culture, right? If you don't have values, if you don't have an effective ethical framework that everybody is primarily operating under, you can pour money onto systems, controls, tools, and it may not make any difference whatsoever. You can have a compliance budget that is the top budget out there, but if the culture is ruined or ruinous, then it's going to be really hard to have an effective program. Jen Uner: Yeah. I think they famously have said, "Culture eats strategy for breakfast." Eric Morehead: Yeah, and that's really true. I've seen different ends of the spectrum, right? I've seen organizations where the culture was hard to know how you would start to climb back up that hill and reform the culture, and how you would be able to have an effective program without having a positive, ethical culture, but I've also seen the other end too, which is less frequent, but also potentially problematic, where organizations... And sometimes I see this, for example, a good example of this would be a nonprofit where mission is really important, and everybody has a very ethical outlook, and they wouldn't be working at a nonprofit and particularly in difficult circumstances unless they really were all about the mission and had a very positive, ethical attitude, but they don't have a lot of structure. They don't have a lot of resources. And so there's always the potential that there could be failures and misconduct, because for instance, they might be a good target for an outside data privacy issue, right? Because they don't have strong data security systems. Jen Uner: I was just going to say data privacy. Eric Morehead: So you can be at both ends of the spectrum as far as that culture piece goes, and still have some serious compliance risks. Jen Uner: So there's definitely always a need for E&C training for sure. Eric Morehead: Yeah, training in Sentencing Guidelines, and the guidance from the Department of Justice, both are really clear about we are not interested in one size fits all. We are not interested in how big your budget is. We just want to make sure your budget is right, that the governing authority and the organization has addressed this properly and is serious about compliance, but if you're a smaller organization or an organization where the risks are being properly addressed without spending a lot of money, that can be perfectly fine. Again, depends on the individual organization, and what is their risk profile, how are they addressing those risks, and are they meeting the other big picture criteria of having some standards that everybody knows about, training where appropriate, having proper governance and oversight, and monitoring and auditing, having a reporting process, where people can ask questions and report concerns, properly enforcing the rules, and disciplining people, and having incentives. And that's the one that often gets missed. That's been in the Sentencing Guidelines for years now, and has is mentioned in the guidance. How do you incentivize proper behavior at your organization? That's really important too. Jen Uner: There is so much that goes into building an effective E&C program. I'm sure we could be talking about this all day, but we are running out of time. I am so glad you could join me today to talk about this report and why it matters to every organization. I know we'll be including a link to that report in our show notes at LRN.com. My name is Jen Uner. I want to thank you, Eric, for joining me today. Eric Morehead: Thanks, Jen. It was my pleasure to be here. Jen Uner: And I want to thank everyone for listening to the Principled Podcast by LRN. Outro: We hope you enjoyed this episode. The Principled Podcast is brought to you by LRN. At LRN, our mission is to inspire principled performance in global organizations by helping them foster winning ethical cultures rooted in sustainable values. Please visit us at LRN.com to learn more, and if you enjoyed this episode, subscribe to our podcast on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Google Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and don't forget to leave us a review.  

Welcome to The Times of Israel's Daily Briefing, your 15-minute audio update on what's happening in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world, from Sunday through Thursday. US correspondent Jacob Magid and Religions and Diaspora Affairs writer Judah Ari Gross join host Jessica Steinberg for today's podcast. Magid discusses how and why the Egyptian envoy berated Israel at the UN Security Council, following warmed relations between the two countries and its recent brokering of the ceasefire between Israel and Islamic Jihad. Gross reviews Saturday night's egalitarian reading of Lamentations during the Tisha B'Av fast at the Western Wall, amid expectations for tensions and possible protests from Orthodox extremists, as happened the year prior. Magid looks at the final decision not to lower the rank of US Security Coordinator, USSC, in Jerusalem to colonel from three-star general, possibly given the role it holds in coordinating between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. He also talks about the moderate rival Dan Samuels who nearly upset congresswoman Ilhan Omar in the recent primary race, one which pro-Israel groups sat out. Gross discusses the recent tensions between the Jewish Agency and the Russian government, which has threatened to close its branch of the Jewish Agency, which handles Jewish immigration from Russia. Discussed articles include: After mediating Gaza ceasefire, Egypt's envoy castigates Israel at Security Council Pentagon backs off Jerusalem security coordinator downgrade amid lawmaker pressure Moderate rival nearly upsets Ilhan Omar in primary race pro-Israel groups sat out Israeli government intervenes as Moscow tightens screws on Jewish Agency Subscribe to The Times of Israel Daily Briefing on iTunes, Spotify, PlayerFM, Google Play, or wherever you get your podcasts. IMAGE: Egyptian Ambassador to the UN Osama Abdel Khalek addresses the Security Council on August 8, 2022. (Screen capture/UN TV)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Constitutional adjudication is not a "Cosmic Battle" of good versus evil between Ironman and Thanos.  "Judges are not superheroes," and constitutional cases should be decided dispassionately, with an appreciation that judges or justices who disagree usually do so in good faith and for valid legal reasons.  But "some judges [and justices]  have confused their role with that of the Avengers."  When they disagree with their colleagues, they sometimes claim that the "other side" is acting in bad faith or in ways that are illegitimate.  Such ad hominem attacks, while rhetorically appealing and perhaps true in some cases, do not bolster the legal analysis.  They do, however, undermine the legitimacy of the courts, and judges and justices should not engage in such wars.  This is the thesis of Professor H. Jefferson Powell's article - Judges as Superheroes: The Danger of Confusing Constitutional Decisions with Cosmic Battles.  He joins me to discuss how some judges and justices use rhetoric as a weapon against colleagues who disagree with them, and how doing so is harmful to institutional legitimacy. Professor Powell teaches Constitutional and First Amendment law at the Duke University School of Law.  His latest book is The Practice Of Constitutional Law.  He holds a bachelor's degree from St. David's University College (now Trinity St. David) of the University of Wales; a master's degree and PhD from Duke University; and a Master's of Divinity and JD from Yale University.  Prior to entering academia almost 4 decades ago, Professor Powell clerked for Judge Sam J. Ervin III of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.  Opinions and writings discussed: Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org., USSC (2022).McDougall v. Cnty. of Ventura, 9th Cir. (2022).SisterSong v. Gov. of Georgia, 11th Cir. (2022).  Manning v. Caldwell, 4th Cir. (2019).Robert's LinkedIn article about Chief Judge William Pryor's opinion in SisterSong. In Praise of Doubt: How to Have Convictions Without Becoming a Fanatic

Happy Tuesday - we're coming to you from Disney World with another Disney-theme game! A tragedy in Texas, Louisiana stops abortion ban, Britney Griner's detention, USSC sides with praying coach.SHOP OUR NEW YOU LOOK GREAT COLLECTION: YouLookGreat.coBE A GAME GAME CONTESTANT: https://forms.gle/Bf6aPVTbEqmo4QoS6Follow Jill: https://bit.ly/3nmSikAFollow Tara: https://bit.ly/3OKzfwfWHAT'S TRENDING:https://bit.ly/3NvSicxJOING OUR FREE DISCORD: https://discord.gg/KzzY9NczSEATTLE GUMMY COMPANY CODE CMA: https://bit.ly/2ZicpEOCARLA MARIE AND ANTHONY SHOW + SOCIAL ⬇️Newsletter Signup: https://view.flodesk.com/pages/5f516ae62c60490027b9ec20Watch Live on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/CarlaMarieandAnthonyCatch up on our show on YouTube: http://youtube.com/carlamarieanthonyshowFollow us on Instagram: http://instagram.com/carlamarieandanthonyFollow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/CMandAnthonyFollow us on Facebook: https://facebook.com/CarlaMarieandAnthony/Follow Carla Marie on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thecarlamarie/Follow Anthony on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/worstanthony/ See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The USSC lays down the law by overturning the law, a giant demon leads a pride parade, Canada almost wins at something, and updates on the usual suspects.

Today I am going to start with a question. What would it take to bring an entirely segregated city to its knees?  What if I told you, it would only take one woman who was simply tired of giving in.This is a two-part series covering the life of the American Icon, Rosa Parks.We are looking for hometown True Crime stories for future episodes.  Please send your stories to us at: TheSecretSitsPodcast@gmail.comPodcast Promo from: The Crime Diner Podcasthttps://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/crime-diner/id1483359151Support the showhttps://www.buymeacoffee.com/TheSecretSitsFollow us on our social media at:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwnfvpNBYTo9BP1sVuFsfGQTheSecretSitsPodcast (@secretsitspod) / Twitterhttps://www.instagram.com/thesecretsitspodcast/https://www.facebook.com/TheSecretSitsPodcasthttps://www.tiktok.com/@thesecretsitspodcast?lang=en#RosaParks #RaymondParks #Montgomery #MontgomeryBusBoycott #Boycott #Tuskegee #NAACP #ScottsboroBoys #USSC #SupremeCourt #segregation #VoterRegistration #USConstitution #SeparatebutEqual #Equality #ThurgoodMarshall #KetanjiBrownJackson #Birmingham #VirginiaDurr #BLMShooting Straight Radio PodcastWelcome to 2nd Amendment University!! This podcast (formerly known as "Shooting...Listen on: Apple Podcasts SpotifySupport the show

Today I am going to start with a question. What would it take to bring an entirely segregated city to its knees?  What if I told you, it would only take one woman who was simply tired of giving in.This is a two-part series covering the life of the American Icon, Rosa Parks.We are looking for hometown True Crime stories for future episodes.  Please send your stories to us at: TheSecretSitsPodcast@gmail.comPodcast Promo from: The Crime Diner Podcasthttps://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/crime-diner/id1483359151Support the showhttps://www.buymeacoffee.com/TheSecretSitsFollow us on our social media at:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwnfvpNBYTo9BP1sVuFsfGQTheSecretSitsPodcast (@secretsitspod) / Twitterhttps://www.instagram.com/thesecretsitspodcast/https://www.facebook.com/TheSecretSitsPodcasthttps://www.tiktok.com/@thesecretsitspodcast?lang=en#RosaParks #RaymondParks #Montgomery #MontgomeryBusBoycott #Boycott #Tuskegee #NAACP #ScottsboroBoys #USSC #SupremeCourt #segregation #VoterRegistration #USConstitution #SeparatebutEqual #Equality #ThurgoodMarshall #KetanjiBrownJackson #Birmingham #VirginiaDurr #BLMShooting Straight Radio PodcastWelcome to 2nd Amendment University!! This podcast (formerly known as "Shooting...Listen on: Apple Podcasts SpotifySupport the show

In this episode of Serious Privacy, Paul Breitbarth of Catawiki and Dr. K Royal of Outschool take some time to review recent events in the privacy / data protection world. This week, this means they cover the Connecticut Act concerning Personal Data Privacy and Online Monitoring Act - the PDPOM… Paul has a cool name for it. Connecticut's act passed on May 10, 2022 and takes effect July 1, 2023 - along with CPRA and Virginia on January 1, 2023; Colorado also on July 1, 2023; Utah on December 31, 2023  Please also see the recent state laws webinar from TrustArc and the state whitepapers.This leads into the Roe v. Wade US Supreme Court leaked draft decision and then on to Europe with a study conducted  by the  Radboud University in the Netherlands, imec-COSIC, KU Leuven (a Catholic research university in the city of Leuven, Belgium), and University of Lausanne in Switzerland. These researchers looked at thousands of websites and their “leaky forms.” Leaky forms are those that capture data before the individual submits it, so companies get a lot of data that they should not have, including passwords. This may not be purposeful, but it is concerning. The full paper is published here.As always, if you have comments or questions, let us know - LinkedIn, Twitter @podcastprivacy @euroPaulB @heartofprivacy @trustArc and email seriousprivacy@trustarc.com. Please do like and write comments on your favorite podcast act so other professionals can find us easier. 

❗⁠在 PressPlay 上找到我們，並熱情付費訂閱：https://reurl.cc/qO7mlg

We discuss the Kevin Samuels haters, Amber Heard, and the USSC leak on Roe vs Wade. FOLLOW US ON TWITTER: CRITICAL MISINFORMATION THEORY - @MISINFOSCIENCE CRITICAL TECH - @CriticalTech_ RUMBLE VIDEO IS CANCELLED FOR NOW BECAUSE POLITICAL PEOPLE CAN BE REAL FREAKS.

❗⁠在 PressPlay 上找到我們，並熱情付費訂閱：https://reurl.cc/qO7mlg

Eerder (https://www.nporadio2.nl/podcasts/zimmerman-in-space/5317/25-de-eerste-bezoeker-uit-de-interstellaire-ruimte) hadden we het al over een mysterieuze bezoeker uit de interstellaire ruimte. Wetenschapper Amir Siraj ontdekte echter dat we al eerder zijn bezocht door iets wat van ver komt... (plaats hier spannend geluidseffect) Het Twitter-bericht van de USSC: https://twitter.com/US_SpaceCom/status/1511856370756177921 CNEOS vuurballen database: https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/fireballs/ Rebound Python code: https://rebound.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

Yay Tuesday! Colorado's new abortion law, Alaska Airlines pilot shortage, update on USSC nomination, and Matt Gaetz against the Insulin cap. Start your morning with trees instead of cocaine and trendy popcorn!Want to play one of our games? Sign up here: https://forms.gle/Bf6aPVTbEqmo4QoS6WHAT'S TRENDING*: https://bit.ly/37goEZI*this is an affiliate linkSLIME ROBOT: https://bit.ly/3KdetmZSEATTLE GUMMY COMPANY CODE CMA: https://bit.ly/2ZicpEOCARLA MARIE AND ANTHONY SHOW + SOCIAL ⬇️Newsletter Signup: https://view.flodesk.com/pages/5f516ae62c60490027b9ec20Watch Live on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/CarlaMarieandAnthonyCatch up on our show on YouTube: http://youtube.com/carlamarieanthonyshowFollow us on Instagram: http://instagram.com/carlamarieandanthonyFollow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/CMandAnthonyFollow us on Facebook: https://facebook.com/CarlaMarieandAnthony/Follow Carla Marie on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thecarlamarie/Follow Anthony on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/worstanthony/ See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This weeks news has been alot to take in. But if you've been listening,then you'll remember that we are still witnessing a war in Ukraine However, now there are war crimes being called out by the United States Govt against Russia's own Vladimir Putin. Ketanji Brown Jackson is making HISTORY and gracefully so, but there something ALARMING attached to that USSC history. Joey Biden is sitting down for pizza with US troops in Poland, so what does this mean? I'm gonna take your hearts in my hand and try and give you ease around this weeks Breaking News topics. Trust me, they are ALARMING & you DO NOT want to miss this episode. Sit back, relax & Enjoy

Morning! A plane crashes in China, Miami adds a curfew, racist performance at Disney, and USSC begins hearing for Ketanji Brown Jackson. Today's Cover Lovers is our biggest rival yet...Skeery vs Brody from Elvis Duran and the Morning Show and the Brooklyn Boys podcast! Is Kanye still performing at Coachella?? And an Arby's rap!LISTEN TO SKEERY AND BRODY ON THE BROOKLYN BOYSLISTEN TO SKEERY AND BRODY ON ELVIS DURAN!COVER LOVERS 8 BIT CHANNEL: PixelydianWant to play one of our games? Sign up here: https://forms.gle/Bf6aPVTbEqmo4QoS6WHAT'S TRENDING: https://bit.ly/3CZc7p2SHOP RSVLTS 20% OFF WITH CODE CMA20 for new customers: https://rsvlts.com/?rfsn=6347677.2f3be3CARLA MARIE'S HAPPY BOX: https://bit.ly/36XE192SEATTLE GUMMY COMPANY: https://bit.ly/2ZicpEOCARLA MARIE AND ANTHONY SHOW + SOCIAL ⬇️Newsletter Signup: https://view.flodesk.com/pages/5f516ae62c60490027b9ec20Watch Live on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/CarlaMarieandAnthonyCatch up on our show on YouTube: http://youtube.com/carlamarieanthonyshowFollow us on Instagram: http://instagram.com/carlamarieandanthonyFollow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/CMandAnthonyFollow us on Facebook: https://facebook.com/CarlaMarieandAnthony/Follow Carla Marie on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thecarlamarie/Follow Anthony on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/worstanthony/ See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On this episode I discussed the USSC decision on Texas abortion law and how devious this law is against women rights. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/casanova-the-comedian/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/casanova-the-comedian/support

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

  Welcome to this special episode of Entertainment Law Update SHOW NOTES The mark, as the decision lays out, is supposed to be pronounced as four letters, one after the other, as in “F-U-C-T” (Phonetically “eff-eww-see-tee” and not as one … Read the rest The post Special Episode: Iancu v. Brunetti (USSC deals with FUCT trademark) appeared first on Entertainment Law Update.

   Welcome to this episode of Entertainment Law Update. SHOW NOTES   Olivia DeHaviland Update – California Supreme Court refuses to revive, so she's takin' it to the USSC https://www.lowelaw.com/california-supreme-court-puts-de-havilland-case-to-rest https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/actress-olivia-de-havilland-now-102-will-take-feud-supreme-court-1137142   JOHNNY DEPP WINS (AKA TERROR FROM THE DEPP) … Read the rest The post Is that THE big “O”? appeared first on Entertainment Law Update.