Podcasts about Western District

About this Event: Join us for a fireside chat, “The Future of U.S. Involvement in the Middle East,” featuring House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Emeritus Michael McCaul (R-Tex.), in conversation with journalist Dr. James Robbins. The discussion will be moderated by Haley Byrd Witt, Senior Reporter at NOTUS. This event will examine the evolving role of the United States in the Middle East through perspectives from Congress, the media, and policy experts. About the Speakers: House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Emeritus Michael McCaul (R-Tex.) is currently serving his eleventh term representing Texas' 10th District in the U.S. Congress. He previously served as Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security and is currently Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Prior to Congress, he served as Chief of Counter Terrorism and National Security in the U.S. Attorney's Office, Western District of Texas, and led the Joint Terrorism Task Force. He also served as Texas Deputy Attorney General under Senator John Cornyn and as a federal prosecutor in the Department of Justice's Public Integrity Section in Washington, DC. A fourth-generation Texan, Congressman McCaul earned a B.A. in Business and History from Trinity University and a J.D. from St. Mary's University School of Law. He and his wife Linda are the proud parents of five children. Dr. James S. Robbins is IWP faculty and the current Dean of Academics. He is also a national security columnist for USA Today and Senior Fellow in National Security Affairs at the American Foreign Policy Council. Dr. Robbins is a former special assistant in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and in 2007 was awarded the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Meritorious Civilian Service Award. He is also the former award-winning Senior Editorial Writer for Foreign Affairs at The Washington Times. His work has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, National Review, and other publications, and he appears regularly on national and international television and radio. Dr. Robbins holds a Ph.D. from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and has taught at the National Defense University and Marine Corps University, among other schools. His research interests include terrorism and national security strategy, political theory, and military history. Haley Byrd Witt is a Senior Reporter at NOTUS, covering politics and Congress with a focus on the Republican Party, foreign policy, human rights, and domestic legislation. Her reporting has appeared in The New York Times, Foreign Policy, and Christianity Today. She previously covered Congress for The Dispatch, CNN, and The Weekly Standard.

Jonathan Byrne and Josh Carpenter of the Western District of North Carolina Federal Public Defender Office discuss recent Fourth Circuit Court news.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 2: 4:05pm- While appearing on Fox News with Sean Hannity, New Jersey gubernatorial candidate Jack Ciattarelli warned that his opponent, Mikie Sherrill, will adopt many of the failed policies promoted by Gov. Phil Murphy—including radical energy policies that are driving up costs for state residents. 4:10pm- On Tuesday, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina Russ Ferguson held a press conference to address the senseless murder of Ukrainian immigrant Iryna Zarutska while riding public transportation in Charlotte, North Carolina. 4:45pm- A woman goes viral for making pasta on an airplane, radioactive shrimp from Walmart, and Rich decides he's getting a dog!

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Show (09/09/2025): 3:05pm- On Monday, October 13th at 7:30pm—Rich will host New York Times best-selling author Jack Carr at the Zlock Performing Arts Center (at Bucks County Community College) in Newtown, PA. They'll sit down for an engaging discussion about Jack's latest thriller, Cry Havoc—the newest installment in his acclaimed James Reece series. Known for his real-world military experience and gripping, action-packed storytelling, Jack Carr brings an unmatched authenticity to the world of political and military thrillers. For tickets visit: 1210wpht.com 3:10pm- During Tuesday's briefing, independent investigative journalist Michael Shellenberger asked White House Press Secret Karoline Leavitt about the importance of preserving free speech in the United States—as it appears to be under attack in other parts of the world. 3:25pm- In an act of senseless violence, a Ukrainian refugee was brutally stabbed to death while on public transportation in Charlotte, North Carolina. The man charged with the murder is a career criminal with 14 prior arrests. Why wasn't he in prison? And why isn't legacy media following the story? Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called the act “pure evil on full display.” Meanwhile, President Donald Trump condemned the act—emphasizing that the horrific murder was entirely preventable. 3:40pm- Sen. Dave McCormick—United States Senator from Pennsylvania—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss South Korea's Hanwha Group's $5 billion investment in the Philly shipyard, a senseless murder in Charlotte, a letter he and Sen. John Fetterman wrote to Pennsylvania college presidents imploring them to combat anti-Semitism on campuses, the Rose Garden Club, permitting reform, & deregulation. 4:05pm- While appearing on Fox News with Sean Hannity, New Jersey gubernatorial candidate Jack Ciattarelli warned that his opponent, Mikie Sherrill, will adopt many of the failed policies promoted by Gov. Phil Murphy—including radical energy policies that are driving up costs for state residents. 4:10pm- On Tuesday, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina Russ Ferguson held a press conference to address the senseless murder of Ukrainian immigrant Iryna Zarutska while riding public transportation in Charlotte, North Carolina. 4:45pm- A woman goes viral for making pasta on an airplane, radioactive shrimp from Walmart, and Rich decides he's getting a dog! 5:05pm- Charlotte North Carolina Mayor Vi Lyles reacted to the murder of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska by a man who had been arrested 14 times: “We will never arrest our way out [of] issues such as homelessness and mental health.” The New York Post editorial board was, understandably, incensed by the remarks. 5:15pm- During Monday's briefing, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt denied that President Donald Trump signed a birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein—and questioned the accuracy of reporting from The Wall Street Journal. 5:20pm- House Oversight Chairman James Comer told Fox News that he has seen evidence that even members of the Biden Administration's Department of Justice questioned Joe Biden's excessive use of the autopen. 5:30pm- Sean Stevens—Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) Chief Research Advisor—joins The Rich Zeoli Show. On Tuesday, FIRE released the 2026 College Free Speech Rankings, which ranks 257 of America's campuses based on free speech climate—overall, the nation's schools received a failing grade. 6:05pm- While speaking with the press on Capitol Hill, Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) said that Democrats who still embrace socialism are “morons.” 6:10pm- The Supreme Court has agreed to consider a case which questions Donald Trump's presidential authority to unilaterally impose tariffs on foreign nations. 6:15pm- Speaking with the press, President Donald Trump said he's “not happy” with Russia's reluctance to end its war with Ukraine. 6:20pm- In an act of senseless vio ...

American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for Aug. 27, 2025President Trump Agitates for Release of Convicted Colorado Clerk Tina Peters; Federal Judge Won't Dismiss Class Action Suit Against Elon MuskWe have updates on two stories we brought you last year, as President Donald Trump attempts to get convicted Colorado county clerk Tina Peters released, and Elon Musk faces a class action suit over alleged empty promises made to swing state petition signers. Some podcasting platforms strip out our links.  To read our resources and see the whole script of today's report, please go to our website at https://AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgToday's LinksArticles & Resources:American Democracy Minute - CO Election Official Tina Peters Got 9 Years for Tampering with Election Machines to Prove the Big Lie.  Trump is Trying to Set Her Free.American Democracy Minute - Wisconsin AG Appeals to State Supreme Court to Block Elon Musk's Million Dollar Lottery for WI GOP Voters – Oops – Make that ‘Spokesmen' Colorado Newsline - (2024) Tina Peters, former Mesa County clerk, sentenced to 9 years in prison over voting systems breachColorado Newsline - Trump threatens ‘harsh measures' in another call for Tina Peters' releaseHuffington Post - Elon Musk Must Face Lawsuit For Duping Trump Supporters In $1 Million Giveaways U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas - Ruling in McAferty  v. MuskGroups Taking Action:Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, Common Cause,  Public Citizen, States United Democracy Center, Issue OnePlease follow us on Facebook and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgWant ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!#News #Democracy  #DemocracyNews #Colorado #ElonMusk #AmericaPAC #TinaPeters #DonaldTrump 

On February 21, 2022, 25-year-old Aaron Cody Fortner disappeared from Jackson County, North Carolina. At the time, he was staying at a property owned by his grandparents. He made a couple of phone calls to his grandparents in the early morning hours that seemed off, but they weren't sure what to make of it at the time. When Aaron's sister, Kourtney, spoke to her grandparents later that morning, they asked her if she had heard from him. She said she hadn't, and they proceeded to tell her about the phone calls. Kourtney was concerned enough to drive out and check on her brother. When she arrived, things didn't feel right. A door Aaron always kept locked for safety reasons was unlocked. Kourntey went inside, and Aaron was gone. One thing that stood out was that it was a mess. Just the day prior, their mother had visited, and everything was tidy.That left his family to wonder what happened between the time Aaron's mother last saw him and when he disappeared. Where could he have gone, and why did it seem like something had disrupted his world overnight? His family began calling Aaron's name, searching the surrounding area, and quickly contacted law enforcement to report him missing.More than three years have passed, and Aaron's loved ones are still searching. Along the way, they have uncovered strange and unsettling clues, but so far, none have led them to Aaron.If you have any information about the disappearance of Aaron Cody Fortner, please contact the Jackson County Sheriff's Office at (828) 586-8901 or the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation's Western District at (828) 330-4700.If you have a missing loved one that you would like to have featured on the show, please fill out our case submission form.Follow The Vanished on social media at:FacebookInstagramTwitterPatreonSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Tune in here to this Tuesday's edition of the Brett Winterble Show! We're joined by Brett Jensen to talk about the rising threat of organized crime and the evolving tactics used by international gangs in the Charlotte area. Brett shares highlights from his in-depth interview with U.S. Attorney Russ Ferguson, who oversees the Western District of North Carolina. Ferguson revealed that roughly 70% of the gang-related crime they deal with involves groups from Central and South America, many of whom are becoming more sophisticated—eschewing tattoos and graffiti to avoid RICO charges. They also discussed international burglary crews flying into the U.S., robbing homes, and flying out the same day. Even more alarming, Ferguson outlined how Chinese money laundering and synthetic drug trafficking—particularly fentanyl and even deadlier “nitazenes”—are impacting the region. With school starting soon, Brett emphasized the urgency of community awareness. He also teased major developments in local politics, including a new sheriff’s race contender and surprising GOP endorsements in North Mecklenburg. Listen here for all of this and more on The Brett Winterble Show! For more from Brett Winterble check out his YouTube channel. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Tune in here to this Tuesday's edition of the Brett Winterble Show! Brett kicks off the program by talking about Ghislaine Maxwell's interview transcript and the Department of Justice potentially releasing it, urging full transparency and calling for the public release of all related materials. He expresses confidence that the truth will implicate several high-profile figures, particularly on the political left We're joined by Brett Jensen to talk about the rising threat of organized crime and the evolving tactics used by international gangs in the Charlotte area. Brett shares highlights from his in-depth interview with U.S. Attorney Russ Ferguson, who oversees the Western District of North Carolina. Ferguson revealed that roughly 70% of the gang-related crime they deal with involves groups from Central and South America, many of whom are becoming more sophisticated—eschewing tattoos and graffiti to avoid RICO charges. They also discussed international burglary crews flying into the U.S., robbing homes, and flying out the same day. Bo Thompson from Good Morning BT is also here for this Tuesday’s episode of Crossing the Streams. Brett and Bo talk about the ongoing legal drama surrounding the Epstein case, including Ghislaine Maxwell’s efforts to block the release of testimony transcripts, as well as the political standoff in Texas over redistricting and its potential to influence national politics. Bo draws parallels between the Texas situation and North Carolina’s long history of gerrymandering battles, noting how similar tactics could spread to other states. The two also discuss the high-stakes 2026 U.S. Senate race between Roy Cooper and Michael Whatley, and just how massive the spending and attention could be. Bo reflects on the historical significance of the Senate seat once held by Jesse Helms and its legacy of intense campaigns. Bo also shares what he and Beth Troutman have coming up Wednesday on Good Morning BT, including cybersecurity expert Teresa Payton and political analyst Scott Huffman Listen here for all of this and more on The Brett Winterble Show! For more from Brett Winterble check out his YouTube channel. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ed Bonderenka and callers speak with Erin Mersino, Vice President and Chief of Supreme Court and Appellate Litigation for Advocates for Faith and Freedom about cases they are pursuing at the district and SCOTUS level to protect our liberty.Erin has won and litigated many cases in our nation's highest courts, including before the United States Supreme Court and most of the federal circuit courts of appeal including the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits. Erin has worked on some of the most influential legal issues in our present day, including the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause, the legality of the HHS Mandate under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the scope of the First Amendment's Free Exercise clause.  Erin obtained the second injunction in the nation against the Obama Administration's HHS Mandate. Some highlights of her career include convincing Judge Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit during oral argument to decide in her favor when he was disposed not to and arguing before 17 judges of the Sixth Circuit sitting en banc.  Recently, Erin won a several weeks long trial in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in Austin.  Erin has represented many high-profile Catholics and Christians, notably winning multi-million dollar cases for clients Tom Monaghan and Bill Donohue of the Catholic League.

It's In the News.. a look at the top headlines and stories in the diabetes community. This week's top stories: FDA approves the first fast-acting biosimilar insulin in the US, Tandem issues warning, DOJ stands up for remote monitoring in schools, GLP1 use protects against dementia, and more! Find out more about Moms' Night Out  Please visit our Sponsors & Partners - they help make the show possible! Learn more about Gvoke Glucagon Gvoke HypoPen® (glucagon injection): Glucagon Injection For Very Low Blood Sugar (gvokeglucagon.com) Omnipod - Simplify Life Learn about Dexcom   Check out VIVI Cap to protect your insulin from extreme temperatures The best way to keep up with Stacey and the show is by signing up for our weekly newsletter: Sign up for our newsletter here Here's where to find us: Facebook (Group) Facebook (Page) Instagram Twitter Check out Stacey's books! Learn more about everything at our home page www.diabetes-connections.com  Reach out with questions or comments: info@diabetes-connections.com Episode transcription with links:   Hello and welcome to Diabetes Connections In the News! I'm Stacey Simms and every other Friday I bring you a short episode with the top diabetes stories and headlines happening now. XX We've got the first and only biosimilar FDA approved and moving to market. Kirsty – insulin aspart, which is a biosimilar to Novolog will be available as a single-patient-use prefilled pen for subcutaneous use and a multiple-dose vial for subcutaneous and intravenous use. KIRSTY has been available in Europe and Canada since 2022. This same company makes Semglee, the first biosimilar for long acting? Sales of Insulin Aspart in the United States were approximately $1.9 billion in 2024, according to IQVIA. https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2025/07/15/3115973/0/en/Biocon-Biologics-Expands-Diabetes-Portfolio-with-FDA-Approval-of-Kirsty-the-First-and-Only-Interchangeable-Rapid-Acting-Insulin-Aspart-in-the-United-States.html XX Tandem Diabetes Care (Nasdaq:TNDM) has issued an urgent medical device correction for some t:slim X2 automated insulin pumps. In a July 22 notice, the San Diego-based company warned of pumps that may exhibit a higher rate of speaker failure. During normal use, the insulin pump software monitors current flowing through the speaker during use. Measurements that fall within a pre-determined range indicate a functioning speaker. Meanwhile, measurements falling outside the range indicate a speaker failure.   When the measurements land outside the expected range, the system declares a malfunction, referred to as “Malfunction 16.” If the pump declares this malfunction, insulin delivery will stop and the pump will no longer be operational. Malfunction 16 terminates communication between the pump and continuous glucose monitor (CGM), as well as the t:slim mobile app.   If not addressed, the issue can lead to hyperglycemia, which can result in hospitalization or medical intervention. The company reports 700 adverse events and 59 reported injuries to date, with no reports of death.   Tandem identified that certain speaker versions have a higher rate of Malfunction 16 events due to a wiring issue within the speaker. Users can continue using their pump but with added precautions because Malfunction 16 can occur at any time. They should use the t:slim mobile app with push notifications turned on so the app alerts them if the malfunction occurs, the company said.   Additionally, Tandem intends to release a software update aimed at enhancing the early detection of speaker failure. The update also introduces persistent vibration alarms to help reduce potential safety risk. Tandem plans to notify affected pump users when it makes the update available. https://www.drugdeliverybusiness.com/tandem-warns-insulin-pump-speaker-malfunction/ XX BIG WIN! The DOJ protects T1D rights again! The US Attorney's office for the Western District of Washington State reached a settlement with a public school district that once again confirms remotely monitoring students' CGMs is a reasonable accommodation that schools must provide to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. If its true for one state its true for all states under federal law! If your local schools still refuse to remotely monitor CGMs of their students, provide them with this letter to compel them to FOLLOWT1Ds and FOLLOW Federal Laws. If they still refuse contact us! https://followt1ds.org/ XX new study finds people taking GLP-1 agonists had a significantly lower cumulative risk of developing dementia, when compared to metformin users. Past studies show that people who have type 2 diabetes — a chronic condition where the body does not use its insulin properly — are at a higher risk of developing dementia. The study found that when comparing the neuroprotective abilities of two diabetes medications — metformin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 agonists) — participants taking GLP-1 agonists had a significantly lower cumulative risk of developing dementia, when compared to metformin.   https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/glp-1s-may-offer-better-dementia-protection-than-metformin XX Front office changes coming to Dexcom.  CEO Kevin Sayer will step down  & give the reins to current Chief Operating Officer Jake Leach. Scheduled for January 1, 2026, Leach will also join Dexcom's board of directors where Sayer will remain  executive chairman. One of our frequent guests here.. Leach has worked at Dexcom for 21 years. He served as chief technology officer from 2018 to 2022 before he was named COO in late 2022. He was given the title of president in May. https://www.medtechdive.com/news/dexcom-ceo-change-kevin-sayer-jake-leach/756382/ XX A major international study has revealed that many children and young adults in Sub-Saharan Africa who are diagnosed with type 1 diabetes (T1D) may actually have a different, non-immune-based form of the condition. Unlike the traditional autoimmune version of T1D, this form appears to develop without the immune system attacking the insulin-producing cells. This finding could significantly reshape how diabetes is diagnosed and treated across the region, potentially leading to more precise care and better health outcomes. The researchers found that many young people in Sub-Saharan Africa diagnosed with T1D often don't have the usual markers in their blood (called islet autoantibodies) typically seen in people with T1D in other parts of the world. Specifically, 65% of participants with T1D in this region did not have islet autoantibodies. When the researchers compared this data to studies in the U.S., they found a smaller but significant proportion (15%) of Black participants diagnosed with T1D had a similar form of diabetes found in Sub-Saharan Africa – characterized by negative autoantibodies and a low T1D genetic risk score.   However, white Americans with T1D showed the typical autoimmune pattern, even if they didn't have detectable autoantibodies, their genetics still pointed to autoimmune diabetes.   “The identification of this T1D diabetes subtype in Sub-Saharan African populations and among individuals of African ancestry in the U.S. suggests a potential ancestral or genetic link,” Dabelea notes. “These findings highlight the need to consider alternative etiologies in this group and a deeper understanding of the underlying mechanisms may provide important insights for future prevention and treatment strategies.”     https://scitechdaily.com/new-diabetes-subtype-discovered-in-africa-challenges-global-assumptions/   XX Formal recognition for the specialty of Diabetology.   Diabetology is the specialty focused on the full continuum of diabetes care — encompassing diagnosis, treatment, prevention, technology integration, education, and cardiometabolic management. While it intersects with endocrinology, primary care, and public health, diabetology is uniquely defined by its depth and focus on diabetes alone.       The American College of Diabetology (ACD) is the national professional organization representing clinicians who specialize in diabetes care. ACD advances clinical excellence and education to improve the lives of those affected by diabetes. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250725766248/en/American-College-of-Diabetology-Announces-Formal-Taxonomy-Classification-for-Diabetology   XX Tidepool announces cloud-to-cloud integration with Abbott's FreeStyle Libre portfolio. From the release: This integration allows people living with diabetes using the FreeStyle Libre portfolio to connect their data to their Tidepool account seamlessly. For healthcare providers, this means more comprehensive insights and streamlined workflows, with FreeStyle Libre systems data flowing continuously into the Tidepool Data Platform. https://www.tidepool.org/blog/abbott-freestyle-libre-integration-launched XX Stelo dexom ai food XX With high drug prices remaining an ongoing concern for U.S. politicians, Roche is considering following in the footsteps of some of its peers with a direct-to-consumer (DTC) model to cut out the middlemen.     About 50% of the money spent on drugs in the U.S. healthcare system goes straight to PBMs instead of the companies that create the medicines, Roche CEO Thomas Schinecker called out in a press conference on Thursday.   Bringing the drugs directly to the consumer could be a solution to positively impact pricing for patients “without destroying innovation,” Schinecker added on a separate Thursday call with investors, noting that the company has discussed the matter with the U.S. government and its Department of Health and Human Services. The pricing talks come after President Donald Trump inked a “Most Favored Nation” executive order in May, aiming to tie U.S. drug prices to lower prices in other developed nations. The plan was quickly called out by industry voices such as the PhRMA trade group, which labeled it a “bad deal” for U.S. patients. https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/roche-weighing-direct-consumer-drug-sales-ease-us-drug-pricing-woes-cut-out-pbms-ceo-says XX SAB BIO secures substantial $175M financing to advance T1D therapy with impressive investor lineup and extended cash runway until 2028. Most critically, this financing fully funds the pivotal Phase 2b SAFEGUARD study evaluating SAB-142 for delaying progression of autoimmune Type 1 diabetes in newly diagnosed patients. By extending the cash runway into mid-2028, SAB has effectively eliminated near-term financing risk and provided clear visibility through this crucial clinical trial and potential commercialization preparation. Participation from strategic investor Sanofi, along with new investors RA Capital Management, Commodore Capital, Vivo Capital, Blackstone Multi-Asset Investing, Spruce Street Capital, Forge Life Science Partners and Woodline Partners LP, and existing investors Sessa Capital, the T1D Fund, and ATW Partners         https://www.stocktitan.net/news/SABS/sab-bio-announces-oversubscribed-175-million-private-fwsf2t91ek4z.html   XX In a landmark 14-year study, researchers have found that artificially sweetened drinks raise the risk of developing type 2 diabetes by more than a third, significantly higher than those loaded with sugar. It challenges the long-standing perception of diet drinks being a healthier alternative and suggests they may carry metabolic risks of their own. In the first longitudinal study of its kind, led by Monash University, researchers tracked 36,608 participants over an average period of 13.9 years to assess how both sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) and artificially sweetened beverages (ASBs) impacted health outcomes. The self-reported health data, from the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study, was drawn from participants aged 40 to 69 years at the time of recruitment.   What they found was that drinking just one can of artificially sweetened soda increased the risk of developing type 2 diabetes by 38%, compared to people who didn't consume these drinks at all. For those consuming the same amount of sugary drinks, the risk was 23% higher. This suggests there's more than obesity at play. The researchers believe this result is due to an independent metabolic effect, possibly gut microbiome disruption or a change in glucose metabolism.   While the study didn't identify which artificial sweeteners were at play,   Evidence suggests that artificial sweeteners can alter the composition and function of gut bacteria, leading to glucose intolerance – a precursor to type 2 diabetes. And that some sweeteners may trigger insulin release, desensitize metabolic responses over time, or confuse the body's glucose regulation system – even without actual sugar in the picture.   Another hypothesis is that regular exposure to the kind of intense sweetness that artificial products deliver may condition the body to anticipate sugar calories that never come, affecting appetite regulation, insulin sensitivity and broader metabolic pathways. However, the authors suggest that how sweeteners affect the gut microbiota and glucose regulation are the most likely drivers of increased diabetes risk.   https://newatlas.com/diet-nutrition/one-drink-diabetes-risk/ XX After months of deliberation, information gathering and public testimony, a state board unanimously agreed Monday that two common medications for type-2 diabetes and other conditions appear to pose an affordability challenge to the state and Marylanders.   The state Prescription Drug Affordability Board approved two resolutions saying that prescription drugs Jardiance and Farxiga likely pose an “an affordability challenge for the state health care system” and the state should look for ways to bring down those costs.   Health care advocates call the long-awaited resolution an “important first step” in the process in bringing down prescription costs for those on the state's health plan.       That milestone has been years in the making. Created in 2019 by the General Assembly, the Prescription Drug Affordability Board was slow to launch due in part to a veto from former Gov. Larry Hogan (R) amid pandemic-induced economic uncertainty in 2020 that delayed the board's formation. The board also cited out-of-pocket costs for consumers and state and local spending on those drugs as indicators that there may be an affordability challenge.   The board will now look at options to address the potential affordability challenge, which could include setting an upper payment limit on those drugs. But it's not clear when the state will see cost savings.   That said, some members of the health care system and the pharmaceutical industry say that policies such as upper payment limits could weaken access to life-saving drugs. Others say that the board has not engaged enough viewpoints from the health care industry. https://marylandmatters.org/2025/07/29/state-board-determines-two-type-2-diabetes-drugs-may-be-unaffordable/   XX One year after it was revealed that Chrissy Teigen and John Legend's son, Miles, was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, Teigen is revealing how she's making her son feel more included. Teigen first opened up about her 7-year-old son's diagnosis after she and her two oldest kids, Miles and 9-year-old daughter Luna were at the 2024 summer Olympics cheering on Simone Biles. Teigen posted a photo of Miles and Luna holding up a sign. Also visible in the picture was the insulin pump on Miles' arm. Now, Teigen is sharing some insight into how she's making Miles more comfortable with having type 1 diabetes, including giving LeBron James' Barbie doll type 1 diabetes as well. In a video shared on Instagram, Teigen is seen taking the T1D Barbie, removing her insulin pump and gluing the pump onto LeBron James' Barbie. “Turning T1D Barbie into T1D Lebron James for my son,” Teigen captioned the video, revealing James is Miles' hero. 41 million followers https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/articles/chrissy-teigen-gives-lebron-james-154608782.html  

All Home Care Matters and our host, Lance A. Slatton were honored to welcome back the team behind the film "No Country for Old People"   About "No Country for Old People":   A filmmaker chronicles her mother's last 6 months in a 5-star nursing home exposing what is a national systemic, deadly, profit-over-people business model. No Country For Old People; a Nursing Home Exposé is a scorching documentary posed to set the long-term care industry, policy makers, and the country ablaze. Shining a much-needed light on what is truly a national human emergency.   No Country for Old People; a Nursing Home Exposé is a 3-part documentary that exposes the dark realities of neglect and abuse in nursing homes and throughout U.S. long-term care industry.   The film answers four questions: What happens. 2. How does it happen? 3. Why does it happen? 4. And how do we fix it?   The film highlights a systemic crisis - the result of corporate greed - that has been taking a devastating human toll within the walls of our nation's long-term care facilities for decades.   The film weaves personal loss with journalistic rigor, exposing a pattern of abuse that is enabled by profit-first models that include chronic understaffing, undertraining, and financial exploitation.   PERSONAL STORIES AND EMOTIONAL IMPACT:   The filmmaker's own experience with her mother along with other emotional testimonies emphasize the human cost of systemic failure and illustrate the severe consequences of poor nursing home care.   The film is both deeply personal and widely resonant — amplifying voices too often silenced and inviting viewers to confront uncomfortable truths about aging, policy, and accountability in America.   About Susie Singer Carter:   Susie Singer Carter is a multi-award-winning, Oscar qualified filmmaker, writer, director, producer, actor, podcast producer, host, and Caregiver Advocate. She is best known for writing, directing, and producing the 2018 Oscar qualified short film, My Mom and The Girl starring Valerie Harper in her final performance, writing and producing “Bratz the Movie” for Lionsgate, and co-producing “Soul Surfer” for Sony.   Susie also produces and hosts the podcast Love Conquers Alz – awarded BEST PODCAST 2020 by New Media Film Festival and is #4 on Feedspots' 2022 25 Best Alzheimer's Podcasts list. Susie is also the co-creator, co-writer, co-star, and director of the outrageous horror/comedy narrative podcast I Love Lucifer, nominated Best Audio Fiction 2023 by Indie Series Awards.   Susie wrote the screenplay, “RUN”, based on the book “Plain Jane” and is attached to direct in spring 2024. She is currently writing, producing, and directing a docuseries, No Country For Old People, which centers on the Nursing Home Neglect and the systemic healthcare crisis responsible for it. She is also a host of the Writers Guild of America West's 3rd & Fairfax Podcast.   About Rick Mountcastle:   Mr. Mountcastle is the former United States Attorney for the Western District of Virginia (2017-2018) and is a retired award-winning federal and state prosecutor. He led the prosecution of Purdue Pharma for fraudulently marketing OxyContin, as portrayed in the Emmy-nominated limited miniseries "Dopesick" (streaming on Hulu).   He also led the criminal and civil prosecution of Abbott Laboratories for fraudulently marketing the anti-epileptic, Depakote, for use as a chemical restraint for dementia patients in nursing homes, resulting in Abbott's guilty plea to a felony and payment of $1.5 billion, at the time the largest penalty against a pharmaceutical company for misconduct related to a single drug.   Mr. Mountcastle spent his career prosecuting healthcare companies and executives who exploited vulnerable patients for profit, and brings his passion to change a system that allows such exploitation to this project.   About Don Priess:   For over two decades, Don Priess has shunned sleep in order to become a highly sought-after, award winning writer, producer, director and editor. He co-founded Modern Media, now one of the top marketing and infomercial production companies in the world.   After six years and hundreds of TV and radio commercials, Don decided to spread his wings and since his credits include projects for CBS/Dic Entertainment, Nickelodeon, Buena Vista, American Movie Classics, Lifetime, Hanna-Barbera, Playboy Entertainment and more.   While continuing to work on a wide variety of entertainment projects, Don teamed with the highly energetic and talented Susie Singer Carter as part of Go Girl Media. Together they were the writers and Co-Executive Producers of two series for CBS, “CAKE” and “DANCE REVOLUTION”, SURVIVING HAWKING, and “SILVER LININGS” for Fox Television Studios.

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order effectively ending birthright citizenship for children born to mothers who are unlawfully present or temporary lawful residents in the United States and whose fathers are not lawful permanent residents at the time of the child’s birth. One day later, four states and three individuals challenged this order in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, which three days later granted a universal temporary restraining order enjoining the government from implementing this order. Two weeks later, this became a nationwide injunction. Other similar nationwide injunctions have since been issued from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The government appealed all of these, and the Supreme Court took the case in order to decide the issue of whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions. On June 27, 2025, the Court ruled in favor of the government, holding that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.” The Court granted the government’s applications for a partial stay of these injunctions, “but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.”Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case, its decision, and future implications.Featuring:Ed Wenger, Partner, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLCModerator: Elbert Lin, Chair, Issues & Appeals, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP --To register, click the link above.

As lead investigator into both January 6 and Charlottesville, Tim Heaphy discovered that American democracy was headed toward a reckoning. In his book Harbingers, which he completed before the November 2024 election, Tim concluded that apathy poses greater threats to the rule of law than would-be autocrats, and that widespread civic engagement would be essential to safeguarding our values and restoring faith in our institutions. He proposes a number of everyday measures that Americans can and must start taking right now in order to restore our faith and hope in the future.rnrnHeaphy served as Chief Investigative Counsel of the House of Representatives Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. He also oversaw the independent investigation into the August 12, 2017 riot in Charlottesville, Virginia. He is currently a partner at Willkie, Farr & Gallagher LLP and previously served as the Obama-appointed US Attorney for the Western District of Virginia. He lives in Charlottesville, Virginia with his family.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded its latest Term. And over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has continued to duke it out with its adversaries in the federal courts.To tackle these topics, as well as their intersection—in terms of how well the courts, including but not limited to the Supreme Court, are handling Trump-related cases—I interviewed Professor Pamela Karlan, a longtime faculty member at Stanford Law School. She's perfectly situated to address these subjects, for at least three reasons.First, Professor Karlan is a leading scholar of constitutional law. Second, she's a former SCOTUS clerk and seasoned advocate at One First Street, with ten arguments to her name. Third, she has high-level experience at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), having served (twice) as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.I've had some wonderful guests to discuss the role of the courts today, including Judges Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) and Ana Reyes (D.D.C.)—but as sitting judges, they couldn't discuss certain subjects, and they had to be somewhat circumspect. Professor Karlan, in contrast, isn't afraid to “go there”—and whether or not you agree with her opinions, I think you'll share my appreciation for her insight and candor.Show Notes:* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Stanford Law School* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Wikipedia* The McCorkle Lecture (Professor Pamela Karlan), UVA Law SchoolPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any transcription errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat dot Substack dot com. You're listening to the seventy-seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, June 27.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.With the 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term behind us, now is a good time to talk about both constitutional law and the proper role of the judiciary in American society. I expect they will remain significant as subjects because the tug of war between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary continues—and shows no signs of abating.To tackle these topics, I welcomed to the podcast Professor Pamela Karlan, the Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School. Pam is not only a leading legal scholar, but she also has significant experience in practice. She's argued 10 cases before the Supreme Court, which puts her in a very small club, and she has worked in government at high levels, serving as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice during the Obama administration. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Professor Pam Karlan.Professor Karlan, thank you so much for joining me.Pamela Karlan: Thanks for having me.DL: So let's start at the beginning. Tell us about your background and upbringing. I believe we share something in common—you were born in New York City?PK: I was born in New York City. My family had lived in New York since they arrived in the country about a century before.DL: What borough?PK: Originally Manhattan, then Brooklyn, then back to Manhattan. As my mother said, when I moved to Brooklyn when I was clerking, “Brooklyn to Brooklyn, in three generations.”DL: Brooklyn is very, very hip right now.PK: It wasn't hip when we got there.DL: And did you grow up in Manhattan or Brooklyn?PK: When I was little, we lived in Manhattan. Then right before I started elementary school, right after my brother was born, our apartment wasn't big enough anymore. So we moved to Stamford, Connecticut, and I grew up in Connecticut.DL: What led you to go to law school? I see you stayed in the state; you went to Yale. What did you have in mind for your post-law-school career?PK: I went to law school because during the summer between 10th and 11th grade, I read Richard Kluger's book, Simple Justice, which is the story of the litigation that leads up to Brown v. Board of Education. And I decided I wanted to go to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and be a school desegregation lawyer, and that's what led me to go to law school.DL: You obtained a master's degree in history as well as a law degree. Did you also have teaching in mind as well?PK: No, I thought getting the master's degree was my last chance to do something I had loved doing as an undergrad. It didn't occur to me until I was late in my law-school days that I might at some point want to be a law professor. That's different than a lot of folks who go to law school now; they go to law school wanting to be law professors.During Admitted Students' Weekend, some students say to me, “I want to be a law professor—should I come here to law school?” I feel like saying to them, “You haven't done a day of law school yet. You have no idea whether you're good at law. You have no idea whether you'd enjoy doing legal teaching.”It just amazes me that people come to law school now planning to be a law professor, in a way that I don't think very many people did when I was going to law school. In my day, people discovered when they were in law school that they loved it, and they wanted to do more of what they loved doing; I don't think people came to law school for the most part planning to be law professors.DL: The track is so different now—and that's a whole other conversation—but people are getting master's and Ph.D. degrees, and people are doing fellowship after fellowship. It's not like, oh, you practice for three, five, or seven years, and then you become a professor. It seems to be almost like this other track nowadays.PK: When I went on the teaching market, I was distinctive in that I had not only my student law-journal note, but I actually had an article that Ricky Revesz and I had worked on that was coming out. And it was not normal for people to have that back then. Now people go onto the teaching market with six or seven publications—and no practice experience really to speak of, for a lot of them.DL: You mentioned talking to admitted students. You went to YLS, but you've now been teaching for a long time at Stanford Law School. They're very similar in a lot of ways. They're intellectual. They're intimate, especially compared to some of the other top law schools. What would you say if I'm an admitted student choosing between those two institutions? What would cause me to pick one versus the other—besides the superior weather of Palo Alto?PK: Well, some of it is geography; it's not just the weather. Some folks are very East-Coast-centered, and other folks are very West-Coast-centered. That makes a difference.It's a little hard to say what the differences are, because the last time I spent a long time at Yale Law School was in 2012 (I visited there a bunch of times over the years), but I think the faculty here at Stanford is less focused and concentrated on the students who want to be law professors than is the case at Yale. When I was at Yale, the idea was if you were smart, you went and became a law professor. It was almost like a kind of external manifestation of an inner state of grace; it was a sign that you were a smart person, if you wanted to be a law professor. And if you didn't, well, you could be a donor later on. Here at Stanford, the faculty as a whole is less concentrated on producing law professors. We produce a fair number of them, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the law school in some ways. Heather Gerken, who's the dean at Yale, has changed that somewhat, but not entirely. So that's one big difference.One of the most distinctive things about Stanford, because we're on the quarter system, is that our clinics are full-time clinics, taught by full-time faculty members at the law school. And that's distinctive. I think Yale calls more things clinics than we do, and a lot of them are part-time or taught by folks who aren't in the building all the time. So that's a big difference between the schools.They just have very different feels. I would encourage any student who gets into both of them to go and visit both of them, talk to the students, and see where you think you're going to be most comfortably stretched. Either school could be the right school for somebody.DL: I totally agree with you. Sometimes people think there's some kind of platonic answer to, “Where should I go to law school?” And it depends on so many individual circumstances.PK: There really isn't one answer. I think when I was deciding between law schools as a student, I got waitlisted at Stanford and I got into Yale. I had gone to Yale as an undergrad, so I wasn't going to go anywhere else if I got in there. I was from Connecticut and loved living in Connecticut, so that was an easy choice for me. But it's a hard choice for a lot of folks.And I do think that one of the worst things in the world is U.S. News and World Report, even though we're generally a beneficiary of it. It used to be that the R-squared between where somebody went to law school and what a ranking was was minimal. I knew lots of people who decided, in the old days, that they were going to go to Columbia rather than Yale or Harvard, rather than Stanford or Penn, rather than Chicago, because they liked the city better or there was somebody who did something they really wanted to do there.And then the R-squared, once U.S. News came out, of where people went and what the rankings were, became huge. And as you probably know, there were some scandals with law schools that would just waitlist people rather than admit them, to keep their yield up, because they thought the person would go to a higher-ranked law school. There were years and years where a huge part of the Stanford entering class had been waitlisted at Penn. And that's bad for people, because there are people who should go to Penn rather than come here. There are people who should go to NYU rather than going to Harvard. And a lot of those people don't do it because they're so fixated on U.S. News rankings.DL: I totally agree with you. But I suspect that a lot of people think that there are certain opportunities that are going to be open to them only if they go here or only if they go there.Speaking of which, after graduating from YLS, you clerked for Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court, and statistically it's certainly true that certain schools seem to improve your odds of clerking for the Court. What was that experience like overall? People often describe it as a dream job. We're recording this on the last day of the Supreme Court Term; some hugely consequential historic cases are coming down. As a law clerk, you get a front row seat to all of that, to all of that history being made. Did you love that experience?PK: I loved the experience. I loved it in part because I worked for a wonderful justice who was just a lovely man, a real mensch. I had three great co-clerks. It was the first time, actually, that any justice had ever hired three women—and so that was distinctive for me, because I had been in classes in law school where there were fewer than three women. I was in one class in law school where I was the only woman. So that was neat.It was a great Term. It was the last year of the Burger Court, and we had just a heap of incredibly interesting cases. It's amazing how many cases I teach in law school that were decided that year—the summary-judgment trilogy, Thornburg v. Gingles, Bowers v. Hardwick. It was just a really great time to be there. And as a liberal, we won a lot of the cases. We didn't win them all, but we won a lot of them.It was incredibly intense. At that point, the Supreme Court still had this odd IT system that required eight hours of diagnostics every night. So the system was up from 8 a.m. to midnight—it stayed online longer if there was a death case—but otherwise it went down at midnight. In the Blackmun chambers, we showed up at 8 a.m. for breakfast with the Justice, and we left at midnight, five days a week. Then on the weekends, we were there from 9 to 9. And they were deciding 150 cases, not 60 cases, a year. So there was a lot more work to do, in that sense. But it was a great year. I've remained friends with my co-clerks, and I've remained friends with clerks from other chambers. It was a wonderful experience.DL: And you've actually written about it. I would refer people to some of the articles that they can look up, on your CV and elsewhere, where you've talked about, say, having breakfast with the Justice.PK: And we had a Passover Seder with the Justice as well, which was a lot of fun.DL: Oh wow, who hosted that? Did he?PK: Actually, the clerks hosted it. Originally he had said, “Oh, why don't we have it at the Court?” But then he came back to us and said, “Well, I think the Chief Justice”—Chief Justice Burger—“might not like that.” But he lent us tables and chairs, which were dropped off at one of the clerk's houses. And it was actually the day of the Gramm-Rudman argument, which was an argument about the budget. So we had to keep running back and forth from the Court to the house of Danny Richman, the clerk who hosted it, who was a Thurgood Marshall clerk. We had to keep running back and forth from the Court to Danny Richman's house, to baste the turkey and make stuff, back and forth. And then we had a real full Seder, and we invited all of the Jewish clerks at the Court and the Justice's messenger, who was Jewish, and the Justice and Mrs. Blackmun, and it was a lot of fun.DL: Wow, that's wonderful. So where did you go after your clerkship?PK: I went to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where I was an assistant counsel, and I worked on voting-rights and employment-discrimination cases.DL: And that was something that you had thought about for a long time—you mentioned you had read about its work in high school.PK: Yes, and it was a great place to work. We were working on great cases, and at that point we were really pushing the envelope on some of the stuff that we were doing—which was great and inspiring, and my colleagues were wonderful.And unlike a lot of Supreme Court practices now, where there's a kind of “King Bee” usually, and that person gets to argue everything, the Legal Defense Fund was very different. The first argument I did at the Court was in a case that I had worked on the amended complaint for, while at the Legal Defense Fund—and they let me essentially keep working on the case and argue it at the Supreme Court, even though by the time the case got to the Supreme Court, I was teaching at UVA. So they didn't have this policy of stripping away from younger lawyers the ability to argue their cases the whole way through the system.DL: So how many years out from law school were you by the time you had your first argument before the Court? I know that, today at least, there's this two-year bar on arguing before the Court after having clerked there.PK: Six or seven years out—because I think I argued in ‘91.DL: Now, you mentioned that by then you were teaching at UVA. You had a dream job working at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. What led you to go to UVA?PK: There were two things, really, that did it. One was I had also discovered when I was in law school that I loved law school, and I was better at law school than I had been at anything I had done before law school. And the second was I really hated dealing with opposing counsel. I tell my students now, “You should take negotiation. If there's only one class you could take in law school, take negotiation.” Because it's a skill; it's not a habit of mind, but I felt like it was a habit of mind. And I found the discovery process and filing motions to compel and dealing with the other side's intransigence just really unpleasant.What I really loved was writing briefs. I loved writing briefs, and I could keep doing that for the Legal Defense Fund while at UVA, and I've done a bunch of that over the years for LDF and for other organizations. I could keep doing that and I could live in a small town, which I really wanted to do. I love New York, and now I could live in a city—I've spent a couple of years, off and on, living in cities since then, and I like it—but I didn't like it at that point. I really wanted to be out in the country somewhere. And so UVA was the perfect mix. I kept working on cases, writing amicus briefs for LDF and for other organizations. I could teach, which I loved. I could live in a college town, which I really enjoyed. So it was the best blend of things.DL: And I know, from your having actually delivered a lecture at UVA, that it really did seem to have a special place in your heart. UVA Law School—they really do have a wonderful environment there (as does Stanford), and Charlottesville is a very charming place.PK: Yes, especially when I was there. UVA has a real gift for developing its junior faculty. It was a place where the senior faculty were constantly reading our work, constantly talking to us. Everyone was in the building, which makes a huge difference.The second case I had go to the Supreme Court actually came out of a class where a student asked a question, and I ended up representing the student, and we took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. But I wasn't admitted in the Western District of Virginia, and that's where we had to file a case. And so I turned to my next-door neighbor, George Rutherglen, and said to George, “Would you be the lead counsel in this?” And he said, “Sure.” And we ended up representing a bunch of UVA students, challenging the way the Republican Party did its nomination process. And we ended up, by the student's third year in law school, at the Supreme Court.So UVA was a great place. I had amazing colleagues. The legendary Bill Stuntz was then there; Mike Klarman was there. Dan Ortiz, who's still there, was there. So was John Harrison. It was a fantastic group of people to have as your colleagues.DL: Was it difficult for you, then, to leave UVA and move to Stanford?PK: Oh yes. When I went in to tell Bob Scott, who was then the dean, that I was leaving, I just burst into tears. I think the reason I left UVA was I was at a point in my career where I'd done a bunch of visits at other schools, and I thought that I could either leave then or I would be making a decision to stay there for the rest of my career. And I just felt like I wanted to make a change. And in retrospect, I would've been just as happy if I'd stayed at UVA. In my professional life, I would've been just as happy. I don't know in my personal life, because I wouldn't have met my partner, I don't think, if I'd been at UVA. But it's a marvelous place; everything about it is just absolutely superb.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits at nexfirm dot com.So I do want to give you a chance to say nice things about your current place. I assume you have no regrets about moving to Stanford Law, even if you would've been just as happy at UVA?PK: I'm incredibly happy here. I've got great colleagues. I've got great students. The ability to do the clinic the way we do it, which is as a full-time clinic, wouldn't be true anywhere else in the country, and that makes a huge difference to that part of my work. I've gotten to teach around the curriculum. I've taught four of the six first-year courses, which is a great opportunityAnd as you said earlier, the weather is unbelievable. People downplay that, because especially for people who are Northeastern Ivy League types, there's a certain Calvinism about that, which is that you have to suffer in order to be truly working hard. People out here sometimes think we don't work hard because we are not visibly suffering. But it's actually the opposite, in a way. I'm looking out my window right now, and it's a gorgeous day. And if I were in the east and it were 75 degrees and sunny, I would find it hard to work because I'd think it's usually going to be hot and humid, or if it's in the winter, it's going to be cold and rainy. I love Yale, but the eight years I spent there, my nose ran the entire time I was there. And here I look out and I think, “It's beautiful, but you know what? It's going to be beautiful tomorrow. So I should sit here and finish grading my exams, or I should sit here and edit this article, or I should sit here and work on the Restatement—because it's going to be just as beautiful tomorrow.” And the ability to walk outside, to clear your head, makes a huge difference. People don't understand just how huge a difference that is, but it's huge.DL: That's so true. If you had me pick a color to associate with my time at YLS, I would say gray. It just felt like everything was always gray, the sky was always gray—not blue or sunny or what have you.But I know you've spent some time outside of Northern California, because you have done some stints at the Justice Department. Tell us about that, the times you went there—why did you go there? What type of work were you doing? And how did it relate to or complement your scholarly work?PK: At the beginning of the Obama administration, I had applied for a job in the Civil Rights Division as a deputy assistant attorney general (DAAG), and I didn't get it. And I thought, “Well, that's passed me by.” And a couple of years later, when they were looking for a new principal deputy solicitor general, in the summer of 2013, the civil-rights groups pushed me for that job. I got an interview with Eric Holder, and it was on June 11th, 2013, which just fortuitously happens to be the 50th anniversary of the day that Vivian Malone desegregated the University of Alabama—and Vivian Malone is the older sister of Sharon Malone, who is married to Eric Holder.So I went in for the interview and I said, “This must be an especially special day for you because of the 50th anniversary.” And we talked about that a little bit, and then we talked about other things. And I came out of the interview, and a couple of weeks later, Don Verrilli, who was the solicitor general, called me up and said, “Look, you're not going to get a job as the principal deputy”—which ultimately went to Ian Gershengorn, a phenomenal lawyer—“but Eric Holder really enjoyed talking to you, so we're going to look for something else for you to do here at the Department of Justice.”And a couple of weeks after that, Eric Holder called me and offered me the DAAG position in the Civil Rights Division and said, “We'd really like you to especially concentrate on our voting-rights litigation.” It was very important litigation, in part because the Supreme Court had recently struck down the pre-clearance regime under Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act]. So the Justice Department was now bringing a bunch of lawsuits against things they could have blocked if Section 5 had been in effect, most notably the Texas voter ID law, which was a quite draconian voter ID law, and this omnibus bill in North Carolina that involved all sorts of cutbacks to opportunities to vote: a cutback on early voting, a cutback on same-day registration, a cutback on 16- and 17-year-olds pre-registering, and the like.So I went to the Department of Justice and worked with the Voting Section on those cases, but I also ended up working on things like getting the Justice Department to change its position on whether Title VII covered transgender individuals. And then I also got to work on the implementation of [United States v.] Windsor—which I had worked on, representing Edie Windsor, before I went to DOJ, because the Court had just decided Windsor [which held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional]. So I had an opportunity to work on how to implement Windsor across the federal government. So that was the stuff I got to work on the first time I was at DOJ, and I also obviously worked on tons of other stuff, and it was phenomenal. I loved doing it.I did it for about 20 months, and then I came back to Stanford. It affected my teaching; I understood a lot of stuff quite differently having worked on it. It gave me some ideas on things I wanted to write about. And it just refreshed me in some ways. It's different than working in the clinic. I love working in the clinic, but you're working with students. You're working only with very, very junior lawyers. I sometimes think of the clinic as being a sort of Groundhog Day of first-year associates, and so I'm sort of senior partner and paralegal at a large law firm. At DOJ, you're working with subject-matter experts. The people in the Voting Section, collectively, had hundreds of years of experience with voting. The people in the Appellate Section had hundreds of years of experience with appellate litigation. And so it's just a very different feel.So I did that, and then I came back to Stanford. I was here, and in the fall of 2020, I was asked if I wanted to be one of the people on the Justice Department review team if Joe Biden won the election. These are sometimes referred to as the transition teams or the landing teams or the like. And I said, “I'd be delighted to do that.” They had me as one of the point people reviewing the Civil Rights Division. And I think it might've even been the Wednesday or Thursday before Inauguration Day 2021, I got a call from the liaison person on the transition team saying, “How would you like to go back to DOJ and be the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division?” That would mean essentially running the Division until we got a confirmed head, which took about five months. And I thought that this would be an amazing opportunity to go back to the DOJ and work with people I love, right at the beginning of an administration.And the beginning of an administration is really different than coming in midway through the second term of an administration. You're trying to come up with priorities, and I viewed my job really as helping the career people to do their best work. There were a huge number of career people who had gone through the first Trump administration, and they were raring to go. They had all sorts of ideas on stuff they wanted to do, and it was my job to facilitate that and make that possible for them. And that's why it's so tragic this time around that almost all of those people have left. The current administration first tried to transfer them all into Sanctuary Cities [the Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group] or ask them to do things that they couldn't in good conscience do, and so they've retired or taken buyouts or just left.DL: It's remarkable, just the loss of expertise and experience at the Justice Department over these past few months.PK: Thousands of years of experience gone. And these are people, you've got to realize, who had been through the Nixon administration, the Reagan administration, both Bush administrations, and the first Trump administration, and they hadn't had any problem. That's what's so stunning: this is not just the normal shift in priorities, and they have gone out of their way to make it so hellacious for people that they will leave. And that's not something that either Democratic or Republican administrations have ever done before this.DL: And we will get to a lot of, shall we say, current events. Finishing up on just the discussion of your career, you had the opportunity to work in the executive branch—what about judicial service? You've been floated over the years as a possible Supreme Court nominee. I don't know if you ever looked into serving on the Ninth Circuit or were considered for that. What about judicial service?PK: So I've never been in a position, and part of this was a lesson I learned right at the beginning of my LDF career, when Lani Guinier, who was my boss at LDF, was nominated for the position of AAG [assistant attorney general] in the Civil Rights Division and got shot down. I knew from that time forward that if I did the things I really wanted to do, my chances of confirmation were not going to be very high. People at LDF used to joke that they would get me nominated so that I would take all the bullets, and then they'd sneak everybody else through. So I never really thought that I would have a shot at a judicial position, and that didn't bother me particularly. As you know, I gave the commencement speech many years ago at Stanford, and I said, “Would I want to be on the Supreme Court? You bet—but not enough to have trimmed my sails for an entire lifetime.”And I think that's right. Peter Baker did this story in The New York Times called something like, “Favorites of Left Don't Make Obama's Court List.” And in the story, Tommy Goldstein, who's a dear friend of mine, said, “If they wanted to talk about somebody who was a flaming liberal, they'd be talking about Pam Karlan, but nobody's talking about Pam Karlan.” And then I got this call from a friend of mine who said, “Yeah, but at least people are talking about how nobody's talking about you. Nobody's even talking about how nobody's talking about me.” And I was flattered, but not fooled.DL: That's funny; I read that piece in preparing for this interview. So let's say someone were to ask you, someone mid-career, “Hey, I've been pretty safe in the early years of my career, but now I'm at this juncture where I could do things that will possibly foreclose my judicial ambitions—should I just try to keep a lid on it, in the hope of making it?” It sounds like you would tell them to let their flag fly.PK: Here's the thing: your chances of getting to be on the Supreme Court, if that's what you're talking about, your chances are so low that the question is how much do you want to give up to go from a 0.001% chance to a 0.002% chance? Yes, you are doubling your chances, but your chances are not good. And there are some people who I think are capable of doing that, perhaps because they fit the zeitgeist enough that it's not a huge sacrifice for them. So it's not that I despise everybody who goes to the Supreme Court because they must obviously have all been super-careerists; I think lots of them weren't super-careerists in that way.Although it does worry me that six members of the Court now clerked at the Supreme Court—because when you are a law clerk, it gives you this feeling about the Court that maybe you don't want everybody who's on the Court to have, a feeling that this is the be-all and end-all of life and that getting a clerkship is a manifestation of an inner state of grace, so becoming a justice is equally a manifestation of an inner state of grace in which you are smarter than everybody else, wiser than everybody else, and everybody should kowtow to you in all sorts of ways. And I worry that people who are imprinted like ducklings on the Supreme Court when they're 25 or 26 or 27 might not be the best kind of portfolio of justices at the back end. The Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education—none of them, I think, had clerked at the Supreme Court, or maybe one of them had. They'd all done things with their lives other than try to get back to the Supreme Court. So I worry about that a little bit.DL: Speaking of the Court, let's turn to the Court, because it just finished its Term as we are recording this. As we started recording, they were still handing down the final decisions of the day.PK: Yes, the “R” numbers hadn't come up on the Supreme Court website when I signed off to come talk to you.DL: Exactly. So earlier this month, not today, but earlier this month, the Court handed down its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, reviewing Tennessee's ban on the use of hormones and puberty blockers for transgender youth. Were you surprised by the Court's ruling in Skrmetti?PK: No. I was not surprised.DL: So one of your most famous cases, which you litigated successfully five years ago or so, was Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court held that Title VII does apply to protect transgender individuals—and Bostock figures significantly in the Skrmetti opinions. Why were you surprised by Skrmetti given that you had won this victory in Bostock, which you could argue, in terms of just the logic of it, does carry over somewhat?PK: Well, I want to be very precise: I didn't actually litigate Bostock. There were three cases that were put together….DL: Oh yes—you handled Zarda.PK: I represented Don Zarda, who was a gay man, so I did not argue the transgender part of the case at all. Fortuitously enough, David Cole argued that part of the case, and David Cole was actually the first person I had dinner with as a freshman at Yale College, when I started college, because he was the roommate of somebody I debated against in high school. So David and I went to law school together, went to college together, and had classes together. We've been friends now for almost 50 years, which is scary—I think for 48 years we've been friends—and he argued that part of the case.So here's what surprised me about what the Supreme Court did in Skrmetti. Given where the Court wanted to come out, the more intellectually honest way to get there would've been to say, “Yes, of course this is because of sex; there is sex discrimination going on here. But even applying intermediate scrutiny, we think that Tennessee's law should survive intermediate scrutiny.” That would've been an intellectually honest way to get to where the Court got.Instead, they did this weird sort of, “Well, the word ‘sex' isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment, but it's in Title VII.” But that makes no sense at all, because for none of the sex-discrimination cases that the Court has decided under the Fourteenth Amendment did the word “sex” appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's not like the word “sex” was in there and then all of a sudden it took a powder and left. So I thought that was a really disingenuous way of getting to where the Court wanted to go. But I was not surprised after the oral argument that the Court was going to get to where it got on the bottom line.DL: I'm curious, though, rewinding to Bostock and Zarda, were you surprised by how the Court came out in those cases? Because it was still a deeply conservative Court back then.PK: No, I was not surprised. I was not surprised, both because I thought we had so much the better of the argument and because at the oral argument, it seemed pretty clear that we had at least six justices, and those were the six justices we had at the end of the day. The thing that was interesting to me about Bostock was I thought also that we were likely to win for the following weird legal-realist reason, which is that this was a case that would allow the justices who claimed to be textualists to show that they were principled textualists, by doing something that they might not have voted for if they were in Congress or the like.And also, while the impact was really large in one sense, the impact was not really large in another sense: most American workers are protected by Title VII, but most American employers do not discriminate, and didn't discriminate even before this, on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender identity. For example, in Zarda's case, the employer denied that they had fired Mr. Zarda because he was gay; they said, “We fired him for other reasons.”Very few employers had a formal policy that said, “We discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” And although most American workers are protected by Title VII, most American employers are not covered by Title VII—and that's because small employers, employers with fewer than 15 full-time employees, are not covered at all. And religious employers have all sorts of exemptions and the like, so for the people who had the biggest objection to hiring or promoting or retaining gay or transgender employees, this case wasn't going to change what happened to them at all. So the impact was really important for workers, but not deeply intrusive on employers generally. So I thought those two things, taken together, meant that we had a pretty good argument.I actually thought our textual argument was not our best argument, but it was the one that they were most likely to buy. So it was really interesting: we made a bunch of different arguments in the brief, and then as soon as I got up to argue, the first question out of the box was Justice Ginsburg saying, “Well, in 1964, homosexuality was illegal in most of the country—how could this be?” And that's when I realized, “Okay, she's just telling me to talk about the text, don't talk about anything else.”So I just talked about the text the whole time. But as you may remember from the argument, there was this weird moment, which came after I answered her question and one other one, there was this kind of silence from the justices. And I just said, “Well, if you don't have any more questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.” And it went well; it went well as an argument.DL: On the flip side, speaking of things that are not going so well, let's turn to current events. Zooming up to a higher level of generality than Skrmetti, you are a leading scholar of constitutional law, so here's the question. I know you've already been interviewed about it by media outlets, but let me ask you again, in light of just the latest, latest, latest news: are we in a constitutional crisis in the United States?PK: I think we're in a period of great constitutional danger. I don't know what a “constitutional crisis” is. Some people think the constitutional crisis is that we have an executive branch that doesn't believe in the Constitution, right? So you have Donald Trump asked, in an interview, “Do you have to comply with the Constitution?” He says, “I don't know.” Or he says, “I have an Article II that gives me the power to do whatever I want”—which is not what Article II says. If you want to be a textualist, it does not say the president can do whatever he wants. So you have an executive branch that really does not have a commitment to the Constitution as it has been understood up until now—that is, limited government, separation of powers, respect for individual rights. With this administration, none of that's there. And I don't know whether Emil Bove did say, “F**k the courts,” or not, but they're certainly acting as if that's their attitude.So yes, in that sense, we're in a period of constitutional danger. And then on top of that, I think we have a Supreme Court that is acting almost as if this is a normal administration with normal stuff, a Court that doesn't seem to recognize what district judges appointed by every president since George H.W. Bush or maybe even Reagan have recognized, which is, “This is not normal.” What the administration is trying to do is not normal, and it has to be stopped. So that worries me, that the Supreme Court is acting as if it needs to keep its powder dry—and for what, I'm not clear.If they think that by giving in and giving in, and prevaricating and putting things off... today, I thought the example of this was in the birthright citizenship/universal injunction case. One of the groups of plaintiffs that's up there is a bunch of states, around 23 states, and the Supreme Court in Justice Barrett's opinion says, “Well, maybe the states have standing, maybe they don't. And maybe if they have standing, you can enjoin this all in those states. We leave this all for remind.”They've sat on this for months. It's ridiculous that the Supreme Court doesn't “man up,” essentially, and decide these things. It really worries me quite a bit that the Supreme Court just seems completely blind to the fact that in 2024, they gave Donald Trump complete criminal immunity from any prosecution, so who's going to hold him accountable? Not criminally accountable, not accountable in damages—and now the Supreme Court seems not particularly interested in holding him accountable either.DL: Let me play devil's advocate. Here's my theory on why the Court does seem to be holding its fire: they're afraid of a worse outcome, which is, essentially, “The emperor has no clothes.”Say they draw this line in the sand for Trump, and then Trump just crosses it. And as we all know from that famous quote from The Federalist Papers, the Court has neither force nor will, but only judgment. That's worse, isn't it? If suddenly it's exposed that the Court doesn't have any army, any way to stop Trump? And then the courts have no power.PK: I actually think it's the opposite, which is, I think if the Court said to Donald Trump, “You must do X,” and then he defies it, you would have people in the streets. You would have real deep resistance—not just the “No Kings,” one-day march, but deep resistance. And there are scholars who've done comparative law who say, “When 3 percent of the people in a country go to the streets, you get real change.” And I think the Supreme Court is mistaking that.I taught a reading group for our first-years here. We have reading groups where you meet four times during the fall for dinner, and you read stuff that makes you think. And my reading group was called “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” and it started with the Albert Hirschman book with that title.DL: Great book.PK: It's a great book. And I gave them some excerpt from that, and I gave them an essay by Hannah Arendt called “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” which she wrote in 1964. And one of the things she says there is she talks about people who stayed in the German regime, on the theory that they would prevent at least worse things from happening. And I'm going to paraphrase slightly, but what she says is, “People who think that what they're doing is getting the lesser evil quickly forget that what they're choosing is evil.” And if the Supreme Court decides, “We're not going to tell Donald Trump ‘no,' because if we tell him no and he goes ahead, we will be exposed,” what they have basically done is said to Donald Trump, “Do whatever you want; we're not going to stop you.” And that will lose the Supreme Court more credibility over time than Donald Trump defying them once and facing some serious backlash for doing it.DL: So let me ask you one final question before we go to my little speed round. That 3 percent statistic is fascinating, by the way, but it resonates for me. My family's originally from the Philippines, and you probably had the 3 percent out there in the streets to oust Marcos in 1986.But let me ask you this. We now live in a nation where Donald Trump won not just the Electoral College, but the popular vote. We do see a lot of ugly things out there, whether in social media or incidents of violence or what have you. You still have enough faith in the American people that if the Supreme Court drew that line, and Donald Trump crossed it, and maybe this happened a couple of times, even—you still have faith that there will be that 3 percent or what have you in the streets?PK: I have hope, which is not quite the same thing as faith, obviously, but I have hope that some Republicans in Congress would grow a spine at that point, and people would say, “This is not right.” Have they always done that? No. We've had bad things happen in the past, and people have not done anything about it. But I think that the alternative of just saying, “Well, since we might not be able to stop him, we shouldn't do anything about it,” while he guts the federal government, sends masked people onto the streets, tries to take the military into domestic law enforcement—I think we have to do something.And this is what's so enraging in some ways: the district court judges in this country are doing their job. They are enjoining stuff. They're not enjoining everything, because not everything can be enjoined, and not everything is illegal; there's a lot of bad stuff Donald Trump is doing that he's totally entitled to do. But the district courts are doing their job, and they're doing their job while people are sending pizza boxes to their houses and sending them threats, and the president is tweeting about them or whatever you call the posts on Truth Social. They're doing their job—and the Supreme Court needs to do its job too. It needs to stand up for district judges. If it's not willing to stand up for the rest of us, you'd think they'd at least stand up for their entire judicial branch.DL: Turning to my speed round, my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as a more abstract system of ordering human affairs.PK: What I liked least about it was having to deal with opposing counsel in discovery. That drove me to appellate litigation.DL: Exactly—where your request for an extension is almost always agreed to by the other side.PK: Yes, and where the record is the record.DL: Yes, exactly. My second question, is what would you be if you were not a lawyer and/or law professor?PK: Oh, they asked me this question for a thing here at Stanford, and it was like, if I couldn't be a lawyer, I'd... And I just said, “I'd sit in my room and cry.”DL: Okay!PK: I don't know—this is what my talent is!DL: You don't want to write a novel or something?PK: No. What I would really like to do is I would like to bike the Freedom Trail, which is a trail that starts in Montgomery, Alabama, and goes to the Canadian border, following the Underground Railroad. I've always wanted to bike that. But I guess that's not a career. I bike slowly enough that it could be a career, at this point—but earlier on, probably not.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?PK: I now get around six hours of sleep each night, but it's complicated by the following, which is when I worked at the Department of Justice the second time, it was during Covid, so I actually worked remotely from California. And what that required me to do was essentially to wake up every morning at 4 a.m., 7 a.m. on the East Coast, so I could have breakfast, read the paper, and be ready to go by 5:30 a.m.I've been unable to get off of that, so I still wake up before dawn every morning. And I spent three months in Florence, and I thought the jet lag would bring me out of this—not in the slightest. Within two weeks, I was waking up at 4:30 a.m. Central European Time. So that's why I get about six hours, because I can't really go to bed before 9 or 10 p.m.DL: Well, I was struck by your being able to do this podcast fairly early West Coast time.PK: Oh no, this is the third thing I've done this morning! I had a 6:30 a.m. conference call.DL: Oh my gosh, wow. It reminds me of that saying about how you get more done in the Army before X hour than other people get done in a day.My last question, is any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?PK: Yes: do what you love, with people you love doing it with.DL: Well said. I've loved doing this podcast—Professor Karlan, thanks again for joining me.PK: You should start calling me Pam. We've had this same discussion….DL: We're on the air! Okay, well, thanks again, Pam—I'm so grateful to you for joining me.PK: Thanks for having me.DL: Thanks so much to Professor Karlan for joining me. Whether or not you agree with her views, you can't deny that she's both insightful and honest—qualities that have made her a leading legal academic and lawyer, but also a great podcast guest.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat at Substack dot com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat dot substack dot com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, July 23. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

Longtime VA House Speaker Todd Gilbert tapped as next US attorney for the Western District.    Plus: Richmond Public Schools and the union representing school bus drivers finalize first-ever collective bargaining agreement.   

The Western District of Virginia stretches from Winchester through Charlottesville, Roanoke and all the way to Floyd County. And the district will likely have a new federal prosecutor soon – as Michael Pope reports.

Tune in here to this ​Tuesday edition of Breaking With Brett Jensen! Breaking Brett Jensen kicks off the show by talking with U.S. Attorney for the Western District of NC, Russ Ferguson, about the case against Charlotte City Councilwoman Tiawana Brown. Ferguson assures Brett that this case has absolutely nothing to do with politics; it is purely based on the merits of the case, just like any other case they bring against people suspected of fraud.Brett also shares a clip from a press conference earlier today with Governor Josh Stein and Charlotte Mayor Vi Lyles discussing the P.A.V.E. Act, which includes a one-cent sales tax increase in Mecklenburg County for light rail expansion and road improvements. Later, Brett shares his exclusive interview with NC Rep. Tricia Cotham, out of district 105, who led the P.A.V.E. Act. Listen here for all of this and more on Breaking With Brett Jensen. To be the first to hear about Breaking Brett Jensen's exclusives and more, follow him on X @Brett_Jensen!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

President Trump may be shielding El Salvadoran President Bukele from an investigation into allegations that Bukele used US aid to support MS13, and traded away MS13 leaders as part of the agreement to house migrants at CECOT.Kilmar Abrego Garcia had his detention hearing in the middle district of tennessee on the human smuggling charges brought by the department of justice, and the testimony generated more questions than answers about the veracity of the charges against him.A Trump appointed judge in the Western District of Pennsylvania upholds the 21 day notice requirement for removal under the Alien Enemies Act Proclamation.Donald Trump– the criminal defendant who got Alieen Cannon to toss out the charges against him on the grounds that the special counsel prosecuting him was illegal, has called for a special prosecutor to investigate the 2020 election.Plus listener questions…Do you have questions for the pod? Thank you CB Distillery!Use promo code UNJUST at CBDistillery.com for 25% off your purchase. Specific product availability depends on individual state regulations. Follow AG Substack|MuellershewroteBlueSky|@muellershewroteAndrew McCabe isn't on social media, but you can buy his book The ThreatThe Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and TrumpWe would like to know more about our listeners. Please participate in this brief surveyListener Survey and CommentsThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at the Justice Enforcers level and above:https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr when you subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3YNpW3P

Financial Advisor Jayson Thornton, CFP -- REACTS -- A federal grand jury has indicted Democratic Charlotte City Councilmember Tiawana Brown, 53, and her two daughters, accusing them of fraudulently obtaining more than $124,000 in COVID-19 relief funds, including spending approximately $15,000 on a birthday party for the councilwoman, announced Russ Ferguson, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina.The Surprising TikTok Rant on PPP Loan Scam (fraud) Nobody Tells You | TikTok Rant PPP LoanAre you looking for ways to improve your financial life? If so, this is the channel for you! On this channel we'll teach you how to live a successful life by learning how to save, payoff debt and invest. We'll start by explaining the basics of money management and financial planning, and then move on to more advanced topics like investing and retirement planning. Subscribing to Pocket Watching with JT and following his tips, you'll have everything you need to live a financially successful life.FREE Consultation!https://www.thornton-financial.com/free-consult FREE FINANCIAL PLANNING APP -https://app.thornton-financial.com/Got Money Questions? Ask JThttps://www.pocketwatcher.net/Pocket Watcher MERCH!https://pocket-watching-with-jt-shop.fourthwall.com/NEW CHANNEL - @PWreact - https://www.youtube.com/@PWreactBook a consultation at https://www.pocketwatcher.net/Call-In Financial Talk Show hosted by Financial Advisor Jayson M. Thornton, CFP. Pocket Watching with JT is all about giving you smart money tips to help you reach your financial goals! *Disclaimer*Financial Coaching during Livestreams is NOT personal investment advice, No CFP-Client relationship is established by calling into the show or submitting a question by email or text.Cash App $PocketWatcherJTemail PocketWatcherJT@gmail.comFollow ig @JTPocketWatcherTwitter @JTPocketWatcherCertified Financial Planner*ALL CONTENT OWNED & PRODUCED BY POCKET WATCHER LLC*

In this episode of The Nancy Grandquist Podcast we continue our series, "We Worship One God," with this discussion with Eli Lopez.He is the president and a professor at Christian Life College, where he teaches theology and serves as an administrator. He also holds a pastoral role under Nathaniel Haney at Christian Life Centre and is the district prayer coordinator for the Western District.The discussion delves into the theological understanding of the oneness of God, particularly focusing on the interpretation of Matthew 28:19 and the practice of baptism in Jesus' name. Pastor Lopez explains the biblical basis for the oneness doctrine, emphasizing the singularity of God and the divine nature of Jesus Christ. He recounts personal anecdotes and scholarly insights to illustrate the power and authority in the name of Jesus, and how this understanding influences worship and spiritual life. The conversation also touches on the importance of humility and respect in theological discussions, especially with those who hold different beliefs.----------Timestamped Chapters Chapter 1: Introduction and Roles  00:13 - 01:27Chapter 2: Personal Life and Family 01:28 - 03:41Chapter 3: Series on Worship and Theology 03:42 - 04:24Chapter 3: Series on Worship and Theology 04:25 - 09:54Chapter 4: Theological Discussion on Baptism 09:55 - 19:59Chapter 5: Understanding the Oneness of God 20:00 - 24:40Chapter 6: Personal Experiences and Revelations 24:41 - 30:06Chapter 7: Practical Implications of Oneness Theology 30:07 - 34:14Chapter 8: Revelation and Worship 34:15⁠ - ⁠41:03⁠Chapter 9: Humility and Grace in Theology 41:04 - 43:03Chapter 10: Conclusion and Prayer

Kilmar Abrego Garcia has pled not guilty to the two charges of smuggling migrants, and has asked the court to release him on bail pending his trial.The Department of Justice is trying to dismiss the discovery proceedings as moot, but Abrego Garcia's lawyers have filed a sanctions motion requesting Judge Xinis proceed with determining whether the government defied her order.The Western District of Texas became the fourth court to find that Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act is unlawful and blocked the government from removing anyone under the proclamation in the districtAttorney General Pam Bondi fails to respond to Judge Boasberg's order to report how the government is facilitating the due process for those trapped in the Salvadoran prison, and instead files a motion to stay the order.Plus listener questions…Do you have  questions for the pod? Follow AG Substack|MuellershewroteBlueSky|@muellershewroteAndrew McCabe isn't on social media, but you can buy his book The ThreatThe Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and TrumpWe would like to know more about our listeners. Please participate in this brief surveyListener Survey and CommentsThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at the Justice Enforcers level and above:https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr when you subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3YNpW3P

Russ Ferguson was appointed shortly after President Trump took office this year. He leads an office of nearly 100 federal prosecutors and support personnel serving 32 counties. We talk about his priorities as U.S. attorney, including eliminating cartels, reducing drug trafficking, violent crime and more.

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order effectively ending birthright citizenship for children born to mothers who are unlawfully present or temporary lawful residents in the United States and whose fathers are not lawful permanent residents at the time of the child’s birth. One day later, four states and three individuals challenged this order in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, which three days later granted a universal temporary restraining order enjoining the government from implementing this order. Two weeks later, this became a nationwide injunction. Other similar nationwide injunctions have since been issued from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The government has appealed all of these, and the question of whether the Supreme Court should stay the district courts' preliminary injunctions (except as to the individual plaintiffs and identified members of the organizational plaintiffs or states) was argued on May 15. Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case, its argument before the Supreme Court, and the broader issues at play.Featuring:Michael R. Williams, Solicitor General, West VirginiaModerator: Elbert Lin, Chair, Issues & Appeals, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP--To register, click the link above.

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order effectively ending birthright citizenship for children born to mothers who are unlawfully present or temporary lawful residents in the United States and whose fathers are not lawful permanent residents at the time of the child’s birth. One day later, four states and three individuals challenged this order in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, which three days later granted a universal temporary restraining order enjoining the government from implementing this order. Two weeks later, this became a nationwide injunction. Other similar nationwide injunctions have since been issued from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The government has appealed all of these, and the question of whether the Supreme Court should stay the district courts' preliminary injunctions (except as to the individual plaintiffs and identified members of the organizational plaintiffs or states) is now set to be argued on May 15. Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case and the broader issues at play, including its implications for the separation of powers.Featuring:Michael R. Williams, Solicitor General, West VirginiaModerator: Elbert Lin, Partner and Chair, Issues & Appeals, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP

OA1158 - We start off with some patron questions about what to do when ICE comes to your neighborhood, the one thing that the world's most annoying white libertarians got right, and how to best exercise the very few rights US citizens have coming back into the country. Then in our main story: This week the Supreme Court heard arguments over birthright citizenship--or did it? Matt explains how they might do something even worse than expected while still striking down Trump's attempt to end the  Constitutional right to citizenship for everyone born on US soil by executive order.  Finally, we polish off today's episode with a meaty footnote about the lies and tyranny of a very different kind of would-be monarch. Oral arguments in Trump v. CASA (5/15/25) Trump v. CASA docket  Western District of PA federal judge Stephanie Haines's ruling upholding the application of the Alien Enemies Act to members of Tren de Aragua “Sense of the community” memo dated 4/7/25 finding that Tren de Aragua is not working with the Venezuelan government Complaint in Coleman et al v. Burger King  

AFP editors Crystal Graham and Chris Graham have been hard at work this week tracking down the details of three ongoing controversies involving the Augusta County Sheriff's Office. In our Friday podcast, #TeamAFP breaks down: Augusta County: Family of man who died in police custody wants answers The family of a Staunton man who died in the back of an Augusta County Sheriff's Office patrol car on May 5 is trying to get answers. “There is real injustice here, and I truly feel like Stefan was assaulted to the point of his death,” Wade Gerencser, the brother of Stefan Gerencser, 39, wrote on social media, in a post brought to our attention by a family friend, Gary Bone, who served in the Marine Corps with the Gerencser brothers. Former deputy files $5.35M suit against Augusta County sheriff over forced resignation The $5.35 million federal civil rights lawsuit filed against Augusta County Sheriff Donald Smith that is making news today might need to be taken with a grain of salt. The reason I'm starting there: the allegations in the suit, Reynolds v. Smith, filed in the Harrisonburg Division of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, filed on behalf of a former sheriff's deputy, Dennis Reynolds, were first peddled to me in 2023 by people who I know to be sworn political enemies of Smith, whose original sin was running for sheriff in 2015 against the handpicked candidate of the local political machine, and then winning. Augusta County sheriff reprimands Black deputy over lighthearted TikTok Augusta County Sheriff Donald Smith still hasn't commented on the lawsuit alleging that he sexually harassed a former male employee, but he found time on Thursday to publicly reprimand a Black deputy for comments she made on a TikTok video. In case you're wondering, yes, this was another instance of your sheriff letting himself get played on a public stage.

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts in Buffalo for a special fireside chat with Justice Lawrence Vilardo celebrating 125 years of the Western District of New York full 3071 Wed, 07 May 2025 22:15:00 +0000 cOitXksW1ETT6akGVDweeXkHczAnOMlD buffalo,news,wben,u.s. supreme court,john roberts WBEN Extras buffalo,news,wben,u.s. supreme court,john roberts U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts in Buffalo for a special fireside chat with Justice Lawrence Vilardo celebrating 125 years of the Western District of New York Archive of various reports and news events 2024 © 2021 Audacy, Inc.

Today we bring you a special episode recorded in the south-west Victorian electorate of Wannon. The seat encompasses tourist towns from Lorne along the Great Ocean Road, to Warrnambool. And who better to tell the evolving story of Wannon than our associate editor and special writer Tony Wright. He was born in Heywood, grew up on sheep and cattle properties in the Western District, went to school in Hamilton, started his career in small newspapers in Portland, Warrnambool and Camperdown, and still has a house near Portland.Our audio producer Julia Carr-Catzel joins Tony Wright on the road.Subscribe to The Age & SMH: https://subscribe.smh.com.au/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today we bring you a special episode recorded in the south-west Victorian electorate of Wannon. The seat encompasses tourist towns from Lorne along the Great Ocean Road, to Warrnambool. And who better to tell the evolving story of Wannon than our associate editor and special writer Tony Wright. He was born in Heywood, grew up on sheep and cattle properties in the Western District, went to school in Hamilton, started his career in small newspapers in Portland, Warrnambool and Camperdown, and still has a house near Portland.Our audio producer Julia Carr-Catzel joins Tony Wright on the road.Subscribe to The Age & SMH: https://subscribe.smh.com.au/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

May 1, 2025 ~ Mark Totten, Former United States Attorney for the Western District of Michigan discusses his plan to run for Attorney General of Michigan.

Host: Bec Noble | Episode Recorded Live at the Melbourne International Flower & Garden Show 2025In this special episode, we meet Anna and Ray from 302 Flower Farm, a passionate husband-and-wife team growing seasonal blooms on their breathtaking property in Victoria's Western District. From Proteas to Dahlias, tank water challenges to sunset views over the back paddock, Anna and Ray share their love for land, flowers, community, and the generations that have helped shape their farm.

Sheriff Baxter and the newest member of the Western District of New York Human Trafficking Task Force, Deputy Keith Beer, react to the federal conviction of a man MCSO arrested for sex trafficking.

Plus: Virginia's former state health commissioner is now warning that the U.S. Health and Human Services Department's recent decision to cut federal funding for COVID-related grants makes Virginians more susceptible to future pandemics — and “horrific consequences.”    In the podcast: Virginia is the top state to survive an alien invasion; Sens. Kaine and Warner's candidates for the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Virginia 

Infamous U.S. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) didn't know what she was getting into when she defamed the drag artist with a doctorate Professor Lil Miss Hot Mess, but gay Representative Robert Garcia (D-CA) had the skillful sarcasm to shut her down (Lauren Schmitt reports). lIllinois Governor JB Pritzker's fiery address lights up the Human Rights Campaign's annual Los Angeles dinner with a call to move the movement into the streets. And in NewsWrap: same-gender sex is outlawed again by Trinidad and Tobago's Court of Appeal, six European countries warn their transgender and nonbinary citizens to beware of traveling to a Trump-ruled United States, U.S. officials pull the funding for research projects from seven Australian universities as the Trump administration's war on “wokeness” spreads, a preliminary injunction by District of Columbia Court Judge Ana Reyes continues to halt the Trump administration's ban on transgender military service, Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the Western District of Washington state adds his injunction to Judge Reyes' while New Jersey's District Judge Christine P. O'Hearn saves two more trans airmen from expulsion, Texas A&M University's embattled “Draggieland” show takes the prize for persistence, and more international LGBTQ+ news reported this week by Marcos Najera and Ret (produced by Brian DeShazor). All this on the March 31, 2025 edition of This Way Out! Join our family of listener-donors today at http://thiswayout.org/donate/

Send us a textThis segment of “White Collar Talks with Nina and Joe” features former United States Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina, Dena King.  Guest co-host is Lynsey Barron.

On today's program, the Trump administration cancels grants to refugee aid agencies…despite legal battles. We'll take a look. And, a staggering 30 percent of nonprofits don't survive a full decade—but when they go under, what happens to their assets? Our finance writer Shannon Cuthrell digs into the hidden risks and loopholes of nonprofit dissolutions. And, we've released our MinistryWatch list of the 50 Christian ministries receiving the largest government grants.  But first, the U-S Department of Justice has intervened on behalf of a Pennsylvania church trying to expand. The producer for today's program is Jeff McIntosh. We get database and other technical support from Stephen DuBarry, Rod Pitzer, and Casey Sudduth. Writers who contributed to today's program include Kim Roberts, Jack Jenkins, Yonat Shimron, Jessica Eturralde, Shannon Cuthrell, Tony Mator, Bruce Buursma, Brittany Smith, and Christina Darnell. Until next time, may God bless you.   MANUSCRIPT:    FIRST SEGMENT Warren: Hello everybody. I'm Warren Smith, coming to you this week from Charlotte, North Carolina. Natasha:  And I'm Natasha Cowden, coming to you from Denver, Colorado, and we'd like to welcome you to the MinistryWatch podcast. Warren: On today's program, the Trump administration cancels grants to refugee aid agencies…despite legal battles. We'll take a look. And, a staggering 30 percent of nonprofits don't survive a full decade—but when they go under, what happens to their assets? Our finance writer Shannon Cuthrell digs into the hidden risks and loopholes of nonprofit dissolutions. And, we've released our MinistryWatch list of the 50 Christian ministries receiving the largest government grants. Natasha: But first, the U-S Department of Justice has intervened on behalf of a Pennsylvania church trying to expand. Warren: On March 3, the Justice Department section for the Western District of Pennsylvania filed a statement of interest supporting the Hope Rising Community Church in its lawsuit against the Borough of Clarion. The church has outgrown its current facilities and wants to expand using a facility in the city's commercial district. While Clarion allows nonreligious assemblies in the commercial district, such as theaters, the city would not approve the church's zoning use variance request. Officials from the city allegedly said they didn't “need any more churches” because of the loss of property taxes. Natasha: Hope Rising Community Church filed its lawsuit in November alleging the city was violating the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a federal law that protects houses of worship from discrimination in zoning. When Clarion filed a motion to dismiss the church's claim, the Justice Department intervened. Warren: The city argued the church had not suffered any concrete injury as a result of Clarion's actions, the DOJ argued that the city's zoning code has “stymied [the church's] efforts to buy and develop the only suitable property for the church in Clarion.” As of March 2024, the DOJ had opened over 155 formal investigations and filed nearly 30 lawsuits related to RLUIPA's Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) land use provisions, and had filed 36 “friend-of-the-court” briefs addressing the interpretation and application of RLUIPA in privately-filed lawsuits. Natasha: Next, The Trump Administration cancels grants to refugee aid agencies. Warren: President Donald Trump's administration is making moves to shutter a decades-old partnership between the government and a group of mostly religious organizations to resettle refugees, with the State Department abruptly canceling grant agreements with all the agencies despite ongoing legal battles. On Wednesday (Feb. 26), refugee resettlement organizations, such as Church World Service, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, and the U.S.

As the lead investigator into both the 2017 racist riot in Charlottesville and the January 6 insurrection, Tim Heaphy has a unique perspective on the cynicism and anger that also fueled Trump's return to the presidency. All three events, both the violent protests and the peaceful and lawful decisions made at the ballot box in November 2024, reflect an increasing lack of trust in institutions among a growing number of Americans. He reflects on his work and where we go from here in the book Harbingers: What January 6 and Charlottesville Reveal About Rising Threats to American DemocracyHeaphy joins us to discuss the divide between people who trust the system and people who don't and make the case for why a disengaged citizenry is the biggest threat to American democracy. We also discuss his reactions to the first few weeks of the Trump administration and the pardoning of people convicted in relation to January 6.Heaphy served as the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Virginia from 2009-14. His previous experience included clerking for Judge John A. Terry of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and working for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. 

Stanley Ference, Stanley has an extensive background in intellectual property law, including Online Counterfeiting. He advises clients on all aspects of patent, trademark, and copyright law. Stanley's practice includes litigation for both plaintiff and defendant, patent prosecution for computer-related technology, trademark prosecution and oppositions. Stanley has argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and has served as an expert witness. He is an E-Discovery Special Master for the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Ference was selected to the 2022 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers list. In 2020 Stanley was recognized by Best Lawyers in America, Chambers & Partners, IP Stars and Super Lawyers. He has also been recognized as a Lawyer of the Year by U.S. News and the firm has been recognized as a Best Law Firm.Highlight Bullets> Here's a glimpse of what you would learn…. Importance of protecting intellectual property (IP) for e-commerce businesses.Challenges posed by online counterfeiting and its impact on brand owners.Legal options available for e-commerce sellers facing IP infringement.Differences between patents, trademarks, and copyrights.Emotional and financial toll of counterfeiting on entrepreneurs.Strategies for enforcing IP rights and taking legal action against infringers.The role of online marketplaces in IP protection and their limitations.Mindset shifts for entrepreneurs regarding counterfeiting as a sign of success.Continuous monitoring and enforcement of IP rights as a necessity.Actionable steps for e-commerce sellers to secure and enforce their intellectual property.In this episode of the Ecomm Breakthrough Podcast, host Josh Hadley discusses the critical issue of online counterfeiting with Stanley Ference, a leading patent attorney from Pittsburgh. Josh shares his personal struggles with intellectual property (IP) protection, emphasizing its importance for business growth. Stanley offers expert advice on navigating IP challenges, including patents, trademarks, and copyrights. He highlights the necessity of proactive legal action and continuous enforcement to protect e-commerce brands. The episode provides actionable insights for seven-figure business owners aiming to scale, stressing the value of professional legal guidance in safeguarding their intellectual property.Here are the 3 action items that Josh identified from this episode:1. Prioritize IP Registration and Enforcement: Secure patents, trademarks, and copyrights for your products, and be proactive in monitoring for infringement. Regularly enforcing these rights is essential to protecting your brand from counterfeiters and should be a core business practice.2. Consider Legal Action When Facing Infringement: When encountering counterfeits, consult with a legal expert to assess your options, even if you don't have formal IP protections in place. Legal professionals can help you navigate complex cases, and actions like asset freezing orders can have a significant impact on reducing counterfeit activity.3. Be Prepared for Ongoing IP Protection: Recognize that IP enforcement is an ongoing effort. Regular monitoring of marketplaces and prompt action against infringers will help maintain your brand's integrity and reduce the risk of long-term damage. Stay organized and informed to streamline your IP protection strategy effectively.Resources mentioned in this episode:Josh Hadley on LinkedIneComm Breakthrough ConsultingeComm Breakthrough PodcastEmail Josh Hadley: Josh@eCommBreakthrough.comAmazon Brand RegistryApex Program for PatentsMy Life in Court by Louis NizerFerence LawBill Gates on LinkedInSteve Jobs on LinkedInSteve Wozniak on LinedInSpecial Mention(s):Adam “Heist” Runquist on LinkedInKevin King on LinkedInMichael E. Gerber on LinkedInRelated Episode(s):“Cracking the Amazon Code: Learn From Adam Heist's Brand Scaling Secrets” on the eComm Breakthrough Podcast“Kevin King's Wicked-Smart Tips for Building an Audience of Raving Fans” on the eComm Breakthrough Podcast“Unlocking Entrepreneurial Greatness | Insider Secrets With E-myth Author Michael Gerber” on the eComm Breakthrough PodcastEpisode SponsorThis episode is brought to you by eComm Breakthrough Consulting where I help seven-figure e-commerce owners grow to eight figures. I started Hadley Designs in 2015 and grew it to an eight-figure brand in seven years.I made mistakes along the way that made the path to eight figures longer. At times I doubted whether our business could even survive and become a real brand. I wish I would have had a guide to help me grow faster and avoid the stumbling blocks.If you've hit a plateau and want to know the next steps to take your business to the next level, then go to www.EcommBreakthrough.com (that's Ecomm with two M's) to learn more.Transcript AreaJosh 00:00:00  Welcome to the Ecomm Breakthrough podcast. I'm your host, Josh Hadley, where I interview the top business leaders in e-commerce. Past guests include Kevin King, Michael Gerber, author of The E-myth, and Stephen Pope of My Amazon Guide. Today, I am speaking with Stanley Ferentz, one of Pittsburgh's leading paten...

Send us a textOn today's episode, I am joined by the lead investigator of the January 6 committee and former US attorney for the Western District of Virginia, Timothy Heaphy, who also participated in the 2017 Unite the Right rally (UTR) investigation team. For our discussion, we cover his 2024 book "Harbingers: What January 6 and Charlottesville Reveal about Rising Threats to American Democracy." Which follows Timothy's experience in investigating the attacks on Capitol Hill in 2021 and the far-right protests in Charlottesville in 2017. We cover Donald Trump's tactics to spread disinformation and doubt about the 2020 election and the contributing factors that led to J6 and UTR. InstagramThe Social Chemist (@socialchemistig) • Instagram photos and videosThreadThe Social Chemist (@socialchemistig) on ThreadsSubstackThe Social Chemist Newsletter | SubstackTimothy Heaphy's Book Harbingers: What January 6 and Charlottesville Reveal About Rising Threats to American Democracy: Heaphy, Timothy J.: 9781586424015: Amazon.com: BooksThe Final Report of the Select CommitteeFinal Report of the Select Committee | January 6th-benniethompsonSocial Chemist Recommended EpisodesThe Weaponization of Disinformation & Its Assault on Democracy w/ Barbara McQuadeThe People Who Turn Lies into Reality w/ Renée DiRestaThe Evolution of Far-Right Terrorism in the 21st Century w/ Bruce Hoffman and Jacob WareHere Comes the Storm: The Origins of QAnon w/ Mike Rothschild

Judge Parker's Courthouse in Fort Smith, Arkansas, served as the seat of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas from 1872 to 1896 under Judge Isaac C. Parker, who became known as the "Hanging Judge" due to the 79 executions he ordered during his tenure https://www.eeriecast.com/podcasts/destination-terror   #HouskaCastle #GatewayToHell #CzechRepublic #HauntedCastles #DemonPortal #Oronto #EuropeanMysteries Discover more TERRIFYING podcasts at http://eeriecast.com/ Follow Carman Carrion!  https://www.instagram.com/carmancarrion/?hl=en https://twitter.com/CarmanCarrion Subscribe to Spotify! https://open.spotify.com/show/0uiX155WEJnN7QVRfo3aQY Please Review Us on iTunes! https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/freaky-folklore/id1550361184 Music and sound effects used in the Destination Terror Podcast have or may have been provided/created by:  CO.AG: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcavSftXHgxLBWwLDm_bNvA Myuu: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiSKnkKCKAQVxMUWpZQobuQ Jinglepunks: https://jinglepunks.com/ Epidemic Sound: https://www.epidemicsound.com/ Kevin MacLeod: http://incompetech.com/ Dark Music: https://soundcloud.com/darknessprevailspodcast Soundstripe: http Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

A man believing there was soon to be a revolution starting in the Washington Olympic Penninsula, heads inside the park causing fear and a lock down and evacuation of a large part of the park.  The local Chief of Police and County Sheriff join us to give us the details and tell how this standoff and manhunt came to it's conclusion.SUPPORT THE SHOW: We would love your support so we can keep the episodes coming!For bonus content join our Patreon!patreon.com/CrimeOfftheGridFor a one time donation:https://www.buymeacoffee.com/cotgFor more information about the podcast, check outhttps://crimeoffthegrid.com/Check out our Merch!!  https://in-wild-places.square.site/s/shopFollow us on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/crimeoffthegridpodcast/ and  (1) FacebookSources:United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (Tacoma)CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:22-cr-05188-RJB-1https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdwa/pr/port-angeles-washington-man-who-prompted-evacuation-olympic-national-park-pleads-guiltyFirst hand account

Jonathan Byrne and Josh Carpenter of the Western District of North Carolina Federal Public Defender Office discuss recent Fourth Circuit Court news.

Who decides what is appropriate for public libraries? That is at the heart of the case Fayetteville Public Library et. al. v. Crawford County, Arkansas et. al. The representatives of the people of Arkansas passed a law, Arkansas Act 372, which both established a crime of furnishing a harmful item to a minor and established guidelines for selection, relocation, and retention of such materials. A group of libraries, librarians, and related organizations sue Arkansas 28 prosecuting attorneys in the federal District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction, preventing the law from going into effect. Or does it?

In this episode of The Dairy Podcast Show, Dr. Miguel Morales from Protekta shares innovative strategies for managing hypocalcemia in transition cows, focusing on the critical roles of calcium and phosphorus metabolism during the transition period. Dr. Morales introduces a new approach that bypasses traditional acidification methods, discussing its impact on dairy health, productivity, and operational efficiency. Listen now on all major podcast platforms!"Instead of traditional acidification, we're using a method to control hypocalcemia in dairy cows focusing on calcium balance."Meet the guest: Dr. Miguel Morales, a veterinary graduate from the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, serves as a Technical Service-Dairy at Protekta, focusing on the dairy industry in the Western District. With over 35 years of experience across the United States and Latin America, he specializes in technology adoption, workforce management, and sustainable practices.What you'll learn:(00:00) Highlight(01:13) Introduction(03:46) Hypocalcemia in dairy cows(06:15) Calcium-phosphorus balance(12:13) Diet formulation tips(16:23) Minimum feeding duration(17:28) Feed intake considerations(22:20) Final three questionsThe Dairy Podcast Show is trusted and supported by innovative companies like: Protekta* Adisseo- Volac- SmaXtec- Acepsis- Berg + Schmidt- Trouw Nutrition- Natural Biologics- Scoular- ICC- Priority IAC- dsm-firmenich- Diamond V

To many of us, the answer seems obvious as the AI wave continues to crest. The City Bar Presidential Task Force on Artificial Intelligence and Digital Technologies hosts Hon. Xavier Rodriguez, U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Texas, and Maura Grossman, a lawyer and scholar specializing in technology assisted review, to join Task Force member David Zaslowsky in giving that question a closer look. With lawyers filing in court, perhaps we're leaping to conclusions that don't match our experience. After all, lawyers once worried that tech like email would be the end of confidentiality. Then again, when it comes to judges, the risks may be just as high as we think. Research and fact-finding may be one thing, but what about when a judge asks an AI tool to render a legal decision?  Judge Rodriguez and Professor Grossman consider many cases and court rules from the past year as we pull apart the surprising nuances of the question: should lawyers and judges be required to disclose their use of AI? If you're interested in learning more about how artificial intelligence will affect the legal world, check out the City Bar's Artificial Intelligence Institute, available on-demand (https://services.nycbar.org/EventDetail?EventKey=OND061024). Visit nycbar.org/events to find all of the most up-to-date information about our upcoming programs and events.  04:06 The Infamous Mata vs. Avianca Case 04:47 Debating AI Disclosure Requirements 06:12 Challenges with Broad AI Regulations 09:13 Judicial Reactions to AI in Legal Practice 11:12 Proposed AI Certification in the Fifth Circuit 19:10 Legislative Overreach in AI Regulation 26:00 Judges Using AI: Ethical and Practical Considerations 34:05 AI in Judicial Decision-Making: Disclosure Dilemma 34:22 A Personal Experience with AI Dispute Resolution 35:52 The Role of AI in Low-Value Claims 36:49 Psychological Anchoring and AI in Courts 37:41 Judicial Canons and AI Usage 39:06 Global Examples of AI in Judicial Decisions 40:17 The Debate on AI's Role in Legal Interpretation 44:40 Judge Newsom's AI Journey 48:56 Concerns and Considerations with AI in Courts 57:30 Encouraging AI Experimentation in the Judiciary 59:40 Conclusion and Future Discussions

Host Gregg N. Sofer welcomes Husch Blackwell partner Catherine Hanaway to the podcast to discuss the recent sentencing of Nishad Singh, a former key lieutenant of Sam Bankman-Fried, the cryptocurrency mogul responsible for one of the largest frauds in American business history. Bankman-Fried was recently sentenced to 25 years in prison, but Nishad Singh received no prison time due to his cooperation with government investigators in developing their case against Bankman-Fried. Gregg and Catherine use the Singh case as a jumping-off point to explore some of the most difficult and consequential issues in white collar defense: how and when to self-disclose potentially illegal conduct to the government and how and when to cooperate with government prosecutors.Gregg N. Sofer BiographyFull BiographyGregg counsels businesses and individuals in connection with a range of criminal, civil and regulatory matters, including government investigations, internal investigations, litigation, export control, sanctions, and regulatory compliance. Prior to entering private practice, Gregg served as the United States Attorney for the Western District of Texas—one of the largest and busiest United States Attorney's Offices in the country—where he supervised more than 300 employees handling a diverse caseload, including matters involving complex white-collar crime, government contract fraud, national security, cyber-crimes, public corruption, money laundering, export violations, trade secrets, tax, large-scale drug and human trafficking, immigration, child exploitation and violent crime.Catherine Hanaway BiographyFull BiographyCatherine is a St. Louis-based partner with Husch Blackwell's White Collar, Internal Investigations & Compliance team and a former chair of the firm. She has successfully handled high-profile, bet-the-company, complex matters in federal court and before regulatory agencies and represents leading global and closely-held companies—as well as their officers and owners—in civil and criminal investigations and in business litigation.Before leading Husch Blackwell as its first female chair, Catherine served as the chief federal law enforcement officer for the Eastern District of Missouri and as the only woman Speaker of the Missouri House of Representatives. As U.S. Attorney, she supervised more than 4,000 criminal, affirmative, and defensive civil cases and personally tried cases to jury verdicts. She also supervised and assisted in the development of cutting-edge theories of criminal prosecution.© 2024 Husch Blackwell LLP. All rights reserved. This information is intended only to provide general information in summary form on legal and business topics of the day. The contents hereof do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. Specific legal advice should be sought in particular matters.

Federal prosecutors are urging a judge to impose the maximum sentence on Stephanie Russell, a 53-year-old former pediatrician from Louisville, Kentucky, for her involvement in a stalking and attempted murder-for-hire plot targeting her ex-husband. Russell, who once operated KidzLife Pediatrics, known for its Disney-themed office, pleaded guilty but continued to seek a hitman through female inmates, according to new evidence. Russell's criminal actions stemmed from a contentious family court battle where her ex-husband was awarded sole custody of their two children in 2022. Russell failed in her "efforts to have her ex-husband branded as a domestic abuser and child sex-abuser in the course of the family court litigation," resulting in her ex receiving "sole custody" of their two children in 2022. Following this, Russell sought various means to harm him, including attempting to pay $7,000 to an undercover FBI agent posing as a hitman. WhatsApp messages revealed Russell even explored using a "death spell" to achieve her goal. Russell's guilty plea reveals a series of odd solicitations for murder, including a "death spell." Russell wanted her ex, R.C., hexed by "a death spell" in the months before her 2022 arrest for attempting to pay $7,000 to an undercover FBI agent to kill the victim, as revealed by WhatsApp texts. "What is your success rate?" What's your price? "What is your guarantee?" Russell inquired, and a woman identifying as "mama" responded: "Death success rates are 85%." Russell continuing to seek "a death spell" from a "Spiritual Healer" with a different phone number from the first, before going to a third contact identified as "Sk." “The only way we will have peace is if he dies,” Russell insisted to “Sk,” who answered: “killing him etc is going to harm you and family as he has some type of protection on him.” Prosecutors allege that Russell's attempts to arrange her ex-husband's murder persisted even after her guilty plea in April 2024, leading the government to argue for the maximum 12-year sentence, citing her ongoing misconduct and lack of remorse. According to the US Attorney's Office for the Western District of Kentucky, Russell was apprehended in large part because, in July 2021, she "began soliciting multiple KidzLife employees, asking if they knew someone who would be willing to kill R.C." Russell, the owner and operator of the Louisville-area pediatric practice, was apprehended in May 2022 after an undercover spy posed as a hitman taped discussions with her. "I want him completely gone from my life, yes," Russell said, before the FBI agent proposed making her ex's death appear to be suicide.  "Yes, that would be fantastic," Russell replied. Russell faces at least eight years in jail but no more than twelve, according to the plea agreement, but prosecutors argued Monday that the punishment should be the maximum based on her alleged behavior within bars following the plea. “The day after Russell entered her guilty plea, the United States was notified that Russell, who is in pre-trial detention, was soliciting other female prisoners in a renewed effort to find someone to murder her ex-husband,” prosecutors said. “On July 9, 2024, this information was provided to the U.S. Probation Office with the United States' objections to the initial Presentence Investigation Report.” “Based upon the probable cause to believe that Russell had engaged in ongoing violations of state or federal law after she entered her guilty plea on April 22, 2024, and pursuant to the express provision of paragraph 10 of the parties' Plea Agreement, the United States objected to Russell receiving any reduction for acceptance of responsibility,” the feds continued. Prosecutors stated there is evidence that another inmate in pretrial detention went so far as to send a letter "at Russell's behest" to that detainee's boyfriend — "postmarked April 22, 2024, the date of Russell's guilty plea" — asking if the man knew anyone who could or would kill Russell's ex. Russell's defense attorney, Michael Mazzoli, acknowledged her mental health issues but contested the recent allegations, arguing that the plea agreement's proposed sentence range would suffice. Letters from family, colleagues, and patients' parents described Russell as a dedicated professional whose actions were out of character, attributing her behavior to extreme emotional and mental distress. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Karen Read Trial, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com 

Federal prosecutors are urging a judge to impose the maximum sentence on Stephanie Russell, a 53-year-old former pediatrician from Louisville, Kentucky, for her involvement in a stalking and attempted murder-for-hire plot targeting her ex-husband. Russell, who once operated KidzLife Pediatrics, known for its Disney-themed office, pleaded guilty but continued to seek a hitman through female inmates, according to new evidence. Russell's criminal actions stemmed from a contentious family court battle where her ex-husband was awarded sole custody of their two children in 2022. Russell failed in her "efforts to have her ex-husband branded as a domestic abuser and child sex-abuser in the course of the family court litigation," resulting in her ex receiving "sole custody" of their two children in 2022. Following this, Russell sought various means to harm him, including attempting to pay $7,000 to an undercover FBI agent posing as a hitman. WhatsApp messages revealed Russell even explored using a "death spell" to achieve her goal. Russell's guilty plea reveals a series of odd solicitations for murder, including a "death spell." Russell wanted her ex, R.C., hexed by "a death spell" in the months before her 2022 arrest for attempting to pay $7,000 to an undercover FBI agent to kill the victim, as revealed by WhatsApp texts. "What is your success rate?" What's your price? "What is your guarantee?" Russell inquired, and a woman identifying as "mama" responded: "Death success rates are 85%." Russell continuing to seek "a death spell" from a "Spiritual Healer" with a different phone number from the first, before going to a third contact identified as "Sk." “The only way we will have peace is if he dies,” Russell insisted to “Sk,” who answered: “killing him etc is going to harm you and family as he has some type of protection on him.” Prosecutors allege that Russell's attempts to arrange her ex-husband's murder persisted even after her guilty plea in April 2024, leading the government to argue for the maximum 12-year sentence, citing her ongoing misconduct and lack of remorse. According to the US Attorney's Office for the Western District of Kentucky, Russell was apprehended in large part because, in July 2021, she "began soliciting multiple KidzLife employees, asking if they knew someone who would be willing to kill R.C." Russell, the owner and operator of the Louisville-area pediatric practice, was apprehended in May 2022 after an undercover spy posed as a hitman taped discussions with her. "I want him completely gone from my life, yes," Russell said, before the FBI agent proposed making her ex's death appear to be suicide.  "Yes, that would be fantastic," Russell replied. Russell faces at least eight years in jail but no more than twelve, according to the plea agreement, but prosecutors argued Monday that the punishment should be the maximum based on her alleged behavior within bars following the plea. “The day after Russell entered her guilty plea, the United States was notified that Russell, who is in pre-trial detention, was soliciting other female prisoners in a renewed effort to find someone to murder her ex-husband,” prosecutors said. “On July 9, 2024, this information was provided to the U.S. Probation Office with the United States' objections to the initial Presentence Investigation Report.” “Based upon the probable cause to believe that Russell had engaged in ongoing violations of state or federal law after she entered her guilty plea on April 22, 2024, and pursuant to the express provision of paragraph 10 of the parties' Plea Agreement, the United States objected to Russell receiving any reduction for acceptance of responsibility,” the feds continued. Prosecutors stated there is evidence that another inmate in pretrial detention went so far as to send a letter "at Russell's behest" to that detainee's boyfriend — "postmarked April 22, 2024, the date of Russell's guilty plea" — asking if the man knew anyone who could or would kill Russell's ex. Russell's defense attorney, Michael Mazzoli, acknowledged her mental health issues but contested the recent allegations, arguing that the plea agreement's proposed sentence range would suffice. Letters from family, colleagues, and patients' parents described Russell as a dedicated professional whose actions were out of character, attributing her behavior to extreme emotional and mental distress. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Karen Read Trial, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com