Podcasts about Western District

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?

Welcome to RIMScast. Your host is Justin Smulison, Business Content Manager at RIMS, the Risk and Insurance Management Society.   In this episode, Justin interviews Shadowserver Foundation Alliance Director Tod Eberle about cybersecurity. Tod tells how his background as a prosecutor led to his interest in cybersecurity, how he encountered the non-profit Shadowserver Foundation, and how he left the public sector to work with them. He explains how Shadowserver provides actionable data to alert network owners and law enforcement of network vulnerabilities that need to be mitigated. He discusses trends in malware attacks, especially in ransomware. He shares his thoughts on ransomware threats of 2025 and the years to come. He provides tips on preparing your network against ransomware.   Listen to how you can harden your organization's network against malware attacks. Key Takeaways: [:01] About RIMS and RIMScast. [:14] Public registration is open for RISKWORLD 2025! RIMS wants you to Engage Today and Embrace Tomorrow in Chicago from May 4th through May 7th. Register at RIMS.org/RISKWORLD and the link in this episode's show notes. [:33] About this episode. We will discuss cybersecurity with Tod Eberle, the Alliance Director of the Shadowserver Foundation. [:55] RIMS-CRMP Workshops! On February 19th and 20th, there will be a two-day virtual workshop for the RIMS-CRMP led by former RIMS President Chris Mandel and presented by the RIMS Greater Bluegrass Chapter, the 2024 RIMS Chapter of the Year. [1:18] The next RIMS-CRMP-FED exam course will be held from February 4th through the 6th, 2025. Links to these courses can be found through the Certification page of RIMS.org and this episode's show notes. [1:34] Virtual Workshops! Chris Hansen will return on February 11th and 12th to lead the two-day course “Claims Management”. Gail Kiyomura of The Art of Risk Consulting will host the “Fundamentals of Insurance” virtual workshop on February 19th and 20th, 2025. [1:58] On February 26th and 27th, Elise Farnham of Illumine Consulting will lead “Applying and Integrating ERM”. “Managing Data for ERM” will be hosted by Pat Saporito. That course starts on March 12th, 2025. [2:20] A link to the full schedule of virtual workshops can be found on the RIMS.org/education and RIMS.org/education/online-learning pages. A link is also in this episode's show notes. [2:31] The RIMS Legislative Summit 2025 is back! It will be held on March 19th and 20th in Washington, D.C. Join RIMS for two days of Congressional meetings, networking, and advocating on behalf of the risk management community. [2:49] This event is open for RIMS members only so if you're not a member, join now! Visit RIMS.org/advocacy for registration details. [3:02] Interview! Our guest Tod Eberle is the Alliance Director of the Shadowserver Foundation, a non-profit security organization working altruistically behind the scenes to make the internet more secure for everyone. [3:15] Tod Eberle is with us to discuss the cybersecurity trends on his risk radar and the threats he wants risk professionals to be aware of as 2025 kicks into high gear. Shadowserver Alliance Director, Tod Eberle, welcome to RIMScast! [3:41] Justin saw that Shadowserver Foundation was promoted by the National Cybersecurity Alliance and he thought it would be great to have a follow-up on his appearance there. [3:54] Tod says the National Cybersecurity Alliance is a great organization. After working together with them for a year, they invited Tod to do a webinar. It was a great experience. [4:28] Tod's background is as a career prosecutor, starting as a county prosecutor in Western Pennsylvania in 1997. In 2004, Tod became a Federal Prosecutor in Pittsburgh for the U.S. Department of Justice. [5:00] In 2014, He transitioned over to the National Security and Cybercrime section in Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh was at the forefront of cyber investigations by both the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FBI. Tod wanted to be a part of that. [5:34] The Pittsburgh office has run investigations and issued indictments against Chinese Military Intelligence officers and Russian GRU officers for hacking. In 2014, Pittsburgh had the first criminal indictment of nation-state threat actors. [6:00] In that case, Chinese Military Intelligence PLA officers hacked into Pittsburgh companies Westinghouse, ALCOA, U.S. Steel, and United Steel Workers. Some forward-thinking folks at the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office, particularly U.S. Attorney David Hickton, focused on cyber. [6:29] That continued over the years until the present. [6:46] To begin an investigation, the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office in Pittsburgh, need to have some aspect of an organization's criminal activity touch that district, the Western District of Pennsylvania. A national ransomware case with one victim in Pittsburgh can be investigated. [7:16] In the investigation of Russian GRU actors responsible for the destructive NotPetya malware attack, a district hospital's network was attacked and destroyed. They expanded the investigation and charging documents to include other attacks around the country. [7:58] In 2015 Tod was a prosecutor working with the FBI on an investigation. He was at Europol at the Hague in the Netherlands, a center that brings together investigators and prosecutors from different countries who investigate the same threat group through Europol and Eurojust. [8:33] Tod met the Shadowserver Foundation non-profit group at the Hague in 2015. They were helping, through free technical support to the takedown operation, to dismantle the infrastructure of a crime group, using sinkholing and other security measures. [9:08] Tod Joined the Shadowserver Foundation in January of 2023. He is the Shadowserver Alliance Director. As a small non-profit, everyone wears many hats. The Shadowserver Foundation is a 501(c)(3) in the U.S. and a separate non-profit legal entity in the Netherlands. [9:47] The Shadowserver Foundation started about 2004. It celebrated its 20th anniversary in 2024. It began as a loose group of volunteers made up of cybersecurity researchers and technical experts who came together to help network owners and law enforcement. [10:15] Over the years they became more structured and became a non-profit organization. It's an unusual non-profit organization working 100% in operations. It works in three core areas. First, it's the world's largest provider of free, actionable cyber threat intelligence. [10:45] Second, the Shadowserver Foundation does cybersecurity capacity-building around the world. Third, it also provides free support to law enforcement investigations and disruption operations with technical support and expertise. Those three things are its core mission. [11:07] Justin notes commonalities between RIMS cyber risk reporting and the Shadowserver Foundation's work. Shadowserver collects a vast amount of threat data daily. What are the patterns it sees for 2025? [11:29] Shadowserver Foundation can help organizations mitigate risks. It collects cyber threat data at its data center in California through internet-wide scanning, honeypot sensors, sinkholing operations, and collecting and analyzing malware samples. [11:57] Every day for free the Shadowserver Foundation takes that data and provides it to over 9,000 organizations around the world and to 201 National C-CERTs that cover about 176 countries. [12:13] These reports identify exposed, misconfigured, vulnerable, compromised instances or devices on networks that need patching. [12:25] The organizations that get Shadowserver's data can be anything from banks to hospitals, universities, K-12 school districts, ISPs, local, state, and federal governments, small, medium, and large businesses, Fortune 500s, and NGOs; just about anyone can sign up. [12:46] The idea behind this is that cyber security should be available to everyone, regardless of the ability to pay. Organizations can sign up at the Shadowserver Foundation website, and provide their contact information and network information with IP ranges and ASNs. [13:12] The Shadowserver Foundation does its due diligence and if everything checks out, it automates those reports to go out to the organization daily. About 9,000 organizations sign up directly to receive daily reports. [13:22] The Shadowserver Foundation also sends out data for entire countries to the national C-CERT designated to handle that in those countries. In the U.S., CISA gets hundreds of millions of events from them every day for all the U.S. It is the same around the world. [13:52] Tod says that some things never change. Networks are breached primarily through phishing attacks, malicious links or attachments, and social engineering. [14:09] One trend is a focus on vulnerabilities. Criminals exploit vulnerabilities in the network that aren't timely patched and before they are patched. Shadowserver gives organizations an external snapshot view of their networks just as criminals are scanning for themselves. [14:52] Cybercriminal groups increasingly leverage zero-day vulnerabilities to breach a network. A zero-day vulnerability is a flaw in software or hardware that's unknown to the vendor and has no patch. The vendor has had zero days to fix the vulnerability after it has been discovered. [15:16] That was the case with the Clop ransomware gang. In 2024, they started exploiting zero-day vulnerabilities in Fortra's GoAnywhere software. That continued in May, with them exploiting Progress Software's MOVEit file transfer application. [15:38] Very recently, in December, the Clop Ransomware group claimed responsibility for using a zero-day vulnerability in Clio's file transfer platform that breached victims' networks. [15:49] Cyber criminals extort victims and steal data with ransomware attacks. Risk managers in cybersecurity need to stay on top of critical vulnerabilities that often go unpatched. Those are often the easiest gateway into a network. [16:26] Plug Time! RIMS Webinars! Resolver will be joining us on February 6th to discuss “4 Themes Shaping the Future of GRC in 2025”. [16:38] HUB International continues its Ready for Tomorrow Series with RIMS. On February 20th, they will host “Ready for the Unexpected? Strategies for Property Valuation, Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity in 2025”. [16:54] More webinars will be announced soon and added to the RIMS.org/webinars page. Go there to register. Registration is complimentary for RIMS members. [17:06] Nominations are also open for the Donald M. Stuart Award which recognizes excellence in risk management in Canada. Links are in this episode's show notes. [17:17] The Spencer Educational Foundation's goal to help build a talent pipeline of risk management and insurance professionals is achieved in part by its collaboration with risk management and insurance educators across the U.S. and Canada. [17:35] Since 2010, Spencer has awarded over $3.3 million in general grants to support over 130 student-centered experiential learning initiatives at universities and RMI non-profits. Spencer's 2026 application process will open on May 1st, 2025, and close on July 30th, 2025. [17:58] General grant awardees are typically notified at the end of October. Learn more about Spencer's general grants through the Programs tab at SpencerEd.org. [18:08] Let's Return to the Conclusion of My Interview with Tod Eberle of Shadowserver! [18:49] Justin notes that In December of 2024, China attackers breached the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. That is the government office that assesses foreign investments for national security risks. [18:58] China also targeted the Treasury's Sanctions Office after it sanctioned a Chinese company for its alleged role in cyberattacks. [19:14] Tod thinks we should acknowledge that this is nothing new and nothing we should be surprised about. It's been going on for many years and it's going to continue. Justin was in the Federal government in 2013 and 2014. [19:32] In 2015, it was announced that the U.S. Office of Personnel Management had been breached. Personal sensitive data for 42 million people were stolen. [19:44] In May 2014, five Chinese military officers were indicted for computer hacking and economic espionage against companies based in Pittsburgh. This is nothing out of the ordinary. Unfortunately, indictments don't seem to have a deterrent effect. [20:21] Countries can deny the charges of hacking even with strong evidence of their involvement. [20:37] There are different types of hacking, with different types of motivation. There is traditional espionage against U.S. government agencies. There is theft of intellectual property with nation-states trying to gain a commercial advantage in business. [21:23] There are destructive hacks by nation-state actors, like the NotPetya attack, or attacks on the Ukrainian power grid and banking systems in 2015 and 2016. [21:36] The Volt Typhoon threat actor group and its access to the U.S. critical infrastructure is one of the greatest national security concerns because of its potential to disrupt everything from water to power, to food, to transportation. [22:10] The ripple effect that can come from those disruptions would be enormous. The Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack of a few years ago affected fuel supplies, commerce, and the prices of goods. [22:31] Nation-state hacking is no longer just a concern for government agencies and companies that do business internationally, but it's now a concern for all of society. There's the potential to affect the daily lives of innocent civilians through attacks on critical infrastructure. [23:16] Tod mentions another 2014 indictment out of Pittsburgh, on the GameOver Zeus Botnet takedown. Part of that was a crypto locker ransomware disruption. This was in the infancy of ransomware, for $300 ransoms. Now ransom demands are in the tens of millions of dollars. [23:53] We have seen a huge evolution in ransomware. It's not going away. One thing we're seeing is bypassing data encryption and focusing on data theft. It's easier and less time-consuming for the threat actors because they don't have to map out the network. [24:41] If a victim company had good backups and easy restoration, that was an issue ransomware actors had to deal with, so why would the threat actors bother with that? They just focus on easy data theft and extortion of ransom for the data. [25:04] Tod thinks we will continue to see extortion. Ransomware continues to be the greatest concern for companies. The use of AI has been increasing both for defenders and attackers.  [25:14] A new ransomware group, FunkSec, is claiming large numbers of victims of extortion, encryption, and data theft. They seem to have ransom demands of less than $10,000. They have sold stolen data. Researchers think this is a less experienced group using AI to write code. [27:22] Shadowserver's very talented team collects the data. It's free. They want to get it into the hands of those who can use it. The reports identify things that are seen to be misconfigured or unnecessarily exposed to the internet. Sometimes they can show if something is compromised. [28:12] Shadowserver designates the events by severity level so the end user can prioritize their patching and address first the ones that are most critical and severe. The reports act both as an early warning system and a victim notification system if a device is seen to be compromised. [28:59] The network owner needs to remediate that and patch it before further exploitation like a ransomware attack can occur. [29:07] Shadowserver has two ways to detect that a device is compromised. The first is if they have indicators that tell them a device on the network is compromised. The second is with their support for law enforcement, law enforcement may share sensitive data with Shadowserve. [29:32] When law enforcement does a takedown and they get victim identification data like IP addresses, they must do victim notification. Law enforcement isn't scaled to do victim notification for hundreds of thousands of users. Shadowserver helps them with notifications. [30:48] Shadowserver is very careful to share data responsibly. Company A will get the data they have for Company A and it won't be shared with Company B and vice versa. Shadowserver views the data as belonging to that network owner. [31:08] If a company authorizes Shadowserver and wants them to share their data with a third party, Shadowserver will happily do it. There are several companies with MSSPs to manage their security. If the company asks, Shadowserver will send the data to their MSSP. [31:43] As a small, non-profit organization, not everyone has heard of the Shadowserver Foundation. They want people to know they have this data and they want to share it. It could be relevant for cyber insurance companies' due diligence, with the insurance applicant's consent. [32:20] It's important because those reports can show whether a network has remained healthy and secure over time. Tod would love to see Shadowserver be able to help more in the risk mitigation areas. [32:56] Special thanks again to Shadowserver Foundation's Tod Eberle for joining us here on RIMScast! Check out this episode's show notes for links to the Shadowserver reports we mentioned. [33:07] Be sure to tune in next week for Data Privacy Day! We've got a special episode with James Burd, Chief Privacy Officer of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). That's going to be a good one! [33:22] More RIMS Plugs! You can sponsor a RIMScast episode for this, our weekly show, or a dedicated episode. Links to sponsored episodes are in our show notes. [33:50] RIMScast has a global audience of risk and insurance professionals, legal professionals, students, business leaders, C-Suite executives, and more. Let's collaborate and help you reach them! Contact pd@rims.org for more information. [34:07] Become a RIMS member and get access to the tools, thought leadership, and network you need to succeed. Visit RIMS.org/membership or email membershipdept@RIMS.org for more information. [34:25] Risk Knowledge is the RIMS searchable content library that provides relevant information for today's risk professionals. Materials include RIMS executive reports, survey findings, contributed articles, industry research, benchmarking data, and more.  [34:41] For the best reporting on the profession of risk management, read Risk Management Magazine at RMMagazine.com. It is written and published by the best minds in risk management. [34:55] Justin Smulison is the Business Content Manager at RIMS. You can email Justin at Content@RIMS.org. [35:03] Thank you all for your continued support and engagement on social media channels! We appreciate all your kind words. Listen every week! Stay safe!   Mentioned in this Episode: RIMS Risk Management magazine RISKWORLD 2025 — May 4‒7 | Register today! RIMS Legislative Summit — March 19‒20, 2025 Nominations for the Donald M. Stuart Award Spencer Educational Foundation — General Grants 2026 — Application Dates RIMS-Certified Risk Management Professional (RIMS-CRMP) RISK PAC | RIMS Advocacy Shadowserver Foundation National Cybersecurity Alliance RIMS Webinars: RIMS.org/Webinars “4 Themes Shaping the Future of GRC in 2025” | Sponsored by Resolver | Feb. 6, 2025 “Ready for the Unexpected? Strategies for Property Valuation, Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity in 2025” | Sponsored by Hub International | Feb. 20, 2025 Upcoming Virtual Workshops: “Claims Management” | February 11‒12, 2025 | Instructor: Chris Hansen “Fundamentals of Insurance” | Feb. 19‒20, 2025 “Applying and Integrating ERM” | Feb. 26‒27 “Managing Data for ERM” | March 12, 2025 See the full calendar of RIMS Virtual Workshops RIMS-CRMP Prep Workshops   Upcoming RIMS-CRMP Prep Virtual Workshops: “Stay Competitive with the RIMS-CRMP | Presented by the RIMS Greater Bluegrass Chapter” February 19‒20, 2025 | Instructor: Chris Mandel Full RIMS-CRMP Prep Course Schedule Full RIMS-CRMP Prep Course Schedule   Related RIMScast Episodes: “Kicking off 2025 with RIMS CEO Gary LaBranche” “Year In Risk 2024 with Morgan O'Rourke and Hilary Tuttle” “AI and Regulatory Risk Trends with Caroline Shleifer” “Cybersecurity Awareness and Risk Frameworks with Daniel Eliot of NIST” (2024)   Sponsored RIMScast Episodes: “Simplifying the Challenges of OSHA Recordkeeping” | Sponsored by Medcor “Risk Management in a Changing World: A Deep Dive into AXA's 2024 Future Risks Report” | Sponsored by AXA XL “How Insurance Builds Resilience Against An Active Assailant Attack” | Sponsored by Merrill Herzog “Third-Party and Cyber Risk Management Tips” | Sponsored by Alliant “RMIS Innovation with Archer” | Sponsored by Archer “Navigating Commercial Property Risks with Captives” | Sponsored by Zurich “Breaking Down Silos: AXA XL's New Approach to Casualty Insurance” | Sponsored by AXA XL “Weathering Today's Property Claims Management Challenges” | Sponsored by AXA XL “Storm Prep 2024: The Growing Impact of Convective Storms and Hail' | Sponsored by Global Risk Consultants, a TÜV SÜD Company “Partnering Against Cyberrisk” | Sponsored by AXA XL “Harnessing the Power of Data and Analytics for Effective Risk Management” | Sponsored by Marsh “Accident Prevention — The Winning Formula For Construction and Insurance” | Sponsored by Otoos “Platinum Protection: Underwriting and Risk Engineering's Role in Protecting Commercial Properties” | Sponsored by AXA XL “Elevating RMIS — The Archer Way” | Sponsored by Archer “Alliant's P&C Outlook For 2024” | Sponsored by Alliant “Why Subrogation is the New Arbitration” | Sponsored by Fleet Response “Cyclone Season: Proactive Preparation for Loss Minimization” | Sponsored by Prudent Insurance Brokers Ltd. “Subrogation and the Competitive Advantage” | Sponsored by Fleet Response   RIMS Publications, Content, and Links: RIMS Membership — Whether you are a new member or need to transition, be a part of the global risk management community! RIMS Virtual Workshops On-Demand Webinars RIMS-Certified Risk Management Professional (RIMS-CRMP) RISK PAC | RIMS Advocacy RIMS Strategic & Enterprise Risk Center RIMS-CRMP Stories — Featuring RIMS Vice President Manny Padilla!   RIMS Events, Education, and Services: RIMS Risk Maturity Model®   Sponsor RIMScast: Contact sales@rims.org or pd@rims.org for more information.   Want to Learn More? Keep up with the podcast on RIMS.org, and listen on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.   Have a question or suggestion? Email: Content@rims.org.   Join the Conversation! Follow @RIMSorg on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn.   About our guest: Tod Eberle, Shadowserver Foundation   Production and engineering provided by Podfly.  

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.

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

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

Housing was a key issue during Saturday's debate between Republican incumbent Ryan Zinke and Democratic challenger Monica Tranel.

Welcome to The Adams Archive, where we dive deep into the stories beneath the headlines and uncover the truths that mainstream media won't touch. Hosted by Austin Adams, this podcast explores hidden narratives, controversial topics, and the intricate web of politics, culture, and society. Join us as we peel back the layers to reveal what's really happening in the world today. First, we uncover how the same man arrested in an Election Day terror plot was granted a special visa under the Biden-Harris administration. We'll examine the implications of this startling revelation and what it means for national security and immigration policies. Building on the theme of political intrigue, we explore President Trump's groundbreaking appearance on Andrew Schulz's podcast. We'll discuss how Trump's foray into alternative media signifies a shift in political communication and why it's resonating with the public, especially compared to Kamala Harris's controversial podcast appearances. Continuing our examination of censorship and information control, we delve into Reddit's recent ban of a forum dedicated to sharing information about Thomas Crooks, the would-be Trump assassin. We'll question why open discussions are being stifled and what this means for free speech in the digital age. In the realm of academic freedom and societal division, we analyze a shocking incident involving a University of Kansas professor caught advocating for violence against Trump supporters. We'll discuss the repercussions of such rhetoric in educational institutions and its impact on the growing political divide. Shifting focus to transparency in politics, we scrutinize a revealing clip of Vice President Kamala Harris during a live interview, fueling speculation about her being fed information through a hidden earpiece. We'll connect the dots on how this ties into broader concerns about authenticity and trust in our leaders. Finally, we turn to natural disasters and government response, examining the aftermath of Hurricane Milton that struck Florida. We'll assess the devastation and critique the administration's handling of the crisis. Additionally, we'll delve into President Biden's controversial comments about controlling the weather, opening up a conversation about conspiracy theories and the plausibility of weather manipulation. Don't miss out on these eye-opening discussions that challenge the status quo. Subscribe to The Adams Archive now to stay informed and engaged. Follow us on YouTube, Substack, and social media for exclusive content, updates, and more. Your support means the world to us, and together we can seek the truth and make a difference. All the Links For easy access to all our content and platforms, visit: https://linktr.ee/theaustinjadams ----more---- Full Transcription  Adams archive.  Hello, you beautiful people and welcome to the Adams archive. My name is Austin Adams, and thank you so much for listening today. On today's episode, we are going to be discussing how the same man who was just arrested in the election day terror plot, Was actually given a visa, a special visa under the Biden and Harris administration.  Then we will be moving on to our next subject, which is that president Trump just went on to Andrew Schultz's podcast and he continues to go on these podcasts, which I think is probably the best move we saw Kamala do this in like the worst way ever when she went on the call her daddy podcast, which is a female centric sex podcast,  and now Trump just continuing to go on. Um,  the largest shows in the country without making himself look like a fool. So we'll look at some of those clips and what they discussed. Then we'll move on to Reddit banning the forum dedicated to sharing information about Thomas Crooks. Now, why would they want to do that? I wonder. We'll talk about that too. Uh, then we had the university of Kansas professor that was, uh, discussing in front of his class on a recorded call,  talking about Trump supporters and how they should be lined up and shot. And there is some breaking news about his position at that university that we will discuss as well. Then we'll move on to a clip that just came out of the. President, vice president, presidential candidate, Harris, who is in a live interview, and there's been all this speculation about the earrings that she wore during the debate. She's been wearing them literally every interview since, and she's on a zoom call and she says something that alludes to. What everybody's thinking and believes, which is that somebody is feeding her all this information.  Then the last conversation we will have is around Hurricane Milton that just struck Florida last night.  Now we'll look at some of the devastation, some of the conversations surrounding it. Wasn't as big as we thought, doesn't look like it, but I'm sure there is still some terrible terrible destruction in its wake. So we'll look at that. And then we'll also discuss the response from the current  president, as well as the VP. And the last clip will be around Biden discussing  them controlling the weather.  Are you a conspiracy theorist?  Probably if you listen to the show. All right, all of that more, but first go ahead and hit the subscribe button, leave a five star review. That is the only way that you can help move this podcast forward. And help get the word out. So tell your friends, tell your family, leave a five star review, hit the subscribe button, head over to YouTube. You can watch all the clips that we're looking at talking about. You can see my wonderful face as we're talking about them and head over to Ronan basics. com. You've heard about me talk about this for a few months now. However, we just. Now are getting in one of our main products, which is the Faraday phone sleeve. So you can head there right now. You can purchase one. It will be shipped to you the same day. All right, head over there. Check out our products, the EMF blocking Faraday hat, the RFID blocking wallets, and the Faraday phone sleeve. Can't forget about the beanies as well. So head over there. Ronan basics. com and without further ado, let's jump  into it. Alright,  the very first topic that we're going to discuss today is that there was a immigrant who was arrested,  arrested in an election day terror attack. So allegedly him and another individual were going to go to the elections. Uh, and Cause mass, mass, mass.  Terror  by killing as many people as possible becoming martyrs. But let's go ahead and read this article comes from the post millennial says the Afghan man arrested Tuesday by the FBI for allegedly convinced by allegedly concocting an election day terror plot was allowed to enter the United States of America as a special immigrant in September of 2021. Nasir Ahmad  Tahiti, 27 entered The US with a special visa during the Biden Harris administration's chaotic and botched American withdrawal. Now, one thing that I have to question is how concerned should we be about this happening by somebody else? Now, if there's one plot, there's probably two plots.  There's all of these immigrants that are here that are here for a reason, right? Maybe some of them are here to, to improve their family's situation and outcome. Maybe some of them are here to, I don't know, move drugs. and human trafficking. Maybe some of them are here to escape a gang ridden country that they come from,  which is great. Do it legally, right? Do it legally should absolutely be able to immigrate here just like almost every one of our ancestors did.  However, the amount that have come over the border in the last four years alone  is saying is the same amount of people as One to two states combined 10 million. The number has been thrown down 16 to 20 million now immigrants in our country. And when you understand that the total population is roughly 330 million,  that starts to become a big issue, right? Especially when we talk about housing. We talk about jobs, we talk about inflation, homeless crisis, uh,  you name it, this will exacerbate the issue.  Now one issue that we can kind of foresee as a result of this is the amount of terrorists and gang affiliated members. We saw this with all the Venezuelan gangs, we saw this now with this Islamic state group, ISIS, right? So they've been sending people here and they are going to attempt these things. Yeah.  This year, Ahmad Tawheedi entered the U. S. with a special visa during the Biden Harris administration,  during the botched American withdrawal from Afghanistan that says that saw 13 U. S. personnel killed and billions of dollars in military hardware left to the Taliban. The FBI has charged Tawhidi with conspiring and attempting to provide material support to the Islamic State group. He allegedly confessed to the FBI that he and a juvenile co conspirator were planning an election day terrorist attack on large crowds, and both were anticipating Islamic martyr deaths. Tawhidi had reportedly wrapped up his affairs, liquidated his assets, and bought a one way ticket for his wife and child to fly back to Afghanistan. Tawhidi could be sentenced to 35 years in prison.  Uh,  Let's see what else here it says on October 7th FBI assets allegedly caught Tahiti and the juvenile at a rural location in Western District, Oklahoma, where they had purchased, received, and took possession of two AK 47s, 10 magazines, and 500 rounds of ammunition.  The Department of Justice news released explained upon receiving the rifles and ammunition. Tahiti and the juveniles were arrested. I wonder how they like, what kind of went into that,  but  this is just the beginning guys. This is just the beginning.  The men who were going to attack American citizens on the election day that were caught by the FBI were immigrants allowed here under Biden and Harris. And this is the one of many attacks that we can assume that we're going to see. One of many, because what are these people here for? How many other terrorists, how many terrorists, other affiliated people are here?  How many of these attacks are already planned?  And who's responsible for this?  Well, I think we own the answer to that. And it's the, the, the organizers of this mass illegal migration, the ones who are paying people, busing them in, sending them to states. We, we do not understand, like I, there was a good quote that I saw the other day, it said something about,  it said something about  the people who run our country, the people, the people who run the world are either naive and stupid. Or  I got to look at the quote, but there's a great quote around it. And the idea is that they're maliciously doing this or they're that dumb, right? Do they want people to be having massive terrorist attacks? I would hope not. What I, what the issue is, is very likely. And I think everybody agrees on this at this point is the reason that there's this mass migration is they want to flood the States, the battleground States with immigrants. Go look at where these people have gone and settled  the number one States.  Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois, right? All of the states that they want to flood with new citizens and not, and maybe they're not even thinking about this generation. Maybe, maybe they aren't even thinking about, Oh, how am I going to get this generation to vote for me? No, it's two generations from now, four election cycles. They're thinking ahead because if they get an immigrant husband and a wife here, and they have a child here, Regardless of the situation, that child gets immigrant status. That child gets granted a green card. That child is now a American citizen doesn't even need a green card.  Now what now that child generally like 70 percent of people, 80 percent of people stay in the state that they were born in, especially if they're low income.  Now,  what let's see four election cycles, five election cycles later, that person's 20. And they're voting Democrat.  So they look at these numbers and they say, okay, if we get 10 million people  here, we send 2 million to Michigan. We send 2 million to Pennsylvania of those, that million that settles. I think it was 770, 000 in Michigan. Of that 770, 000, there's 350, 000 couples who are going to have an average of two kids, which is another 770, 000 people.  And in five election cycles,  the same state that we lost by a margin of 20, 000 votes now has 700, 000 more people in poverty who are 80 percent likely to vote Democrat.  So they're not playing checkers here and they, maybe they are,  maybe they are that stupid to think that if they flood these illegal immigrants here and maybe they're not that stupid to think that they can get them to vote without voter ID, which we know happens.  But even so, the biggest problem is going to be that our country is going to be taken over, taken over by people who do not share the same values as us,  who did not grow up in a democratic society,  adhere to Sharia law, who are stopping women from going to school. They can't drive cars, they can't show their face, Right?  It's unbelievable. And this is just the beginning. This is just the beginning of these terrorist attacks. This is just the beginning of the gang issues that we're going to see with these Venezuelan gangs, MS 13, cartels,  because of the border.  Moving on.  Trump went on to Andrew Scholl's podcast,  Flagrant,  and I think this is brilliant. I think he should have been doing this all along. Podcasts are the news of today. There's far more people that listen to a podcast than that listen to the news. Makes sense, right? People trust podcasts, like 80 percent of the 80 percent of people pulled, trust a podcast compared to like 16 percent of people that were pulled, trusted traditional news media.  So if that's where people are  and that's where people's trust are, then maybe you should go to the people that are genuine and have those conversations there. And that's what Trump's done.  And this says president Trump Schultz podcast was widely celebrated on social media with supporters of the 2020 24 GOP nominee during Trump as the funniest president in American history.  Uh, the unfiltered interview released on Wednesday and published to Axe, formerly Twitter, covered a range of topics.  Uh, let's watch some of the clips. Don't really care about their opinion on it.  Let's see.  And, here we go.  Elon interviewed me on something. And I think they said 275 million hits. That's  a lot of people. That was a wreck. That's a nation. Yeah. But it's a whole new different way of, uh, Can I ask you a question? Getting the word out, right? About Elon specifically. Is he your favorite African American? You know, he's a great guy  with, I mean, he's obviously a brilliant guy. Yeah. I mean, when I saw the rocket engines come back, I said, what is that? Like a couple of years ago, you know, I've seen rockets go up and then they crash into the water and I see the, the engines are coming back and they're landing, they're landing and they land on a raft in the middle of the ocean someplace with a little dot and they land right on the top of the spot.  Alright, one thing to say.  Imagine getting interviewed by President Trump and crossing your legs like that in front of him. How dare you, Andrew Schulz? How dare you? Wearing high  Wearing half White socks halfway up your shin and crossing your legs.  Like you are running in a marathon in New York. The little dot and they land right on the top of the spot. And my wife can't parallel park.  Most people can't.  But no, he's great. But he's got a great heart. He was with me, as you know, on the other night. Yeah. And we were honoring a man who got killed at a rally. Corey, firefighter, great guy. And it was a beautiful evening. But Lee, Elon  went out. Yeah. And he loved the crowd. He loves the country. And he's picked a side. A lot of people don't want to pick a side. I have a lot of people that are  Big supporters of me. Yeah, but they they won't go all out. You know, they they can't  Yeah, there's a car. Yeah  There is of course, but there's also a liability I mean, you know some people I respected a lot when this guy was up there doing jumping jacks You gotta vote for Trump. You gotta  Yeah. He was jumping high. He looked quite African.  He's in good shape. I look, I'm looking at his waist, I'm saying, wait a minute, does he work out or something?  But he's, he is, he really, and he had a, he had a great time.  This is quite a dangerous interview for Trump, by the way. Like, Andrew Scholes is not, uh, not, not setting him up for failure here with a few of the jokes that he's already made trying to see if Trump will bite. But, uh, do him all so far. And, you know, he's, he's not out that much. He's probably, maybe a little, would you say he's a little reclusive, possibly? He's also busy. He's got like five different companies. He's very busy and maybe a little reclusive. Yeah. He had the greatest time. He was saying, look at these people. We had a hundred thousand, more than a hundred thousand. It was a record. It was nobody's ever said, and it was, it was a celebration of a life. And it was really a mega, it was a mega deal. He was a big mega person. His family was there and two other people that were very badly hurt were also celebrated. They were very badly hurt. They weren't actually expected to live. Yeah. And they live, and, uh, they had incredible doctors. Some of those country doctors are better than the big doctors that we spend a lot of money on, and they don't do as good. I will tell you right now. I don't want to knock anybody, but those country doctors saved two people, because I was told that three would Country doctors? No, think of that. Three would be in trouble, and three were gonna, now, quarry immediately, but the other two were so bad that they thought they wouldn't make it. Yeah. Yeah. And, uh, those country doctors, they pulled them, they pulled them together. They did a great job.  All right. So there's one, let's take a look at another one. Uh,  here we go. There is a question, but there's also a liability. I mean, you know, some people I respected a lot when this guy was up there doing jumping jacks, you got to vote.  Also what we just watched and here's about Biden.  Over the last week, I have to, well, we talk about funny or sad. I think it's more sad than funny. Yeah. He has one ability I don't have. Yeah.  He sleeps. He can sleep. This guy goes on a beat,  and he lays down on one of those, you know, six ounce, they weigh six ounces and he can't lift it. They're meant,  they're meant for, they're meant for children, young people, and old people to lift. They're aluminum, you know, hollowed aluminum. They weigh very little. And he can't lift, and somebody convinced him he looks great in a bathing suit. And when you're 82, typically bathing suits aren't gonna make you look great. Right, right. You're not gonna be enhanced. Yeah. Alright? It's just one of those things. I can't be sure about that, but  typically you don't Depends what he's packing. I don't know what the hell he's packing, but it's I don't wanna know. And I don't wanna know either. I don't know. But, but He has an ability to fall asleep while on camera. He can lie down on one of those things, and in minutes, he's stone cold out. And he's got cameras, because he's the president, so they have cameras on him. And then they show him sleeping on the beach.  You'll never see me sleeping in front of a camera.  Oh,  and last one here. Let's go ahead and  see which one. Let's watch this right here.  Get up. How much did China buy today? Sir, they bought. I'd call him up and say you're behind. You have to buy 50 billion. Do you think Biden does that? Biden's sleeping.  But I, over the last week, I have, what we talk about, funny or sad. I think it's more sad than funny.  He has one ability I don't have. Yeah. Yeah, so that's the last thing. Alright, so,  He's holding his own, right? He's on a comedy podcast and seems to be getting the comedians to laugh. Now, one thing I think he talks about there, which is true. We see a lot of the battles between Trump and Biden died down now, which a lot of people have talked about this. If that man was your grandpa, you would just be pissed that they're putting him in this position. You would be mad that they're, they're putzing this old man around and pretending like he's actually doing a job that he's not doing.  And it's honestly pathetic that our country is doing that to him in the deep state, which is, we all know why we've talked about it before. He's a puppet. He can be controlled at a whim. Um, there's too much, too much dirt. There's too many, you know, too, too many, uh, pieces of blackmail out there on him that have been discussed, but, uh, you know, we all know the reason why. Same reason they have Kamala there. They can control them.  And so moving on.  Reddit bans forum dedicated to sharing information about would be Trump assassin Thomas Crooks. So  Thomas Crooks, the assassin of Donald Trump had a Reddit forum named after him where people were sharing all of this information, all of this information about the attempt of assassination, uh, trying to figure out who was he, was this the person that they're saying he is, was it somebody else trying to figure out this conspiracy  and Reddit took it down.  Why would they do that?  Why would they do that? People sharing information about a presidential assassination. So it says a forum dedicated to sharing information about would be assassin Thomas Crooks has been banned from Reddit. Crooks was killed by snipers after launching an assassin, but yeah, we know.  It violated rules against posting violent content, they say. And that archive of the subreddit shows it was a popular forum that generated high level engagement.  And the posts issued on the forum vary, but all pertain to seeking answers and sharing information about the historical assassination attempt.  Questions about Crook's security failures that day and whether the attempt was an inside job were discussed in the section before the ban. Reddit did not  provide any example of the violent content shared that went against the company's policies.  Reddit is the latest news website to block information from being shared. Now, we remember with the last one, During this one, we remember Fox News live censoring the discussion in a congressional hearing, which I didn't know was even allowed, right? They're calling it a live feed  of a public official's discussion in our government. I guess they're a private company and they can do whatever they want. But actively, during the live feed, cutting the feed when a question was asked about the multiple shooters theory.  And I'm sure these people were getting somewhere. That's what we're seeing in today's modern society where they cannot, we see it with the hurricane. We see it with every one of these things. They cannot, they can no longer control the narrative. The narrative has gotten out of control. I, I heard a, a comparison during a podcast recently where they talked about how the church loved the printing press, originally loved the printing press, and because they could print all these bibles and get the word out about what the, and, and frame the discussions in the way that they wanted to, but then.  Then other people were using that to spread information about the church's corruption.  And they didn't seem to like it anymore. Right? They, they, they called for people to stop using it. And that's what we're seeing with social media, right? They, they created these social platforms to control us with narratives. They created these social platforms so that they could push out propaganda. And now they've lost control of it. We are, we are winning the information war where the minute a hurricane comes out and we see the response from, from our government,  we're able to see right through it, look up the patents and see that this could not, this could be potentially not as natural as we thought it was.  The government is now scrambling, scrambling, setting up intermediary, uh, discussion forums with social media platforms, trying to censor every conversation that, that poses a threat to their narrative,  scrambling, because they created something that they no longer control. And  people are seeing through all of their propaganda now. We can no longer be influenced the way that we were just 15 years ago.  And so it says Google scrubbed the assassination attempt from its auto complete search engine. Facebook warned against sharing photos of President Trump raising his fist in the air after the rally, falsely alleging that they were AI generated. In following accusations of election interference by the Trump campaign  and Republican lawmakers, both big tech corporations have since fixed their faults.  But they're all doing it. They're doing it still. And they're doing it subtly. They're not doing it the same way that they were with mass censorship campaigns the way that they were during COVID because there's not as much profitability in this. And if they lose, they're going to be in trouble.  We've talked about how Trump needs to just come out and say, Hey, whoever is lying, whoever is lying in these news media organizations, I'm going to come after you.  And if that was on the other side, maybe that's a concern, right? Maybe you say, and maybe it should be a concern from our side. Maybe he shouldn't go after them.  But It's absolutely election interference. If you're  putting yourself in a position where you are influencing the election,  putting yourself in a position where you are propping up one candidate and you're the single largest purveyor of information in the country and what you're censoring is true, factually true, that can be proven in the court of law.  So  pretty crazy. Hopefully they move the forum somewhere else.  Well, let's see if anybody has anything to say about this. Doesn't look like it.  But I wonder why they would do that. Maybe because they were getting somewhere.  As simple as that. Maybe, maybe a single post, a single position, a single picture, a single comparison, a single paragraph could have been the reason that Reddit pulled this down. Because they don't want to let you know the truth. They do not want you finding it out.  Why would they not want that? There's plenty of violent Reddit threads. There's plenty of violence on X. This is the reason that X is so important.  And despite the constant barrage of violence on X, I still like to utilize it. And I'm still trying to grow my platform there. Go check it out. The Austin J Adams on X.  But I think that the violence on X is actually a psyop. There's constantly on X people getting killed. There's all these hyper violent videos that are being shared, just pushed right into your face within two seconds, you're going to see somebody, you know, they don't even give you time to scroll or tell you what's about to happen. And you'll see somebody get like beat up or stabbed or something crazy. And it hasn't been as bad in the last few weeks, but I think that's absolutely a sign up. I absolutely think that there is, uh, these accounts that are hyper violent on acts are being pushed to want to get people off of the platform and to create a narrative around the platform that is negative. I don't think that those are actually people who, at least the largest of the accounts are actually people who are wanting to just continually push. Super crazy, violent videos. I think that those videos are specifically being pushed onto X so that they can continue their narrative about it being an unsafe place for free speech and a violent platform with antisemitism. All they have to do is create all these bot accounts that they pay overseas and then push out all the videos to suit the narrative that they want with faceless accounts. None of those videos that are being pushed by people like that ever are from an individual. They're always from  Some 18 plus this, whatever this, like they're just paying people to pump out media so that it suits their narrative so they can go after Trump and push it as this crazy unhinged platform.  But we need that platform for situations exactly like this, where people can have discussions, figure things out outside of traditional media without any censorship.   All right, now moving on here, there was a University of Kansas professor who sat in front of a recorded classroom session and said that Trump voters should be lined up And mass murdered.  But then he goes, Oh, whoa, whoa, whoa. I think we should cut that one from the recording.  Now, this man, let's see, Professor Phil Lowcock.  Not sure that applies here. Professor Phil Lowcock, the director of international student athlete support who works at the university's  sport and exercise science department.  In this article says a professor of the University of Kansas, let's go ahead and watch the clip first, because let's just give our own context around it here. But let's go ahead and watch this clip.  Guys are smarter than girls. You got some serious problems.  Uh,  that's what frustrates me.  Let's see not getting any volume here   All right, here we go. And here is the clip.  That's what frustrates me. There are going to be some males in our society that will refuse to vote for a potential female president because they don't think females are smart enough to be president.  We could line all those guys up and shoot them. They clearly don't understand  the way the world works.  Did I say that? Scratch that from the recording. I don't want the deans hearing that I said that.  Now his point there was, there's going to be certain men, only men are going to not vote for Kamala Harris, which again is an insult to the intelligence of women.  Also, more so than what you're saying about men voting for women, or yeah, men aren't going to vote for women because they think they're dumb. No, maybe we think Kamala Harris is incompetent. If you throw Tulsi Gabbard up there, I would have been highly interested. I think she should have been the running mate of Trump. I think Kamala is incompetent. I think Kamala is unintelligent. I don't think Kamala is well equipped to take office.  But for this man, a professor, the people who are educating your children, you are paying money, a university, this isn't even a community college with some stupid professor. This man was chosen. He may very well have tenure, right? Maybe not now that we see what the result of this is, but  how, how unbelievable. This is something that if you would have looked back and this should be historically looked back on as The same way that we look back on some of the biggest atrocities ever and how they unfolded, right? This professor in a university is on recording saying Trump supporters should be lined up in shot.  That's where we've gotten to. And this is supposed to be the tolerant left, right? This is supposed to be the party of tolerance.  And we've seen that they're exactly the opposite of that. Right?  Right. We've seen that they, they are the ones who are calling for violence. They are the ones who are slinging insults. They are the ones who are going in front of our children and claiming that you should shoot people based on their political ideology. That is not what our country is founded on.  I love people who are Republicans. I love people who are Democrats. I love people who are libertarians, who are  everything in between.  None of none of them should have violence inflicted upon them because of their political leanings.  And what you have to understand about people's political leanings is very often than not, and I did a whole episode on this and like the predeterminants of your political voting.  There's a lot of factors that go into your, your vote that come from where you come from, the state you were born in, the parents you were born to your socioeconomic status, your, uh, your job, your education level. There's so many predeterminants of this to just say, Oh, all those people are bad people and they should be murdered.  That sounds like something out of  Nazi Germany.  All that class over there should be lined up and murdered. Mass murder, genocide for political ideology. That's what this professor wants.  Now he has since been put on leave.  It says after the video was uploaded on X. Let's see if there's a  Uh, after the video was uploaded on Axe formerly Twitter, there was a fury with calls for Professor Lowcock to be fired and resigned. Some users even wanted to see criminal charges be filed. I mean, it's literal incitement of violence. You're not allowed to say that you should do this to that. Like, yeah, you want to talk about speech that is maybe not imminent violence, but like it's pretty damn close. Maybe you shouldn't go to jail for it, but you should definitely be fired. And you shouldn't be representing a school and  educating children. Okay.  He needs to be fired immediately. It was bad enough. He said it, but then he tried to cover it up. One user said,  let's see what else we got here.  Somebody else says, what the hell is wrong with people? He should not be allowed to teach and should be investigated. This is one of the many reasons why colleges have become a scam and the money grab. Yep.  Uh, the university of Kansas released a statement after the backlash and announced that the professor administratively. Let's go ahead and read their statement here. It says a statement from the university regarding a classroom video. Here is the University of Kansas's response. And they said the university is aware of a classroom video in which an instructor made an inappropriate reference to violence. The instructor is being placed on administrative leave pending further investigation. The instructor offers his sincerest apologies and deeply regrets the situation. So they're probably not going to fire him. His intent was to emphasize his advocacy for women's rights and equality. And he recognizes he did a very poor job of doing so. The university has an established process for situations like this and will follow that process. Let's go ahead and see. What the actual response to this was because that's a crazy statement to then back him up and saying, Oh, he cares about women's rights. That's why he said you should line up and shoot an entire group of people.  Oh, and they eliminated,  eliminated people from making comments. How hilarious.  Of course they did because they don't want free speech.  So that is wild. That is crazy. And that's what we're paying tens of thousands of dollars for your children to be taught. By people like that. And then for the university to go and defend him. Oh, we're going to place him on administrative leave. Don't worry about it. But all he was trying to do is defend women's rights. No, all he was trying to do is say an entire half of the country should have a genocide committed against them for their political ideology. Now, speaking of  Kamala Harris's competency, there's a clip going around right now where Kamala Harris was on a zoom call. And on this Zoom call that Kamala Harris was on, she decides to cover her face and talk to somebody, somebody, who could that somebody be,  and say, It's a live broadcast. And the microphone picks it up.  People have speculated, I being one of them, One thing you'll notice about Kamala Harris is every single interview Kamala Harris has been a part of since the debate, she's wearing those same earrings, the same earrings that everybody is accusing her of having somebody in her ear telling her exactly what to say. Now we have confirmation of that.  In this clip, you will see Kamala Harris speaking to whoever that individual is that's inside of her ear, telling them that it's a live broadcast. Embarrassingly, because she didn't even know that they could pick it up on the microphone, which is hilarious. So let's go ahead and watch this video, and you'll hear her say right at the start of it, It's a live broadcast.  Here we go. Hear that?  We really got to watch those, those areas and those.  She covers her mouth like this and goes, it's a live broadcast to whoever she's speaking to. That's in her ear.  Who else would she be talking to?  Right? What does she, who, what are they trying to tell her there?  As my video goes away, let's go ahead and watch the rest of the clip and see if we can get a little bit more contacts.  It's a live broadcast. Listen for that.  Flood. Uh, I watch those, those areas in those communities, so it takes quite a while for that water to drain.  Thank you very much.  Hey Ken, I have a question for you. You, you mentioned words matter and um, I know there's a lot of, um, media following this, this briefing. So there have been, um,  we've gone from a Cat five to a cat now watch how much she struggles, which that a lot of folks have been using as downgrade. But it sounds like you're cautioning us that that may communicate a sense that the danger is lessened when, in fact, it's not. Can you talk a little bit about that? Because I know a lot of folks are watching right now and  would love to have your feedback on how we should be talking about this.  Already, we have sent more than 1, 000 federal personnel to be on the ground in Florida to assist with what needs to happen in the state to prepare for this hurricane. And we will continue to scale up those efforts.  To the people of Florida, and in particular, the people of the Tampa  region,  we urge you to take this storm seriously. As has been said before, this is a storm that is expected to be of historic proportion. And many of you, I know, are tough, and you've ridden out these hurricanes before. This one's going to be different.  And so we ask you that by every measure understand it's going to be more dangerous, more deadly, and more catastrophic. So please listen to your local Now you can see  In this clip, you can see the same earrings, the same earrings, the little pearls with the two gold hoops on or on the side of it, holding it in and they wiggle every time she moves her head. The same exact hearing, she has not taken these hearings off. And I want to go back and look at all the interviews prior to the debate and see if she ever wore these earrings prior to that, because I don't believe that that was the case. They're talking about they know what they're doing. And if you are told to evacuate, please evacuate immediately.  Wait, Kamala Harris said it might as well do it. And in the hours and days ahead, president Biden and I, and our administration will continue to do everything we can to protect the people who have been in the path of this storm. And once the storm has passed, we will be there to help folks recover and rebuild.  All right. Now discussing the hurricane here, let's go ahead and look at some of the discussions surrounding it and some of the damage.  Here's a video from Fox News, and his point is that they've turned this entire hurricane into a PR battle, right? None of the, there's zero genuine concern coming from Kamala or Biden. All they're worried about is the optics, that's all they've been worried about this entire time, and they've been scrambling to try and look like they've been doing anything at all to help the citizens, or that they actually care. And all they've seen the people talk about is how, um, They see right through it. Everybody knows that they don't really care. Everybody knows that they're just trying to make it appear as if they're doing enough or giving enough money, or they have the funds to be able to even help. And we all know that that's not true.  Here's the clip.  Out today and defended his administration's slow response to hurricane Helene, calling any criticism of it, disinformation and pointing fingers at Trump.  There's been reckless and irresponsible and relentless promotion of disinformation and outright lies about what's going on.  Former President Trump has led this onslaught of lies. Assertions have been made that property is being confiscated.  That's simply not true.  They're saying people impacted by these storms will receive 750 in cash and no more. That is simply not true either.  They're saying that money needed for these crises are being diverted to migrants. What the heck are they talking about? Stop it. It's outrageous. It's just not true. Biden's fighting Trump harder than the hurricane. If he should be angry at anybody, he should be angry at his team. They didn't pre position assets in North Carolina to help in the foothills. Just like Afghanistan and the border, the hurricane's now Trump's fault.  Americans have lost power, their homes. Some of them, even their husbands. They're not worried about what politicians say on TV. They are worried because they haven't seen FEMA all week.  Criticizing your government isn't misinformation. It's a God given right of every American.  Instead of battling to save lives, the Biden Harris administration is treating natural disasters like a PR battle. They need to be won with words instead of fast action.  There have always been issues, uh, in disasters. Maui, uh, certainly this, this happened where there's misinformation or there's scams, but we've never seen anything like we have at this level. The administration will also continue to work out, to, to work out and call out  misinformation. And conspiracy theories around the storm and federal and state responses. This is wrong, dangerous, and it must stop immediately. Are we concerned about any misinformation or disinformation regarding evacuations that we need to clear up at this point?  There's been a lot of misinformation out there, Madam Vice President, that's for sure. The only misinformation we've heard is that Biden's doing a great job. Oh, and if You just drive your electric car, cat five hurricanes will shrink into cat twos.  Americans are naturally suspicious of the government after they lied to us about, oh, I don't know, Vietnam, Iraq, COVID, Russia, the president's health.  This isn't a cheap fake. North Carolina sees the aftermath and Biden and Harris were late.  So let's look at one more clip about this and then we'll discuss it, which Biden, they cut it off early in that which they don't want to spread to spread the misinformation and malinformation. Let's go ahead and watch this, which is where Biden mentions the weather manipulation. Here it is. Now the claims are getting even more bizarre.  Congressman Marjorie Taylor Greene, a congresswoman from Georgia, is now saying the federal government is literally controlling the weather. We're controlling the weather.  It's beyond ridiculous. It's got to stop.  Moments like this, there are no red or blue states.  There's one United States of America where neighbors are helping neighbors. Volunteers and first responders are risking everything, including their own lives, to help their fellow Americans.  State, local, and federal officials are standing side by side. Let me repeat, no one should make the American people question whether their governments will make sure that this is acting on a strike. They'll be there.  What did he just say? No one, let me make this clear. Okay, make it clear. Tell me. No one should make the American people question  Make it clear. Let me repeat. No one should make the American people question whether their governments will make sure that this is act around strikes. They'll be there. We will. Now the claims are getting even more bizarre. No one should be, let me make this clear. Let me repeat this. No one should be Believing their government will be active in Shrana. People question whether their governments will be make this sure that this is active on a strike. We'll be making sure the actor amount of strikes, they'll be there. We they'll be there. We'll make the sure to act amount of strikes. We'll be there says Biden. Nobody should be concerned about their government.  Make the shirt a active amount of strikes. We'll be there.  Okay. Thank you so much. So going back to the original point here and the original clip where people are talking about it is he's sitting here trying to say, Oh, we wouldn't, we would never control the weather. How ridiculous, what a conspiracy theory. Well, when you go back and read the paperwork,  when you look at the long list of patents, when you go back and look at the long list of military history, where we did this very thing, when you go watch the Michio Kaku Discussion, I believe it was on CNN, discussing how we manipulated the weather in Vietnam. How we are actively looking for ways to shrink storms, grow storms, right? Oh, we stopped doing that, somebody said. I saw, I saw somebody post about this. And they said, well, we would never do that. We would never do that because there was dangers. And this was in a Ground. News article that was posted on social media. And said we would never do that because there was dangers of making them bigger. Yeah, bitch, you made it bigger. That's our claim. That was the whole claim. Yes, absolutely. You can manipulate the weather. Yes, absolutely. There is patents. Yes, absolutely. The FBI, the CIA, the government has in the past manipulated weather for their own purposes.  We saw it in Vietnam.  We saw it in China, we saw it in, there's, there's so many examples of this that we saw in our own Gulf Coast in the 1940s.  Example after example, and here he is sitting in front of you. You know, it's not, it's, that's all a conspiracy theory. Just like COVID was a conspiracy theory. Just like, you know, the election interference was a conspiracy theory. Just like the Hunter Biden laptop was a conspiracy theory. Just like the vaccine causing health issues was a conspiracy theory. Just like, Time after time after time after time again,  almost every one of these things. And I'm actually really surprised that Biden called this out. And the reason I'm surprised that he called this out is there's maybe 50 percent of the right that knows this or understands this, or is hearing about this weather manipulation.  That leaves a whole other 75 percent of the population who maybe hadn't heard about weather manipulation up until the point that Biden calls out and says, these conspiracy theorists mentioning weather manipulation. That was the, the worst thing Biden could have done about the weather manipulation was call it out on national television, because now the other 75 percent of people who weren't hearing about it, because you have all these liberals and Democrats in their own echo chambers, not using X, using Instagram, using whatever social media platforms, Tik TOK. Not hearing about the fact that our own government has been manipulating our weather for decades, almost almost an entire century now, over a century now, since 1916.  Now you're going to have people looking into it who weren't looking into it.  Just like people found out eventually, even if they were liberal, even if they were Democrats, that the vaccine was not the best choice for the family after you pushed it and pushed it and pushed it and pushed it.  That lockdowns didn't work. That mass didn't work.  That Vietnam was under false pretenses.  Right? So many examples of these conspiracies that the government said were conspiracies that ended up being true. And now him saying on national television that this is just a conspiracy theory, and these people are crazy, and this congresswoman is wrong, and so are all of you.  Now he's opened that door for so many people who would have never heard about that. And again, it is one of the worst things he could have done, is actually mention that on live television.  So, with that, I will leave you, my friends. I hope you have a wonderful day. Thank you so much for listening. Head over to ronanbasics. com r o n i n b a s i c s dot com. Check out our new website. Just got done redoing it. It is under the final stages of construction, but you can go check it out. See where we're at. Look at some of the products and I appreciate you. I love you. Subscribe, leave a five star review, and I hope you have a wonderful day.   

In this podcast episode, Dr. Jonathan H. Westover talks with Jessica Childress about how to report workplace misconduct, including discrimination, harassment, and bullying. Award-winning attorney Jessica Childress (https://www.linkedin.com/in/childressjessica/) is the author of Peace: Leaving a Toxic Workplace on Your Own Terms. Ms. Childress has practiced employment law for over eleven years, representing organizations of all sizes and individuals in employment law matters. She is the Managing Attorney of the Childress Firm PLLC, a boutique employment law firm, based in Washington, D.C. Ms. Childress holds a Bachelor of Arts in Government and African American Studies from the University of Virginia and a Juris Doctor from the University of Virginia School of Law. Ms. Childress graduated Phi Beta Kappa and with High Distinction from the University of Virginia in 2007. Prior to launching the Childress Firm PLLC, Ms. Childress served as an associate at two global law firms and as an attorney at the United States Department of Justice. Ms. Childress has litigated retaliation, discrimination, sexual harassment, non-competition, trade secret, unfair labor practice, and whistleblower cases before various tribunals. She serves clients in general business transactions with employees and independent contractors. Ms. Childress drafts agreements such as employment agreements, consulting agreements, severance agreements, and confidentiality agreements. Ms. Childress is admitted to practice in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. She is also admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, and the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. Ms. Childress has held leadership roles in the National Bar Association's Young Lawyers Division and the Washington Bar Association's Young Lawyers Division. Ms. Childress is a member of the Metropolitan Washington Employment Lawyers Association and the National Employment Lawyers Association. She has been the recipient of several honors, including the National Bar Association's 2018 Young Lawyer of the Year Award, the Washington Bar Association's 2017-2018 Young Lawyer of the Year Award, the National Bar Association's 40 under 40 Best Advocates Award, the Kim Keenan Leadership & Advocacy Award, the Greater Washington Area Chapter of the National Bar Association's Rising Star Award, and recognition by the National Black Lawyers as one of the top 100 black attorneys. In 2022, Ms. Childress received the Women Owned Law organization's Woman Legal Entrepreneur of the Year Award. Ms. Childress has been named to the 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers Rising Stars lists. Only 2.5% of practicing attorneys in Washington, D.C. are selected to receive this honor. Ms. Childress is a 2022 graduate of the Aspen Institute's Justice and Society program. Ms. Childress serves as a contributor for Arianna Huffington's international media outlet, Thrive Global. She has been featured in numerous publications, including Forbes, Essence, the Huffington Post, Success, and Entrepreneur. Check out all of the podcasts in the HCI Podcast Network! Check out the ⁠HCI Academy⁠: Courses, Micro-Credentials, and Certificates to Upskill and Reskill for the Future of Work! Check out the LinkedIn ⁠Alchemizing Human Capital⁠ Newsletter. Check out Dr. Westover's book, ⁠The Future Leader⁠. Check out Dr. Westover's book, ⁠'Bluer than Indigo' Leadership⁠. Check out Dr. Westover's book, ⁠The Alchemy of Truly Remarkable Leadership⁠. Check out the latest issue of the ⁠Human Capital Leadership magazine⁠. Each HCI Podcast episode (Program, ID No. 655967) has been approved for 0.50 HR (General) recertification credit hours toward aPHR™, aPHRi™, PHR®, PHRca®, SPHR®, GPHR®, PHRi™ and SPHRi™ recertification through HR Certification Institute® (HRCI®). Each HCI Podcast episode (Program ID: 24-DP529) has been approved for 0.50 HR (General) SHRM Professional Development Credits (PDCs) for SHRM-CP and SHRM-SCPHR recertification through SHRM, as part of the knowledge and competency programs related to the SHRM Body of Applied Skills and Knowledge™ (the SHRM BASK™). Human Capital Innovations has been pre-approved by the ATD Certification Institute to offer educational programs that can be used towards initial eligibility and recertification of the Certified Professional in Talent Development (CPTD) and Associate Professional in Talent Development (APTD) credentials. Each HCI Podcast episode qualifies for a maximum of 0.50 points.

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. The sentencing is scheduled for July 31. 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

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 3: 5:00pm Janiyah Thomas—Black Media Director for Donald Trump's 2024 Presidential Campaign—joins The Rich Zeoli Show from the RNC Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin to preview Donald Trump's big address tonight! 5:15pm- Coach Joe Kennedy joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss the new movie “Average Joe”—which tells the story of his fascinating life and legal fight. “School officials at Bremerton High School (BHS) suspended—and later fired—football coach Joe Kennedy because he prayed a brief, quiet prayer after football games. A lawsuit was filed against the school district, arguing that banning coaches from quietly praying, just because they can be seen by the public, is wrong and violates the Constitution. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, and then the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sided with the school district. The case eventually landed in the U.S. Supreme Court. In January 2022, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Coach Joe.” You can learn more here: https://coachjoekennedy.com 5:35pm- Oklahoma Governor J. Kevin Stitt—Vice Chairman of the National Governors Association—joins The Rich Zeoli Show from the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and discusses recently signing “Alyssa's Law” which implements a mobile panic alert system in schools across the state. 5:40pm- Chairman of the Republican National Committee Michael Whatley joins The Rich Zeoli Show from the party's convention in Milwaukee, WI. How has the convention been so far—and what can Americans expect on Thursday night? 5:50pm- Former NBA player Enes Kanter Freedom joins The Rich Zeoli Show from the RNC Convention. In addition to playing professional basketball, Kanter Freedom is a human rights activist who has vociferously condemned totalitarian regimes. After publicly criticizing Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish president issued twelve arrest warrants for Kanter Freedom.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (07/18/2024): 3:05pm- Biden Receptive to Withdrawing? The New York Times reportS, “President Biden has become more receptive in the last several days to hearing arguments about why he should drop his re-election bid, Democrats briefed on his conversations said on Wednesday, after his party's two top leaders in Congress privately told him they were deeply concerned about his prospects. Mr. Biden has not given any indication that he is changing his mind about staying in the race, the Democrats said, but has been willing to listen to rundowns of new and worrying polling data and has asked questions about how Vice President Kamala Harris could win.” 3:30pm Elizabeth Pipko—Spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee—joins The Rich Zeoli Show from The Republican National Convention to preview Donald Trump's convention speech, Hulk Hogan's highly anticipated appearance, and her neighbor: Kieth Olbermann! Pipko is a former model, a 2016 Trump campaign staffer, and author of the book, “Finding My Place: Making My Parents' American Dream Come True.” 3:40pm- Biden Has COVID-19: Tarini Parti and Kayla Yup of The Wall Street Journal write: “President Biden has tested positive for Covid-19, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement Wednesday. Biden, 81 years old, will be returning to Delaware to self-isolate, Jean-Pierre said. He tested positive for Covid-19 during a two-day campaign swing through the battleground state of Nevada. A note from Biden's doctor provided by the White House said the president's ‘symptoms remain mild, his respiratory rate is normal at 16, his temperature is normal at 97.8 and his pulse oximetry is normal at 97%.' Biden has received his first dose of Paxlovid and the results of a PCR test are pending, according to the note. He previously had Covid in the summer of 2022.” You can read the full article here: https://www.wsj.com/us-news/biden-tests-positive-for-covid-19-da64c5b8?mod=hp_lead_pos2 3:50pm- In a bizarre rant, MSNBC host Joy Reid suggested Joe Biden “beating” COVID-19 is the same as Donald Trump surviving an assassination attempt—arguing that both should be viewed by the public as signs of strength. 4:05pm- On Wednesday night, U.S. Senator J.D. Vance formally accepted the nomination to become Donald Trump's Vice Presidential nominee. During his speech Vance said: “Never in my wildest imagination would I have believed that I could be standing here tonight.” Vance had the thousands in attendance roaring while recalling stories from his youth—specifically stories about his grandma, “Mamaw.” Vance was introduced to the convention by his wife, Usha. 4:20pm- On Saturday, while speaking at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania former President Donald Trump survived an assassination attempt. Shooter Thomas Matthew Cooks—armed with an AR-15 rifle—fired multiple shots at Trump before being dispatched by a Secret Service sniper. Disturbing new details about the shooting continue to emerge. 4:30pm- While speaking with BET News, President Joe Biden seemingly thanked Franklin Delano Roosevelt for wide-spread access to high-speed internet. Of course, everyone remembers FDR's most famous quote: “The only thing we have to fear…is slow wi-fi.” 4:45pm- Gold Star Families: While speaking at the RNC Convention on Wednesday night, the parents of Marine Corps. Corporal Hunter Lopez remembered their son—as well as the other twelve U.S. military members killed during America's withdrawal from Afghanistan. 5:00pm Janiyah Thomas—Black Media Director for Donald Trump's 2024 Presidential Campaign—joins The Rich Zeoli Show from the RNC Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin to preview Donald Trump's big address tonight! 5:15pm- Coach Joe Kennedy joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss the new movie “Average Joe”—which tells the story of his fascinating life and legal fight. “School officials at Bremerton High School (BHS) suspended—and later fired—football coach Joe Kennedy because he prayed a brief, quiet prayer after football games. A lawsuit was filed against the school district, arguing that banning coaches from quietly praying, just because they can be seen by the public, is wrong and violates the Constitution. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, and then the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sided with the school district. The case eventually landed in the U.S. Supreme Court. In January 2022, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Coach Joe.” You can learn more here: https://coachjoekennedy.com 5:35pm- Oklahoma Governor J. Kevin Stitt—Vice Chairman of the National Governors Association—joins The Rich Zeoli Show from the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and discusses recently signing “Alyssa's Law” which implements a mobile panic alert system in schools across the state. 5:40pm- Chairman of the Republican National Committee Michael Whatley joins The Rich Zeoli Show from the party's convention in Milwaukee, WI. How has the convention been so far—and what can Americans expect on Thursday night? 5:50pm- Former NBA player Enes Kanter Freedom joins The Rich Zeoli Show from the RNC Convention. In addition to playing professional basketball, Kanter Freedom is a human rights activist who has vociferously condemned totalitarian regimes. After publicly criticizing Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish president issued twelve arrest warrants for Kanter Freedom. 6:05pm- Biden Preparing to Withdraw from Race: Journalist Mark Halperin reports: “Multiple sources outline the apparent state of play on Biden at this time: plans to announce withdrawal from nomination as early as this weekend, with Sunday most likely. Jon Meacham polishing up remarks. Biden with NOT resign the presidency. Biden will NOT endorse Harris. open convention with Harris and about 3 others. super delegates will not be allowed to vote on 1st ballot. Harris is vetting at least four possible running mates, including Andy Beshear and possibly Shapiro.” You can follow the story as it develops: https://x.com/MarkHalperin/status/1814049842790006837 6:10pm- Michael D. Shear, Peter Baker, and Katie Rogers of The New York Times report: “Several people close to President Biden said on Thursday that they believe he has begun to accept the idea that he may not be able to win in November and may have to drop out of the race, bowing to the growing demands of many anxious members of his party. One of the people close to him warned that the president had not yet made up his mind to leave the race after three weeks of insisting that almost nothing would drive him out. But another said that ‘reality is setting in,' and that it would not be a surprise if Mr. Biden made an announcement soon endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris as his replacement.” You can read more here: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/18/us/politics/biden-election-drop-out.html 6:20pm- Congressman Dan Meuser— Representative for Pennsylvania's 9th Congressional District—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to recap his experience at last Saturday's presidential campaign rally in Butler, PA where former President Donald Trump was nearly assassinated. Rep. Meuser is a member of the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services and a member of the House Committee on Small Business. 6:40pm- David Urban—Political Commentator for CNN & Senior Advisor to Donald Trump—joins The Rich Zeoli Show from the RNC Convention in Milwaukee, WI. What can we expect from Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's speech tonight? 6:50pm- Joel Pollak— Senior Editor-at-Large for Breitbart News—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss his soon to be released book, “The Agenda: What Trump Should Do in His First 100 Days.” You can learn more about the book here: https://www.skyhorsepublishing.com/9781648211164/the-agenda/

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found Click On Picture To See Larger Picture[JB]/[WEF] is falling apart right in front of their eyes, each time the try to advance it is blocked. Even in NY it is falling apart. Biden releases 1 million barrels of gas onto the market, right on schedule. Fed prepares their rate cut narrative. More and more people are transitioning into gold. The [DS] is now scrambling, everything they have done for the last many years is falling apart. The EU is being transformed right before their eyes, this cannot be stopped. [JB]/[BO] know they go to protect themselves from the fallout and make sure they are not prosecuted in the end. They are now moving to take [JB] out using the 25th to shield him against prosecution. [BO]/[HRC] will try to take back control. They are falling right into Trump's trap.   (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); Economy Trump-Appointed Judge Lifts Biden's Pause On New Natural Gas Export A federal court lifted the Biden administration's pause on approvals for new natural gas export terminals on Monday. Judge James Cain Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, who was appointed to his post by former President Donald Trump, ruled to grant an injunction against the administration's January pause on approvals for liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals while ongoing litigation plays out. The LNG pause stands as one of President Joe Biden's most aggressive climate decisions through his first term in office. Cain's ruling was issued as part of an ongoing lawsuit brought by a coalition of red states against the federal government for the pause. The White House ordered the Department of Energy (DOE) to pause new approvals for LNG export terminals to countries with which the U.S. does not have a free trade deal while the DOE examines the climate impacts of new export capacity alongside economic and security considerations.  Source: dailycaller.com https://twitter.com/ExpertsPostLs/status/1807889840995983799 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1808195747495698491   https://twitter.com/Fxhedgers/status/1808172993182408759  cents on July 14, an increase of more than 7%. Prices for all services will rise more than 7.5%. The price hikes are part of the USPS 10-year "Delivering for America" plan intended to financially stabilize the Postal Service. Forever stamps cost 55 cents when the plan was introduced in 2021. https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/1807854679273136632  would take 9.3 months to dispose of the total inventory at the current sale pace, the most since 2022. It means that the number of potential homebuyers waiting for lower prices is rising. Cracks in the housing market are emerging. Biden Admin Sells 1 Million Barrels Of Gasoline Ahead Of July 4th Holiday, But... The federal government completed the sale of 1 million barrels of gasoline from the Northeast Gasoline Supply Reserve (NGSR),   Last month, the government announced it would release 42 million gallons of gas from storage facilities in Maine and New Jersey to help lower pump prices heading into the typically busy summer driving season. After receiving 19 proposals from five companies since May 21, the federal government awarded contracts to all the firms: BP (500,000 barrels), Vitol (200,000 barrels), Freepoint Commodities (100,000 barrels), George E. Warren (100,000 barrels), and Irving Oil (98,824 barrels). Gas reserves were sold at an average $2.34 per gallon. Senior administration officials touted the news as another victory for the federal government's inflation-fighting e...

Nick Brown placed seventh in Survivor: The Australian Outback. Since being on Survivor, Nick finished his degree at Harvard Law and was appointed the United States attorney for the Western District of Washington, which he resigned from to join the race for Attorney General of Washington.

Nick Brown placed seventh in Survivor: The Australian Outback. Since being on Survivor, Nick finished his degree at Harvard Law and was appointed the United States attorney for the Western District of Washington, which he resigned from to join the race for Attorney General of Washington.