Zone of Risk

Professor Mary Ziegler was kind enough to join me for a discussion about Florida’s new “Heartbeat Protection Act,” which, if it goes into effect, will ban abortion after 6 weeks and subject abortion providers to a felony conviction punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Professor Ziegler also explains how the law could expose a person other than an abortion provider to a felony conviction. She goes on to describe the push by the anti-choice movement for “fetal personhood” and what history tells us about the concept.

Professor Ziegler is the Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law at the UC Davis School of Law and a nationally recognized expert on the law, history, and politics of reproduction. She is a frequent contributor to the New York Times, The Atlantic, PBS News Hour, CNN, and the Washington Post. Professor Ziegler has authored several books and countless articles. Her most recent book, published in 2020, is titled “Abortion and the Law in America – Roe v. Wade to the Present.” Professor Ziegler was recently named a 2023 Guggenheim Fellow. The fellowship will allow her work on her forthcoming book, “Personhood: The New American Fight Over Equality and Reproduction.”

• Read the text of the new law here. 
• Read In re T.W. here. It is a 1989 decision by the Supreme Court of Florida, which held the Florida Constitution’s privacy provision prohibits government restricts on abortion during the trimester. 

Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.

Send your questions, comments, and feedback to [email protected].

Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com

Lindsey Lawton and I review several interesting (some maddening) opinions from March. The show starts with criminal opinions. The civil opinions begin at 22:00. 

• State v. Quevedo, 3d DCA (stand your ground; defendant’s state of mind).
• Williams v. State, 1st DCA (best practices for client communications).
• Upshur v. State, 2d DCA (ineffective assistance of appellate counsel).
• Crosby v. Town of Indian River Shores, 4th DCA (Anti-Slapp).
• Mannella v. Mannella, 6th DCA, (burden to show substantial change in child support; dicta).
• S.S. v. Sch. Bd. of Sarasota Cnty, 2d DCA (statute of limitations; sovereign immunity). 
• NRA v. Bondi, U.S. 11th Cir. (second amendment).

Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. 

Send your questions, comments, and feedback to [email protected].

Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com

Justice Barbara J. Pariente joined Robert to discuss her remarkable career, the importance of judicial fairness and impartiality, and problems with the current judicial selection process in Florida.

Justice Pariente’s legal career began 50 years ago with a 2-year clerkship for U.S. District Judge Norman Roettger. She then settled in West Palm Beach, where she practiced for nearly 20 years before being appointed to the Fourth District Court of Appeal in 1993. She was appointed to the Florida Supreme Court in 1997, becoming the first Jewish woman justice. Justice Pariente was the second woman to serve on the state’s high court and the second to serve as Chief Justice (2004 to 2006). She is a champion for children’s rights, a cancer survivor, and a nationally recognized advocate for women and women lawyers. She was inducted into the Florida Women’s Hall of Fame in 2008. She retired from the Court in 2019.

Resources:
NAWJ Informed Voters Project
Take Stock in Children
Justice Pariente on judicial independence at the National Constitution Center (June 2014)

Book recommendation:
A Most Disorderly Court: Scandal and Reform in the Florida Judiciary (Martin Dyckman)

Send your questions, comments, and feedback to [email protected].

Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com

Justin Elliott of ProPublica and former chief ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush, Professor Richard W. Painter, join me to discuss Justice Clarence Thomas’s failure to disclose extravagant trips and real estate transactions, potentially violating federal law.

Mr. Elliott provides details about the genesis of the ProPublica investigation and what he and his colleagues, Joshua Kaplan and Alex Mierjeski, uncovered.

Professor Painter explains the federal statutes at issue and why he believes Justice Thomas’s failure to report is a “clear- cut violation of the disclosure requirements.”

Professor Painter teaches at the University of Minnesota Law School. In addition to serving as chief ethics lawyer to President Bush, he also served as Associate Counsel in the White House Counsel’s Office during the Bush administration. He has testified many times before Congress on issues related to ethics in government. His most recent book is American Nero: The History of the Destruction of the Rule of Law, and Why Trump Is the Worst Offender.

ProPublica articles:

• Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire (April 6)
• Clarence Thomas Defends Undisclosed “Family Trips” With GOP Megadonor (April 7)
• Ethics Watchdog Urges Justice Department Investigation Into Clarence Thomas’ Trips (April 12)
• Billionaire Harlan Crow Bought Property from Clarence Thomas (April 13)

Applicable statutes:

• Ethics in Government Act of 1978
• Financial Disclosure Requirements of Federal Personnel

Send your questions, comments, and feedback to [email protected].

Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com

Jennifer Opiola checked in to discuss tort reform as applied to PIP litigation, review PIP/insurance opinions from March, and to remind everyone to PLAY NICE.

• Full Pro Restoration a/a/o Placido Fernandez v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 3d DCA (summary judgment).
• Maria Mesa, et. al. v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 3d DCA (business records and hearsay).
• JD Restoration, Inc,. a/a/o Erick Denival v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 4th DCA (vacating final summary disposition).

Send your questions, comments, and feedback to [email protected].

Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com

The Honorable Ethan Greenberg (ret.) joined Robert to offer his perspective on the indictment of Donald Trump and to address possible problems for the defense, potential difficulties for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s team (including proving intent), and what we can expect from each side moving forward.

Judge Greenberg is a shareholder at Anderson Kill in New York, where he co-chairs the firm’s Government Enforcement, Internal Investigation and White-Collar Defense Practice Group. Before joining the firm, Judge Greenberg was an acting New York State Supreme Court justice in Bronx County and a Criminal Court judge with the New York City Criminal Court. He has practiced law for more than 40 years and began his career as an assistant district attorney under Robert Morgenthau in the New York County District Attorney’s Office. Judge Greenberg has served as an adjunct professor at Fordham Law and Cardozo Law, teaching criminal procedure, civil practice, and evidence.

Articles about the indictment by Judge Greenberg and his colleague Sam Braverman: New York Law Journal and Wall Street Journal.

Read the indictment and statement of facts.

Send your questions, comments, and feedback to [email protected].

Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com

Lindsey Lawton and I review cases from the Florida appellate courts from February 2023.  Civil opinions begin at 10:10.

• Oquendo v. State, 2d DCA (PTSD in self-defense context).
• Guida v. State, 5th DCA (trial court factual findings at stand your ground hearing).
• Publix v. Roth, 2d DCA (overbroad discovery; protective orders; certiorari).
• Omni Healthcare, Inc. v. N. Brevard Cnty. Hosp. Dist., (timeliness of notice of appeal).
• Danforth v. Danforth, 6th DCA (timeliness of notice of appeal).
• Unborn Child v. Reyes, 3d DCA (habeas).
• Pardon v. Pardon, 3d DCA (circuit court jurisdiction over final judgment).  
• Edmonds v. Edmonds, 6th DCA (hearing requirement on magistrates' R&R).
• Aisy Alue v. Nova Se. Univ., Inc., 4th DCA (statute of limitation in employment discrimination cases).

Send your questions, comments, and feedback to [email protected].

Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com

David Lat joins Robert to discuss the student protest at Stanford Law School over a recent visit by Fed Soc invitee U.S. Circuit Judge Kyle Duncan. 

Recordings and documents referenced during the episode:

• Recording of the protest and Judge Duncan's reaction
• Stanford Law Dean Martinez's letter
• Judge Duncan's op-ed in the WSJ
• DEI Dean Steinbach's op-ed in the WSJ
• UC Berkley School of Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky on MSNBC's Morning Joe

Check out David's substack, Original Jurisdiction, and his podcast by the same name. Follow David on Twitter and LinkedIn.

David Lat is a lawyer turned writer. Prior to launching Original Jurisdiction, David founded Above the Law, one of the nation's most widely read legal news websites, and Underneath Their Robes, a popular blog about federal judges that he wrote under a pseudonym. He is also the author of a novel set in the world of the federal courts, Supreme Ambitions. 

Before entering the media world, David had a prolific legal career as a federal prosecutor in Newark, New Jersey; a litigation associate at Wachtell in New York; and a law clerk to Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. David graduated from Harvard College and Yale Law School, where he served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal.

Send your questions, comments, and feedback to [email protected].

Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com

Last Friday, Governor Ron DeSantis signed HB 837, transforming insurance and negligence law in Florida. Michal Meiler, a partner at Ver Ploeg & Marino, joined Robert to break down the major changes and explain how the new laws will likely make it harder for policy holders and victims to seek legal redress.

Read the text of the law here. Read the Governor's announcement here.

Send your questions, comments, and feedback to [email protected].

Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com

Jennifer Opiola checks in to review PIP opinions from February.

• Comprehensive Health Cent., LLC, a/a/o Angela Cooper v. Star Cas. Ins. Co., (3d DCA).
• United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Family Rehab., Inc., a/a/o Hugo Nelson Jimenez, (3d DCA). 
•  The Restoration Team, a/a/o Rick Santos and Idalia Santos v. S. Oak Ins. Co., (3d DCA).
• United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Xunda A. Gibson, M.D., P.A., d/b/a Premier Urgent Care Cent., a/a/o Jean Baptiste Ochelin, (4th DCA).
•  Baker Family Chiropractic, LLC, a/a/o Hahn Dinh v. Liberty  Mut. Ins. Co., (5th DCA).  

Send your questions, comments, and feedback to [email protected].

Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com