https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/scotus-decisions-politics--5808219enGovernmentThese works are in the public domain, the use of my personal voice belongs to Danilo Feliciano and assigned to None of the Above and cannot be reproduced without permission. Please contacthttps://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/8336b3fe0f9464defd52840c69d37f9a.jpghttps://www.spreaker.com/podcast/scotus-decisions-politics--5808219Sat, 16 Dec 2023 21:52:07 +0000Danilo FelicianoNone of the Abovedaniloafeliciano@gmail.comThis podcast series focus primarily on SCOTUS decisions and the reading of them. It is my personal belief that the actual decisions written have become distorted through the personal lenses of reporters and their corporate employers. I intend on...falseepisodichttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/targum-jonathan-on-genesis-edition-by-john-wesley-etheridge-london-1862-chapters-1-15--58032226
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan is a western targum (translation) of the Torah (Pentateuch) from the land of Israel (as opposed to the eastern Babylonian Targum Onkelos). Its correct title was originally Targum Yerushalmi (Jerusalem Targum), which is how it was known in medieval times. But because of a printer's mistake it was later labeled Targum Jonathan, in reference to Jonathan ben Uzziel. Some editions of the Pentateuch continue to call it Targum Jonathan to this day. Most scholars refer to the text as Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. This targum is more than a mere translation. It includes much Aggadic material collected from various sources as late as the Midrash Rabbah as well as earlier material from the Talmud. It is effectively a combination of a commentary and a translation. In the portions where it is pure translation, it often agrees with the Targum Onkelos. The date of its composition is disputed. It cannot have been completed before the Arab conquest as it refers to Mohammad's wife Fatima, but might have been initially composed in the 4th Century CE. However, some scholars date it in the 14th Century

]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/58032226Sat, 16 Dec 2023 21:48:53 +0000Danilo FelicianoAbout This TextComposed: Talmudic Israel, c.150 – c.250 CE Targum Pseudo-Jonathan is a western targum (translation) of the Torah (Pentateuch) from the land of Israel (as opposed to the eastern Babylonian Targum Onkelos). Its correct title was...
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan is a western targum (translation) of the Torah (Pentateuch) from the land of Israel (as opposed to the eastern Babylonian Targum Onkelos). Its correct title was originally Targum Yerushalmi (Jerusalem Targum), which is how it was known in medieval times. But because of a printer's mistake it was later labeled Targum Jonathan, in reference to Jonathan ben Uzziel. Some editions of the Pentateuch continue to call it Targum Jonathan to this day. Most scholars refer to the text as Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. This targum is more than a mere translation. It includes much Aggadic material collected from various sources as late as the Midrash Rabbah as well as earlier material from the Talmud. It is effectively a combination of a commentary and a translation. In the portions where it is pure translation, it often agrees with the Targum Onkelos. The date of its composition is disputed. It cannot have been completed before the Arab conquest as it refers to Mohammad's wife Fatima, but might have been initially composed in the 4th Century CE. However, some scholars date it in the 14th Century

]]>4579bible,catholicism,judaism,mysteries,targumfalsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/de-lima-v-bidwell-182-u-s-1-21-s-ct-743-1901-part-1--57962267
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57962267Sat, 09 Dec 2023 21:37:14 +0000Danilo Felicianohttps://casetext.com/case/elias-de-lima-v-george-bidwell
]]>3310falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/porto-rico-v-rosaly-227-u-s-270-1913--57961528No. 145. Submitted January 24, 1913. Decided February 24, 1913.The government of Porto Rico cannot be sued without its consent. The government of Porto Rico, as established by the Organic Act, with some possible exceptions, comes within the general rule exempting a government sovereign in its attributes. That government of Porto Rico, as established by the Organic Act of April 12, 1900, is a strong likeness of that established for Hawaii which has immunity from suit. Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349.

Porto Rico v. Rosaly, 227 U.S. 270, (1913)
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57961528Sat, 09 Dec 2023 19:16:01 +0000Danilo FelicianoPPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF PORTO RICO. No. 145. Submitted January 24, 1913. Decided February 24, 1913.The government of Porto Rico cannot be sued without its consent. The government of Porto Rico, as established by the Organic Act, with some...No. 145. Submitted January 24, 1913. Decided February 24, 1913.The government of Porto Rico cannot be sued without its consent. The government of Porto Rico, as established by the Organic Act, with some possible exceptions, comes within the general rule exempting a government sovereign in its attributes. That government of Porto Rico, as established by the Organic Act of April 12, 1900, is a strong likeness of that established for Hawaii which has immunity from suit. Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349.

Porto Rico v. Rosaly, 227 U.S. 270, (1913)
]]>999falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/fbt-cv23-6127336-s-gomes-john-v-clemons-jr-charles-town-clerk-et-al-memorandum-of-opinion--57567121https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57567121Thu, 09 Nov 2023 01:38:43 +0000Danilo Feliciano5276falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/fbt-cv23-6127336-s-gomes-john-v-clemons-jr-charles-town-clerk-et-al-complaint--57565700https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=FBTCV236127336Sball
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57565700Wed, 08 Nov 2023 23:54:03 +0000Danilo FelicianoThe complaint in the Connecticut case regarding Ballot Stuffing. https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=FBTCV236127336Sballhttps://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=FBTCV236127336Sball
]]>330ballot,election,fraud,stuffingfalsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/abbott-laboratories-v-gardner-387-u-s-136-149-1967--57565510
Holding that plaintiffs subject to a regulation had standing to challenge it even though the Attorney General had yet to "authorize criminal and seizure actions for violations of the statute"
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57565510Wed, 08 Nov 2023 23:39:07 +0000Danilo FelicianoAbbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 149 (1967) Holding that plaintiffs subject to a regulation had standing to challenge it even though the Attorney General had yet to "authorize criminal and seizure actions for violations of the statute"
Holding that plaintiffs subject to a regulation had standing to challenge it even though the Attorney General had yet to "authorize criminal and seizure actions for violations of the statute"
]]>2407falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/james-king-v-douglas-brownback-et-al-no-22-912--57565079https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57565079Wed, 08 Nov 2023 22:22:51 +0000Danilo Feliciano220falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/dartmouth-college-v-woodward-17-u-s-518-1819-part-1--57423620
Recognizing Corporate Personhood



]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57423620Sat, 28 Oct 2023 21:23:23 +0000Danilo FelicianoDartmouth College v. Woodward https://casetext.com/case/dartmouth-college-v-woodward#770febbf-10b3-44f9-a6b2-1403b607ec24-fna
Recognizing Corporate Personhood



]]>5923falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/andrew-jackson-nullification-proclamation-december-10-1832--57386758December 10, 1832, President Andrew Jackson issued a proclamation to the people of South Carolina that disputed a states' right to nullify a federal law.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57386758Thu, 26 Oct 2023 00:37:50 +0000Danilo FelicianoOn December 10, 1832, President Andrew Jackson issued a proclamation to the people of South Carolina that disputed a states' right to nullify a federal law.December 10, 1832, President Andrew Jackson issued a proclamation to the people of South Carolina that disputed a states' right to nullify a federal law.]]>3213falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/abraham-lincoln-s-first-inaugural-address-march-4-1861--57386218https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57386218Wed, 25 Oct 2023 23:17:37 +0000Danilo FelicianoLincoln's First Inaugural was written in Springfield in January of 1861. According to his law partner, William Herndon, Lincoln used 4 sources for his speech: Henry Clay's Great Speech delivered in 1850, President Andrew Jackson's Proclamation Against...1381falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/american-civil-rights-union-v-philadelphia-city-commissioners-872-f-3d-175-3d-cir-2017--57385869

]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57385869Wed, 25 Oct 2023 22:22:04 +0000Danilo FelicianoThe American Civil Rights Union ("ACRU") challenges the Philadelphia City Commissioners' failure to purge the city's voter rolls of registered voters who are currently incarcerated due to a felony conviction. Because state law prohibits felons from...

]]>1641falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/don-blankenship-v-nbc-universal-llc-no-22-1125--57385125https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57385125Wed, 25 Oct 2023 21:05:49 +0000Danilo Felicianohttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1125_c07d.pdf219falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/vivek-h-murth-surgeon-general-v-missouri-no-23a243--57385059https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57385059Wed, 25 Oct 2023 20:57:31 +0000Danilo Felicianohttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a315_3d9g.pdf512falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/west-flagler-associates-ltd-v-debra-haaland-secretary-of-the-interior-no-23a315--57385058https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57385058Wed, 25 Oct 2023 20:56:51 +0000Danilo Felicianohttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a243_7l48.pdf112falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/dunlop-v-bachowski-421-u-s-560-1975--57298219Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U.S. 560 (1975), is a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 gives federal courts jurisdiction to review decisions of the United States Department of Labor to proceed (or not) with prosecutions under the Act. In this case, there was a disputed election within the United Steelworkers. The Court declined to authorize a jury-type trial into the reasons for the department's decisions, and instead held that court may only review the department's rationales under the "arbitrary and capricious" test

from Wikipedia]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57298219Thu, 19 Oct 2023 00:32:24 +0000Danilo FelicianoDunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U.S. 560 (1975), is a unanimous decision of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States which held that the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor-Management_Reporting_and_Disclosure_Act of 1959 gives...Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U.S. 560 (1975), is a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 gives federal courts jurisdiction to review decisions of the United States Department of Labor to proceed (or not) with prosecutions under the Act. In this case, there was a disputed election within the United Steelworkers. The Court declined to authorize a jury-type trial into the reasons for the department's decisions, and instead held that court may only review the department's rationales under the "arbitrary and capricious" test

from Wikipedia]]>2448falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/moses-v-kennedy-219-f-supp-762-d-d-c-1963--57297839
Holding that a private citizen does not have a constitutional right to have his claim investigated and prosecuted by the FBI


]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57297839Wed, 18 Oct 2023 23:40:35 +0000Danilo FelicianoMoses v. Kennedy 219 F. Supp. 762 (D.D.C. 1963) Holding that a private citizen does not have a constitutional right to have his claim investigated and prosecuted by the FBI
Holding that a private citizen does not have a constitutional right to have his claim investigated and prosecuted by the FBI


]]>678falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/adams-v-richardson-480-f-2d-1159-d-c-cir-1973--57297604
This education desegregation lawsuit against the federal government was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 1970 by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF) on behalf of plaintiffs from across the country. Plaintiffs were black college students, citizens, and taxpayers from ten states that had been identified by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) for “operating segregated systems of higher education in violation of Title VI” of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 351 F. Supp. 636, 637–38 (D.D.C. 1972). Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the Secretary of HEW and the Director of HEW’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) because they claimed HEW and OCR were not doing their part to administer Title VI.

The first district court opinion was issued on November 16, 1972. Judge John H. Pratt found that the ten states identified by HEW— Mississippi, Louisiana, Virginia, Maryland, Oklahoma, Florida, Georgia, Arkansas, and Pennsylvania—either completely ignored HEW’s request for a higher education desegregation plan or submitted deficient desegregation plans to HEW. HEW failed to enforce Title VI against these states and it continued to give federal funding to these states to support their public schools at every level: elementary, secondary, and post-secondary. According to Title VI, HEW was supposed to deny/terminate federal financial assistance to states that were not in compliance with the law or take any other legal measures to enforce state compliance with Title VI. Judge Pratt ordered that HEW officials could no longer use their limited discretion to enforce Title VI; rather, they were ordered to use the means available in Title VI to achieve compliance on a case-by-case basis.

https://clearinghouse.net/case/11091/


]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57297604Wed, 18 Oct 2023 23:13:58 +0000Danilo FelicianoAdams v. Richardson 480 F.2d 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1973) This education desegregation lawsuit against the federal government was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 1970 by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF) on behalf of...
This education desegregation lawsuit against the federal government was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 1970 by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF) on behalf of plaintiffs from across the country. Plaintiffs were black college students, citizens, and taxpayers from ten states that had been identified by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) for “operating segregated systems of higher education in violation of Title VI” of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 351 F. Supp. 636, 637–38 (D.D.C. 1972). Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the Secretary of HEW and the Director of HEW’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) because they claimed HEW and OCR were not doing their part to administer Title VI.

The first district court opinion was issued on November 16, 1972. Judge John H. Pratt found that the ten states identified by HEW— Mississippi, Louisiana, Virginia, Maryland, Oklahoma, Florida, Georgia, Arkansas, and Pennsylvania—either completely ignored HEW’s request for a higher education desegregation plan or submitted deficient desegregation plans to HEW. HEW failed to enforce Title VI against these states and it continued to give federal funding to these states to support their public schools at every level: elementary, secondary, and post-secondary. According to Title VI, HEW was supposed to deny/terminate federal financial assistance to states that were not in compliance with the law or take any other legal measures to enforce state compliance with Title VI. Judge Pratt ordered that HEW officials could no longer use their limited discretion to enforce Title VI; rather, they were ordered to use the means available in Title VI to achieve compliance on a case-by-case basis.

https://clearinghouse.net/case/11091/


]]>1041falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/heckler-v-chaney-470-u-s-821-1985--57297473Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), was a United States Supreme Courtdecision that held agency decisions to not undertake enforcement proceedings is "committed to agency discretion by law" (5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2)) and therefore not subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act.
From Wikipedia
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57297473Wed, 18 Oct 2023 22:44:33 +0000Danilo FelicianoHeckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), was a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Statesdecision that held agency decisions to not undertake enforcement proceedings is "committed to agency discretion by law"...Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), was a United States Supreme Courtdecision that held agency decisions to not undertake enforcement proceedings is "committed to agency discretion by law" (5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2)) and therefore not subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act.
From Wikipedia
]]>3887act,administrative,agency,apa,inaction,law,mandamus,procedures,supremecourtfalsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/powell-v-katzenbach--57296334Holding that writ of mandamus against Attorney General would not lie because the question of whether to institute prosecution is discretionary
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57296334Wed, 18 Oct 2023 20:40:52 +0000Danilo FelicianoPowell v. Katzenbach Holding that writ of mandamus against Attorney General would not lie because the question of whether to institute prosecution is discretionaryHolding that writ of mandamus against Attorney General would not lie because the question of whether to institute prosecution is discretionary
]]>148attorney,department,general,justice,mandamus,offalsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/norton-v-southern-utah-wilderness-alliance-542-u-s-55-2004--57296081
Holding that agency can be compelled to act if time period is specified by law.Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (2004), was a Supreme Court case that held that although the Administrative Procedure Actsays that a person may challenge an agency's failure to act, this provision essentially just carries forward the writ of mandamus. Thus an agency cannot be compelled to act unless there is some non-discretionary, discrete act.
(from Wikipedia)]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57296081Wed, 18 Oct 2023 20:34:37 +0000Danilo FelicianoNorton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance Holding that agency can be compelled to act if time period is specified by law.Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (2004), was a Supreme Court case that held that although the...
Holding that agency can be compelled to act if time period is specified by law.Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (2004), was a Supreme Court case that held that although the Administrative Procedure Actsays that a person may challenge an agency's failure to act, this provision essentially just carries forward the writ of mandamus. Thus an agency cannot be compelled to act unless there is some non-discretionary, discrete act.
(from Wikipedia)]]>2380agencyaction,apa,law,mandamus,scotusfalsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-dialogue-in-hell-between-machiavelli-and-montesquieu-dialogues-19-through-24-end--57242959The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu is a political satire written by French attorney Maurice Joly in protest against the regime of Napoleon III (a.k.a. Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte), who ruled France from 1848 to 1870. It was translated into English in 2002. Small portions were translated in 1967 as an appendix to Norman Cohn's Warrant for Genocide, which identifies it as the main source of the later Protocols of the Elders of Zion, though The Dialogue itself makes no mention of Jews (from Wikipedia)
"Soon we will see a frightful calm, during which all will unite against the power that violated the law." "When Sylla wanted to yield liberty back to Rome, it could no longer receive it." -- Montesquieu, The Spirit of The Laws.
[Maurice Joly] Geneva, 15 October 1864
Nineteenth Dialogue: The Budgetary System

• Of the method of passing the budget of expenses and the budget of collections, and their reconciliation.

Twentieth Dialogue: Continuation of the Same Subject

• Of how to manage public concerns about public debt expenditures and the use of amortization. The utilization of catch phrases to calm public concerns.

Twenty-First Dialogue: Loans

• Of the use of a centralized financial agency to manipulate markets through the making of loans to financial institutions.

Twenty-Second Dialogue: Grandeur of the Reign

• In which Machiavelli describe how he would reign and the means by which he would exalt himself in the eyes of the people

Twenty-Third Dialogue: The Diverse means that Machiavelli would employ to Consolidate his Empire and Perpetuate his Dynasty Twenty-Fourth Dialogue: Particularities of the Physiognomy of the Prince as Machiavelli Conceives It Twenty-Fifth Dialogue: The Last Word
source: https://www.notbored.org/dialogue-in-hell.html]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57242959Sun, 15 Oct 2023 20:19:48 +0000Danilo FelicianoThe Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu is a political satire written by French attorney Maurice Joly in protest against the regime of Napoleon III (a.k.a. Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte), who ruled France from 1848 to 1870. It was...The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu is a political satire written by French attorney Maurice Joly in protest against the regime of Napoleon III (a.k.a. Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte), who ruled France from 1848 to 1870. It was translated into English in 2002. Small portions were translated in 1967 as an appendix to Norman Cohn's Warrant for Genocide, which identifies it as the main source of the later Protocols of the Elders of Zion, though The Dialogue itself makes no mention of Jews (from Wikipedia)
"Soon we will see a frightful calm, during which all will unite against the power that violated the law." "When Sylla wanted to yield liberty back to Rome, it could no longer receive it." -- Montesquieu, The Spirit of The Laws.
[Maurice Joly] Geneva, 15 October 1864
Nineteenth Dialogue: The Budgetary System

• Of the method of passing the budget of expenses and the budget of collections, and their reconciliation.

Twentieth Dialogue: Continuation of the Same Subject

• Of how to manage public concerns about public debt expenditures and the use of amortization. The utilization of catch phrases to calm public concerns.

Twenty-First Dialogue: Loans

• Of the use of a centralized financial agency to manipulate markets through the making of loans to financial institutions.

Twenty-Second Dialogue: Grandeur of the Reign

• In which Machiavelli describe how he would reign and the means by which he would exalt himself in the eyes of the people

Twenty-Third Dialogue: The Diverse means that Machiavelli would employ to Consolidate his Empire and Perpetuate his Dynasty Twenty-Fourth Dialogue: Particularities of the Physiognomy of the Prince as Machiavelli Conceives It Twenty-Fifth Dialogue: The Last Word
source: https://www.notbored.org/dialogue-in-hell.html]]>6651economics,intrigue,machiavelli,politics,prince,tyrannyfalsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-dialogue-in-hell-between-machievelli-and-montesquieu-chapters-15-through-18--57100324The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu is a political satire written by French attorney Maurice Joly in protest against the regime of Napoleon III (a.k.a. Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte), who ruled France from 1848 to 1870. It was translated into English in 2002. Small portions were translated in 1967 as an appendix to Norman Cohn's Warrant for Genocide, which identifies it as the main source of the later Protocols of the Elders of Zion, though The Dialogue itself makes no mention of Jews
(from Wikipedia)

15th Dialogue: Suffrage

• On how to control the votes and the influence of endorsement to particular candidates faithful to the state. The requirement of oaths of loyalty to the Sovereign and not the state.

16th Dialogue: Certain Guilds (the Clergy, the Lawyers in particular)

• Requiring lawyers be sworn to fealty to the Sovereign and to discourage knowledge of constitutional law. On how to respect the Holy See or why to make motions to remove the Pope by controversy.

17th Dialogue: The Police

• On secret police and a black cabinet. On the use of judicial power secretly.

18th Dialogue: The Financial Administration

• On how to organize finances and the use of taxation.

]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57100324Fri, 06 Oct 2023 00:01:03 +0000Danilo FelicianoThe Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu is a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_satire written by French https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Joly in protest against the regime of...The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu is a political satire written by French attorney Maurice Joly in protest against the regime of Napoleon III (a.k.a. Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte), who ruled France from 1848 to 1870. It was translated into English in 2002. Small portions were translated in 1967 as an appendix to Norman Cohn's Warrant for Genocide, which identifies it as the main source of the later Protocols of the Elders of Zion, though The Dialogue itself makes no mention of Jews
(from Wikipedia)

15th Dialogue: Suffrage

• On how to control the votes and the influence of endorsement to particular candidates faithful to the state. The requirement of oaths of loyalty to the Sovereign and not the state.

16th Dialogue: Certain Guilds (the Clergy, the Lawyers in particular)

• Requiring lawyers be sworn to fealty to the Sovereign and to discourage knowledge of constitutional law. On how to respect the Holy See or why to make motions to remove the Pope by controversy.

17th Dialogue: The Police

• On secret police and a black cabinet. On the use of judicial power secretly.

18th Dialogue: The Financial Administration

• On how to organize finances and the use of taxation.

]]>3364falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-cross-of-gold-william-jennings-bryan-1896--57096589William Jennings Bryan
July 9, 189IntroductionAt the Democratic National Convention in 1896, proponents of “free silver” (the re-legalization of silver as part of the nation’s monetary standards) appeared to possess the two-thirds majority needed to nominate a candidate. Unfortunately, they did not have a candidate. There was no doubt the platform would endorse the unlimited coinage of silver, but a candidate was needed who could sell the position to the American people. On the night of July 8, William Jennings Bryan revealed himself as the candidate the silverites were looking for by delivering one of the most famous speeches in American history. At the time, Bryan was a former member of Congress from Nebraska who had been working tirelessly to build support for his candidacy. His passionate speech electrified the crowd and convinced the members of the convention to nominate him as their candidate on the fifth ballot. Bryan then ran a whistle-stop campaign (a train tour bringing his message to the people), traveling around the country giving hundreds of speeches before finally losing to Republican William McKinley.
—Eric C. Sands

At the end I make a small commentary on the current Speaker of the House race. My bet? Trump takes a few votes then gives them to Scalise.

]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57096589Thu, 05 Oct 2023 21:23:11 +0000Danilo FelicianoThe Cross of Gold William Jennings Bryan July 9, 189IntroductionAt the Democratic National Convention in 1896, proponents of “free silver” (the re-legalization of silver as part of the nation’s monetary standards) appeared to possess the two-thirds...William Jennings Bryan
July 9, 189IntroductionAt the Democratic National Convention in 1896, proponents of “free silver” (the re-legalization of silver as part of the nation’s monetary standards) appeared to possess the two-thirds majority needed to nominate a candidate. Unfortunately, they did not have a candidate. There was no doubt the platform would endorse the unlimited coinage of silver, but a candidate was needed who could sell the position to the American people. On the night of July 8, William Jennings Bryan revealed himself as the candidate the silverites were looking for by delivering one of the most famous speeches in American history. At the time, Bryan was a former member of Congress from Nebraska who had been working tirelessly to build support for his candidacy. His passionate speech electrified the crowd and convinced the members of the convention to nominate him as their candidate on the fifth ballot. Bryan then ran a whistle-stop campaign (a train tour bringing his message to the people), traveling around the country giving hundreds of speeches before finally losing to Republican William McKinley.
—Eric C. Sands

At the end I make a small commentary on the current Speaker of the House race. My bet? Trump takes a few votes then gives them to Scalise.

]]>1383falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-dialogue-in-hell-between-machiavelli-and-montesquieu-chap-12-14--57005972The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu Chapters 12 through 14

Wherein Machiavelli and Montesquieu carry on regarding the manipulation and coercion of the press to act in certain ways, the coordination of secret societies and finally concern themselves with the "court of cassation"

A court of cassation is a high-instance court that exists in some judicial systems. Courts of cassation do not re-examine the facts of a case, they only interpret the relevant law.

The Supreme Court of the United States might be considered a Court of Cassation. For example in Pulsifer v. United States (22-340) the meaning of the word "and" in a law will be considered.


]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57005972Sat, 30 Sep 2023 21:00:26 +0000Danilo FelicianoThe Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu Chapters 12 through 14 Wherein Machiavelli and Montesquieu carry on regarding the manipulation and coercion of the press to act in certain ways, the coordination of secret societies and finally...The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu Chapters 12 through 14

Wherein Machiavelli and Montesquieu carry on regarding the manipulation and coercion of the press to act in certain ways, the coordination of secret societies and finally concern themselves with the "court of cassation"

A court of cassation is a high-instance court that exists in some judicial systems. Courts of cassation do not re-examine the facts of a case, they only interpret the relevant law.

The Supreme Court of the United States might be considered a Court of Cassation. For example in Pulsifer v. United States (22-340) the meaning of the word "and" in a law will be considered.


]]>2989freedomofpress,government,justice,law,press,secretsocieties,speechfalsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-dialogue-in-hell-between-machiavelli-and-montesquieu-chap-9-11--57005354The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu Chapters 9 through 11

These chapters concern the methods by which a ruler would influence legislation through the senate and the manipulation of the press through indirect methods, such as administrative oversight and bonding measures. Also much consideration on how a Coup d'Etat would take place and how it would affect public sentiment. Very relevant to today.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57005354Sat, 30 Sep 2023 18:46:09 +0000Danilo FelicianoThe Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu Chapters 9 through 11 These chapters concern the methods by which a ruler would influence legislation through the senate and the manipulation of the press through indirect methods, such as...The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu Chapters 9 through 11

These chapters concern the methods by which a ruler would influence legislation through the senate and the manipulation of the press through indirect methods, such as administrative oversight and bonding measures. Also much consideration on how a Coup d'Etat would take place and how it would affect public sentiment. Very relevant to today.]]>3084justice,law,revolution,tyrannyfalsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/charles-g-moore-et-ux-v-united-states-22-800-8-sep-2023--57005018https://api.spreaker.com/episode/57005018Sat, 30 Sep 2023 17:42:17 +0000Danilo FelicianoJustice Alito's response to Senator Durbin's request for recusal on this case.249falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-dialogue-in-hell-between-machiavelli-and-montesquieu-chapters-7-and-8--56812599
Machiavelli is the author of the Prince and Montesquieu, while less known, had a larger influence on the design of the American political system.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/56812599Fri, 15 Sep 2023 16:20:18 +0000Danilo FelicianoThe Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu was written by French attorney Maurice Joly in protest against the regime of Napoleon III. Many believe it was the basis for the "Protocols of Zion" the famous anti-semetic work, except that it...
Machiavelli is the author of the Prince and Montesquieu, while less known, had a larger influence on the design of the American political system.]]>1763machiavelli,montesquieu,politicsfalsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-dialogue-in-hell-between-machiavelli-and-montesquieu-chapters-5-and-6--56812563The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu was written by French attorney Maurice Joly in protest against the regime of Napoleon III. Many believe it was the basis for the "Protocols of Zion" the famous anti-semetic work, except that it doesn't discuss Judaism except for once or twice. What it does discuss is how an authoritarian can take over a Republic and the means by which to quickly do so.

Machiavelli is the author of the Prince and Montesquieu, while less known, had a larger influence on the design of the American political system.
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/56812563Fri, 15 Sep 2023 16:18:57 +0000Danilo FelicianoThe Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu was written by French https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Joly in protest against the regime of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_III. Many believe it...The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu was written by French attorney Maurice Joly in protest against the regime of Napoleon III. Many believe it was the basis for the "Protocols of Zion" the famous anti-semetic work, except that it doesn't discuss Judaism except for once or twice. What it does discuss is how an authoritarian can take over a Republic and the means by which to quickly do so.

Machiavelli is the author of the Prince and Montesquieu, while less known, had a larger influence on the design of the American political system.
]]>1381machiavelli,montesquieu,politicsfalsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-dialogue-in-hell-between-machiavelli-and-montesquieu-chap-1-4--56812505The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu was written by French attorney Maurice Joly in protest against the regime of Napoleon III. Many believe it was the basis for the "Protocols of Zion" the famous anti-semetic work, except that it doesn't discuss Judaism except for once or twice. What it does discuss is how an authoritarian can take over a Republic and the means by which to quickly do so.

Machiavelli is the author of the Prince and Montesquieu, while less known, had a larger influence on the design of the American political system.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/56812505Fri, 15 Sep 2023 16:17:24 +0000Danilo FelicianoThe Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu was written by French https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Joly in protest against the regime of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_III. Many believe it...The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu was written by French attorney Maurice Joly in protest against the regime of Napoleon III. Many believe it was the basis for the "Protocols of Zion" the famous anti-semetic work, except that it doesn't discuss Judaism except for once or twice. What it does discuss is how an authoritarian can take over a Republic and the means by which to quickly do so.

Machiavelli is the author of the Prince and Montesquieu, while less known, had a larger influence on the design of the American political system.]]>3940dialogueinhell,machiavelli,politicsfalsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/moac-mall-holdings-v-transform-holdco-llc--53598907https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53598907Thu, 20 Apr 2023 21:35:32 +0000Danilo FelicianoSection 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code—which restricts the effects of certain successful appeals of judicially authorized sales or leases of bankruptcy-estate property—is not a jurisdictional provision.2088justice,law,scotusfalsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/axon-enterprises-v-ftc-no-21-86-and-sec-v-cochran-no-21-1239--53540071The statutory review schemes set out in the Securities Exchange Act and Federal Trade Commission Act do not displace a district court’s federal-question jurisdiction over claims challenging as unconstitutional the structure or existence of the SEC or FTC.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53540071Fri, 14 Apr 2023 19:59:03 +0000Danilo FelicianoAxon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC (21-86) The statutory review schemes set out in the Securities Exchange Act and Federal Trade Commission Act do not displace a district court’s federal-question jurisdiction over claims challenging as unconstitutional the...The statutory review schemes set out in the Securities Exchange Act and Federal Trade Commission Act do not displace a district court’s federal-question jurisdiction over claims challenging as unconstitutional the structure or existence of the SEC or FTC.]]>5492falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/cherokee-nation-v-georgia-1831-30-u-s-1-1831-part-3-of-3--53540034https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53540034Fri, 14 Apr 2023 19:56:00 +0000Danilo FelicianoA Reading of the Supreme Court case regarding the rights of the Cherokee Nation against the push by Georgia to appropriate their territory. An insight into history not given by the standard texts and well worth listening to, if not reading on your own.1337cherokee,history,indian,justice,law,nativeamerican,scotus,trailoftearsfalsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/cherokee-nation-v-georgia-1831-part-2-of-3--53530726https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53530726Fri, 14 Apr 2023 00:59:30 +0000Danilo FelicianoThe case before the Supreme Court that decided the fate of the Cherokee Nation and ultimately is supposed to have led to the "Trail of Tears". In this case, a much different picture than the one the history books have portrayed is presented.9351american,cherokee,justice,law,native,scotus,supremecourt,trailoftearsfalsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/cherokee-nation-v-georgia-30-u-s-1-1831-part-1-of-3--53530712https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53530712Fri, 14 Apr 2023 00:55:51 +0000Danilo FelicianoThe case before the Supreme Court that decided the fate of the Cherokee Nation and ultimately is supposed to have led to the "Trail of Tears". In this case, a much different picture than the one the history books have portrayed is presented.2386cherokee,justice,law,scotus,supremecourt,trailoftearsfalsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/wilkins-v-united-states-no-21-1164-decided-28-march-2023--53527733The Quiet Title Act’s 12-year statute of limitations, 28 U. S. C. §2409a(g), is a nonjurisdictional claims-processing rule.
]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53527733Thu, 13 Apr 2023 18:14:16 +0000Danilo FelicianoWilkins v. United States (21-1164) The Quiet Title Act’s 12-year statute of limitations, 28 U. S. C. §2409a(g), is a nonjurisdictional claims-processing rule.The Quiet Title Act’s 12-year statute of limitations, 28 U. S. C. §2409a(g), is a nonjurisdictional claims-processing rule.
]]>2762justice,law,podcast,scotusfalsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/west-virginia-et-al-v-b-p-j-by-her-next-friend-and-mother-heather-jackson-no-22a800-decided-6-april-2023--53527668https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53527668Thu, 13 Apr 2023 18:12:16 +0000Danilo FelicianoThis application concerns an important issue that this Court is likely to be required to address in the near future, namely, whether either Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 86 Stat. 373, 20 U. S. C. §1681 et seq., or the Fourteenth...191justice,law,podcast,scotusfalsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/brown-david-v-louisiana-no-22-77-decided-3-april-2023--53527625
Petitioner David Brown and four codefendants were convicted of first-degree murder in Louisiana following an attempted prison escape.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53527625Thu, 13 Apr 2023 18:03:57 +0000Danilo FelicianoDenial of Certiorari for Petitioner David Brown and four codefendants were convicted of first-degree murder in Louisiana following an attempted prison escape.
Petitioner David Brown and four codefendants were convicted of first-degree murder in Louisiana following an attempted prison escape.]]>409law,scotusfalsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/episode-8-steven-donziger-v-united-states--53407444https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53407444Fri, 31 Mar 2023 23:11:41 +0000Danilo FelicianoFor decades, Texaco, a corporate predecessor to Chevron, allegedly polluted rain forests and rivers in South America.605falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/december-10-1832-nullification-proclamation--53301139
It was a warning against secession and against those who would advocate for such. He, as did Washington, warned against such devices and invites from party loyalists, admonishing them as misguided or paid agents.]]>https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53301139Wed, 22 Mar 2023 18:23:04 +0000Danilo FelicianoAndrew Jackson, generally in favor of states' rights, saw nullification as a threat to the Union. In his view, the federal government derived its power from the people, not from the states, and the federal laws had greater authority than those of the...
It was a warning against secession and against those who would advocate for such. He, as did Washington, warned against such devices and invites from party loyalists, admonishing them as misguided or paid agents.]]>3316falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/chapman-clerk-circuit-court-of-missouri-randolph-county-v-jane-doe-by-next-friend-anthony-e-rothert--53300475https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53300475Wed, 22 Mar 2023 18:00:17 +0000Danilo FelicianoThe petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judg- ment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit with instruc- tions to dismiss the case as moot. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc.,...382falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/luna-perez-v-sturgis-public-schools-32223-12-02pm--53300438https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53300438Wed, 22 Mar 2023 17:58:11 +0000Danilo FelicianoAn Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuit seeking compensatory damages for the denial of a free and appropriate education may proceed without exhausting the administrative processes of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U. S. C....1237falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/dobbs-v-jackson-women-s-health-organization-slip-opinions--53255589https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53255589Sun, 19 Mar 2023 18:29:32 +0000Danilo FelicianoThese are the opinions of Justice Thomas, Justice Kavanaugh, and Chief Justice Roberts. It would behoove all people to read the opinion of the Chief Justice for it is my humble opinion that it outlines the reason why the controversy is being handled...3569falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/dobbs-v-jackson-women-s-health-organization-dissent-breyer-kagan-sotomayer-3-17-23-5-09-pm--53255475https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53255475Sun, 19 Mar 2023 18:11:32 +0000Danilo FelicianoThis is the opinion of the dissenting Justices7012falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/dobbs-v-jackson-women-s-health-organization-opinion-of-court-justice-alito--53255462https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53255462Sun, 19 Mar 2023 18:09:00 +0000Danilo FelicianoThis is the summary and the opinion of the court. The slip opinions and the dissent will be uploaded separately. Please forgive the confusion I had in how to use citations since I am working out how to read legal documents in a way the will help the...9425falsefullhttps://www.spreaker.com/episode/washington-resignation-speech-valid-for-today--53153395https://api.spreaker.com/episode/53153395Fri, 10 Mar 2023 01:05:59 +0000Danilo FelicianoThis is the farewell address of Washington, a lesson well worth listening to again today2662falsefull