Gavel & Gazette

Russell Brand spent more than four hours in the witness box at Southwark Crown Court. He admitted to “reckless philandering” and “misusing” his fame for sex, but he denied every charge of rape and sexual assault. He told the jury that sexual consent was “fundamental” and “more important than sex itself.” He also revealed that not a single friend or former colleague would testify on his behalf. The jury did not believe him. In November 2026, he was convicted of one count of rape and three counts of sexual assault, and sentenced to 10 and a half years in prison. This episode breaks down his testimony, the cross-examination that damaged his credibility, and the legal strategy that failed. General information only, not legal advice. Based on public records and news reports.

Thanks for listening to Gavel & Gazette. Legal news, explained. General information only, not legal advice.

This episode includes AI-generated content.

Adobe’s $150 million settlement with the FTC and DOJ closed in March 2026, but a separate class action over its subscription sign-up process was partially revived in September. This episode explains what the settlement actually gives consumers (two free months, not a refund), why the class action survived, and what happens next. It also explains the legal difference between the government’s ROSCA case and the private California claims. General information only, not legal advice. Based on public records and news reports.

Thanks for listening to Gavel & Gazette. Legal news, explained. General information only, not legal advice.

This episode includes AI-generated content.

On October 23, 2026, an Arizona judge sentenced Laura Owens to 30 days in jail and seven years of supervised probation for faking twin pregnancies, falsifying medical records, and lying under oath in paternity cases involving former “Bachelor” star Clayton Echard and another man. Prosecutors asked for more than five years in prison. The judge said her actions were driven by untreated mental health issues, not a calculated scheme. This episode explains what she did, how the case reached court, what the judge decided, and what happens next. General information only, not legal advice. Based on public records and news reports.

Thanks for listening to Gavel & Gazette. Legal news, explained. General information only, not legal advice.

This episode includes AI-generated content.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Salazar v. Paramount Global on October 14, 2026. The question: does a 1988 privacy law written for video rental stores apply to a sports newsletter subscriber whose viewing history was shared with Facebook? This episode explains the Video Privacy Protection Act, the Robert Bork origin story, the circuit split, what Salazar and Paramount argued, what the justices said, and what happens next. No decision has been issued as of November 9, 2026. General information only, not legal advice. Based on public records and news reports.
l

Thanks for listening to Gavel & Gazette. Legal news, explained. General information only, not legal advice.

This episode includes AI-generated content.

On November 6, 2026, Cornell University's Faculty Senate voted 75–50 that it had no confidence in the central administration over its handling of sexual assault allegations. Within hours, the Board of Trustees said the president stays. This episode explains what the vote does, what it does not do, and where the legal case goes next: the civil lawsuit, the special prosecutor, the independent review, and the pending motion to disqualify the prosecutor. No criminal charges have been filed; the accused deny wrongdoing. General information only, not legal advice. Based on public records and news reports.

Thanks for listening to Gavel & Gazette. Legal news, explained. General information only, not legal advice.

This episode includes AI-generated content.

Russell Brand has been found guilty of one count of rape and three counts of sexual assault following a four-week trial at Southwark Crown Court in London. The jury, which deliberated for eight and a half hours, acquitted him of two other rape charges and one count of attempted indecent assault. Brand, 51, has been remanded in custody and will be sentenced on Monday, November 9, 2026. The judge told him to expect a “significant custodial term.” This episode breaks down the verdicts count by count, explains what the jury had to decide, and looks at the sentencing guidelines that could lead to a lengthy prison term. We also cover the ongoing police investigations into additional allegations. General information only, not legal advice. Based on public records and news reports.

Thanks for listening to Gavel & Gazette. Legal news, explained. General information only, not legal advice.

This episode includes AI-generated content.

An alleged assault at a fraternity house in October 2024. Seven accused students. No criminal charges, until a lawsuit filed in September 2026 reopened the case.

Since then, New York's governor said she had lost faith in the local district attorney and named the state attorney general special prosecutor. Cornell agreed to an outside review led by former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. The county moved to audit the district attorney's office. And Cornell's Faculty Senate resumes debate on a no-confidence resolution on Oct. 28.

This follow-up to our earlier Cornell 7 episode explains what is alleged, what the university says it did, what has not been decided, and what can happen next. None of the accused has been criminally charged, and the allegations have not been tested in a criminal trial.

General information only, not legal advice. Based on public records and news reports.

Thanks for listening to Gavel & Gazette. Legal news, explained. General information only, not legal advice.

This episode includes AI-generated content.

Can a company charge you half of your remaining payments to cancel a subscription you thought was monthly? That is the question behind the legal fight over Adobe's Creative Cloud plans, which include Photoshop.

In March 2026, Adobe agreed to pay $150 million, half in penalties and half in free services, to settle claims brought by the federal government that it hid an early termination fee and made cancellation hard. This week, a federal judge revived a separate class action over the same kind of subscription terms.

This episode explains the 2010 online shopping law behind the FTC case, what the 50 percent fee was alleged to be, what the settlement means for customers, and what comes next. Nothing in these cases ends Photoshop. The fight is over how it is sold and canceled.

General information only, not legal advice. Based on public records and news reports.

Thanks for listening to Gavel & Gazette. Legal news, explained. General information only, not legal advice.

This episode includes AI-generated content.

In July 2026, a federal judge in Florida sanctioned lawyers for President Trump in his lawsuit against the IRS, finding the case was "non-adversarial" and "collusive" and aimed at forcing a $1.776 billion settlement. She referred one attorney to the Florida Bar, ended another lawyer's participation, and ordered reimbursements to former judges and IRS officials who had filed friend-of-the-court briefs. The lawyers call the sanctions unprecedented and unconstitutional. In September, the 11th Circuit declined to block them for now.

This episode explains the legal question at the center: can a judge sanction lawyers after a case has been voluntarily dismissed? We walk through what a court's inherent authority is, what each side argues, and what could happen next.

General information only, not legal advice. Based on public records and news reports.

Thanks for listening to Gavel & Gazette. Legal news, explained. General information only, not legal advice.

This episode includes AI-generated content.

Alex Jones built InfoWars into a conspiracy empire. Then a jury ordered him to pay the Sandy Hook families over $1.4 billion. Now, the satirical site The Onion has launched its own parody version of InfoWars, and Alex Jones is furious—and suing. But the legal battle is a procedural mess. The Onion is operating the brand, a court-appointed receiver is fighting for control, and the Texas Supreme Court just blocked a key transfer of assets. Meanwhile, Jones has moved to a new studio and is broadcasting again. This episode explains who actually owns what, why the parody is legally protected, and what happens next in the billion-dollar fight. General information only, not legal advice. Based on public records and news reports.

Thanks for listening to Gavel & Gazette. Legal news, explained. General information only, not legal advice.

This episode includes AI-generated content.

Disney, Universal, and Warner Bros. are suing Midjourney, accusing the AI image generator of training on their copyrighted characters and allowing users to create images of Darth Vader, Minions, and Batman on demand. Midjourney argues that training its models on copyrighted material is protected by fair use. The case is in discovery in California federal court, with a hearing on Midjourney's motion for partial judgment set for October 26, 2026. No court has ruled on fair use yet. This episode explains the legal theories on both sides, what the studios must prove, and what Midjourney's defense relies on. We separate what is alleged from what a court has actually decided. General information only, not legal advice. Based on public records and news reports.

Thanks for listening to Gavel & Gazette. Legal news, explained. General information only, not legal advice.

This episode includes AI-generated content.

Sean “Diddy” Combs was acquitted of sex trafficking and racketeering, but a jury convicted him on two counts under the Mann Act. Now he is serving a 50-month sentence and appealing to the Second Circuit, arguing that the judge improperly used acquitted conduct to increase his punishment. This episode breaks down what the jury actually decided, why the appeals court called it an “exceptionally difficult case,” and what could happen next. We separate what the court found from what is still being disputed. General information only, not legal advice. Based on public records and news reports.

Thanks for listening to Gavel & Gazette. Legal news, explained. General information only, not legal advice.

This episode includes AI-generated content.

Luigi Mangione admitted in federal court that he shot and killed UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. He pleaded guilty to federal stalking charges and is scheduled to be sentenced on December 18, 2026. But New York State still wants to try him for second-degree murder. Mangione's lawyers say that would violate double jeopardy protections under New York law, which go further than the U.S. Constitution. Prosecutors argue the state and federal cases involve different harms and different crimes. A hearing on December 10 will decide whether the state trial can move forward. This episode explains what double jeopardy actually means, how New York's law differs from the federal standard, and what happens if the state case survives. General information only, not legal advice. Based on public records and news reports.

Thanks for listening to Gavel & Gazette. Legal news, explained. General information only, not legal advice.

This episode includes AI-generated content.

A federal appeals court has refused to block sanctions against lawyers who represented Donald Trump in a lawsuit against the IRS. Judge Kathleen Williams found the suit was brought in "bad faith" to manipulate the judicial process and create a $1.8 billion fund for Trump's allies. One of Trump's personal lawyers, Alejandro Brito, was referred to the Florida Bar for possible discipline. This episode explains what the judge decided, what the appeals court said, and what it means for the lawyers involved—and for the broader pattern of legal ethics questions surrounding Trump's legal team. We separate what the court found from what is still being disputed. General information only, not legal advice. Based on public records and news reports.

Thanks for listening to Gavel & Gazette. Legal news, explained. General information only, not legal advice.

This episode includes AI-generated content.

Elizabeth Holmes continues to maintain that she did nothing wrong. But a federal jury disagreed, convicting her of four counts of wire fraud. How does the law distinguish between a visionary entrepreneur whose company failed and a fraudster who knowingly lied? This episode breaks down the actual jury instructions from the Theranos trial. We explain what "knowingly" means, why her "future tense" defense failed, and the specific piece of evidence—the forged Pfizer logos—that proved she intended to mislead investors. We also look at what the appellate courts have decided as of October 2026. General information only, not legal advice. Based on public records and news reports.

Thanks for listening to Gavel & Gazette. Legal news, explained. General information only, not legal advice.

This episode includes AI-generated content.

A two-hour investigation by GamersNexus alleged that LG smart TVs collect viewing data, map home networks, and transmit location data to advertising servers. LG called the claims untrue. Then a lawyer read the thirty-thousand-word user agreement. This is the legal analysis of what you actually agree to when you set up a smart TV, and whether the fine print crosses the line into wiretapping. Based on the GamersNexus investigation.

Thanks for listening to Gavel & Gazette. Legal news, explained. General information only, not legal advice.

This episode includes AI-generated content.

In January 2023, three young children, Cora, Dawson, and Callan, died in their Duxbury, Massachusetts home. Their mother, Lindsay Clancy, was charged with murder. Her defense argued she was not criminally responsible because of severe mental illness, including postpartum psychosis. Prosecutors disagreed.

In September 2026, after more than 38 hours of deliberation and three notes saying jurors were deadlocked, the judge declared a mistrial. On Oct. 21, he refused a defense request for a hearing about the lone holdout juror. A hearing on whether she will be tried again is set for Nov. 2.

This episode explains what a hung jury means, what "manifest necessity" is, why a retrial is legally possible, and what could happen next.

General information only, not legal advice. Based on public records and news reports.

Thanks for listening to Gavel & Gazette. Legal news, explained. General information only, not legal advice.

This episode includes AI-generated content.

An alleged assault at a fraternity house in October 2024. Seven accused students. No criminal charges, until a lawsuit filed in September 2026 reopened the case.

Since then, New York's governor said she had lost faith in the local district attorney and named the state attorney general special prosecutor. Cornell agreed to an outside review led by former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. The county moved to audit the district attorney's office. And Cornell's Faculty Senate resumes debate on a no-confidence resolution on Oct. 28.

This follow-up to our earlier Cornell 7 episode explains what is alleged, what the university says it did, what has not been decided, and what can happen next. None of the accused has been criminally charged, and the allegations have not been tested in a criminal trial.

General information only, not legal advice. Based on public records and news reports.

Thanks for listening to Gavel & Gazette. Legal news, explained. General information only, not legal advice.

This episode includes AI-generated content.

A hole-in-one is supposed to be the luckiest shot in golf. But for thousands of charity tournaments, it became a trap. Kevin Kolenda sold prize insurance for decades, collected the premiums, and then vanished when it was time to pay. Fake claims departments, bogus legal threats, and a trail of unpaid winners across multiple states. This is the story of the hole-in-one insurance fraud that ran for thirty years, from Connecticut to Washington state, and the federal case that finally caught up with him. If you follow stories of greed, deception, and the scams hiding behind charity events, follow the podcast for more. Based on public records and news reports.

Thanks for listening to Gavel & Gazette. Legal news, explained. General information only, not legal advice.

This episode includes AI-generated content.

The Trump administration is reportedly trying to strip Rep. Ilhan Omar of her U.S. citizenship and deport her — a move her spokesperson calls "no basis in law." Legal experts say denaturalization is an arduous process with a "really, really high" standard, and the case centers on whether her father misrecorded her age when she was a minor. In Washington, D.C., in 2026, a sitting congresswoman faces an investigation that critics call political intimidation. If you follow stories of power, law, and the people caught in the crosshairs, follow the podcast for more. Based on public records and news reports.

Thanks for listening to Gavel & Gazette. Legal news, explained. General information only, not legal advice.

This episode includes AI-generated content.

A late night host dares a Texas travel chain to sue him over a cartoon squirrel. Two days later, the company sues a small Ohio convenience store over its cartoon beaver.
In July 2026, John Oliver took on Buc-ee's and its trademark lawsuits against businesses with cartoon animal logos, from beavers to alligators, moose, and even a dog in a cape. This episode explains what the law actually says: how courts decide whether a logo is confusing, whether a company has to sue or lose its trademark, and whether parody is really a free pass after the Supreme Court's Jack Daniel's decision.
Both sides have a point, and the answer is less simple than the headlines suggest.
General information only, not legal advice. Based on public records and news reports.


Thanks for listening to Gavel & Gazette. Legal news, explained. General information only, not legal advice.

This episode includes AI-generated content.

At an airport border stop, officers asked for a phone passcode. What the traveler allegedly typed in did not unlock the phone. It erased it. Now it is a federal case.
In this episode, we explain the legal fight in plain English:
- What happened at the airport, according to court filings and news reports
- What a "duress" password is, and why prosecutors say this case is the first of its kind
- What the defense argues about the search, the lack of a warrant, and the right to a lawyer
- Why the law on border searches and phone passcodes is unsettled, and why it differs from state to state
- What "obstruction of justice" means, and why courts could treat the case differently from a normal phone search
- What the court is expected to decide next
Important: this is an ongoing case. The defendant has not been convicted, and everything described is an allegation or a legal argument. We stick to documented facts and present both sides.
This episode explains the law. It is not legal advice, and it is not a guide to handling a search by officers. If you face a search or an investigation, talk to a licensed attorney.
Do you think a person should be allowed to protect private data at the border? Tell us in the comments.
Follow the show for new episodes every week, leave a rating to help more people find us, and join the Supporters Club for bonus episodes.
Facts are based on public reporting as of the publication date and may change as the case develops. This show is independent and is not affiliated with any agency, company or person mentioned.


Thanks for listening to Gavel & Gazette. Legal news, explained. General information only, not legal advice.

This episode includes AI-generated content.

What happens when a late-night host dares a famous brand to take him to court?
In this episode, we break down the legal fight behind the headlines, in plain English:
- What the "Buc-Off" parody challenge was, and how the company responded
- Why trademark owners must defend their marks, and why critics say some go too far
- Where parody ends and trademark infringement begins
- How courts have treated defamation lawsuits against Last Week Tonight, including a federal judge's dismissal in June 2026
- What an anti-SLAPP law is, and why these laws matter for comedians, reporters and small businesses
We present both sides: the company's right to protect its brand, and the argument that aggressive lawsuits can pressure small businesses into giving up.
Which side do you think has the stronger argument? Tell us in the comments.
Follow the show for new episodes every week, leave a rating to help more people find us, and join the Supporters Club for bonus episodes.
Facts are based on public reporting as of the publication date and may change. For information only. Not legal advice. This show is independent and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or connected to John Oliver, HBO, Last Week Tonight, Buc-ee's or any company mentioned.


Thanks for listening to Gavel & Gazette. Legal news, explained. General information only, not legal advice.

This episode includes AI-generated content.

Tennessee tried to carry out an execution, and it did not go as planned. Now a question that courts have rarely faced is on the table: can a state try again?
In this episode, we walk through what the public record and credible reporting say, without graphic detail:
- What happened on the day of the scheduled execution, and what officials have said since
- The governor's response, the independent review, and the halt on other executions this year
- What the Eighth Amendment's ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" says, and how courts have treated failed executions in the past
- The Alabama cases from 2022 and what they suggest about a second attempt
- Why experts say there is no clear law on this, and what could happen next
We also remember that this case began with a 1995 killing, and with a family that waited decades for a final answer. Supporters and opponents of the death penalty see this case very differently, and we present both views.
What do you think the law should say when an execution fails? Tell us in the comments.
Follow the show for new episodes every week, leave a rating to help more people find us, and join the Supporters Club for bonus episodes.
Facts are based on public reporting as of the publication date and may change as the case develops. For information only. Not legal advice. This show is independent and is not affiliated with any person, agency or organization mentioned.


Thanks for listening to Gavel & Gazette. Legal news, explained. General information only, not legal advice.

This episode includes AI-generated content.

A 101-page lawsuit has put Cornell University, a fraternity and seven former students at the center of a national debate. How did a case from 2024 end up back in the spotlight?
In this episode, we walk through what the public court papers and credible reports say:
- What the civil lawsuit filed in September 2026 alleges, and who it names
- What Cornell's own disciplinary process did, and what sanctions were reported
- Why no criminal charges were filed at first, and why prosecutors are looking at the case again
- The difference between a civil lawsuit, a university hearing and a criminal case
- What a grand jury does, and what could happen next
Important: these are allegations. The people named have not been convicted of any crime, and there are conflicting accounts of what happened. We stick to documented facts, include the other side's position where it is public, and leave conclusions to the courts.
If you or someone you know has been affected by sexual violence, support is available. In the US, you can contact RAINN at 1-800-656-4673.
Follow the show for new episodes every week, leave a rating, and join the Supporters Club for bonus episodes.
Facts are based on public reporting as of the publication date and may change. For information only. Not legal advice. This show is independent and is not affiliated with any person or organization mentioned.


Thanks for listening to Gavel & Gazette. Legal news, explained. General information only, not legal advice.

This episode includes AI-generated content.

He built a huge online following around "looksmaxxing." Now he is at the center of a criminal case in Massachusetts.
In this episode, we walk through what the public court records and credible news reports actually say:
- What Braden Peters, known online as "Clavicular," has been charged with
- What he has said in response, and what his team has said
- How a criminal case like this moves through the court system, step by step
- The difference between a charge, an arrest, a trial and a verdict
- Why earlier, unrelated arrests do not decide this case
Important: these are allegations. Everyone charged with a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty in court, and he denies the charges. We stick to documented facts, present both sides, and leave the conclusions to the court.
What do you think matters most when a case like this plays out in public? Tell us in the comments.
Follow the show for new episodes every week, leave a rating to help more people find us, and join the Supporters Club for bonus episodes.
Facts are based on public reporting as of the publication date and may change as the case develops. For information only. Not legal advice. This show is independent and is not affiliated with any person or organization mentioned.


Thanks for listening to Gavel & Gazette. Legal news, explained. General information only, not legal advice.

This episode includes AI-generated content.

Reporters from CNN, MS NOW and Politico were turned away at the White House gate, and their press passes were taken. What happened next turned into a major First Amendment test.
In this episode, we break down the facts in plain language:
- What happened on September 19, 2026, and what the White House said
- Why the three outlets went to court
- What the judge ordered, and what has happened since
- What earlier court rulings say about press access to the White House
- The White House's argument that access is a privilege, not a right
- The press freedom groups' argument that access cannot depend on what a reporter publishes
We present both sides, stick to the documented facts, and leave the conclusion to you.
Where do you draw the line between a president's control of his own building and the public's right to independent reporting? Tell us in the comments.
Follow the show for new episodes every week, leave a rating to help more people find us, and join the Supporters Club for bonus episodes.
Facts are based on public reporting as of the publication date and may change as the case develops. This episode is for information only and is not legal advice.


Thanks for listening to Gavel & Gazette. Legal news, explained. General information only, not legal advice.

This episode includes AI-generated content.