What's going on everyone Sam here with late in sports cards We are doing 21 22 penini one-on-one basketball hobby ten bucks full case break number 44 pick your team style I'm gonna read off a list of our names and teams Anthony M with the Timberwolves Bernard H warriors Lakers bohia B Clippers Brian B with the Raptors C Chang Pacers Derek G Bucks Eric R Thunder Sons Harper B Mavs Rockets E and H with the Jazz Joel M Blazers King L Spurs Ken P magic Kenny T Celtics Lance S Grizzlies Lee M with the Sixers Marvin N Nuggets Michael T bulls nicks Nicholas K with the Pelicans Poyon P Hawks Ruben V heat Rory W Pistons Scott F with the Cavs Stan L Hornets Tom B Kings And then Zihan L with the Nets and the Wizards. Good luck everybody. Let's do it No, that was for us for us pulled the one of one Which is an unreal card man Good luck here everybody a nice start right there. We've got a Carmelo Anthony 12 out of 30. There you go Lakers Nice hit there Lakers, and then we've got a Timberwolves Carl Anthony Towns 12 out of 25. That is nasty Game used patch auto two colored patch. She's got Minnesota again. That is Anthony M. Congrats Anthony. Nice cat man Beautiful looking card right there. Okay, AT Snake skin Barnes. What was that out of first off the line? Jensen Yeah, we don't have a lot of we I don't think we have any swag first off the line to be honest That's PYC. Oh, yeah We've got that's gonna be 7 out of 99 Anthony Edwards nice ant-man going back to Anthony P or Anthony M. Would you do it as I know? Yeah, the nuggets that is Nicola Yoke age 32 out of 35 on the purple Jersey auto congrats Denver Denver is Marvin and there you go Marvin congrats Marvin. Hey, we're down to three. Thank you there Adam down to three on Immaculate Divisions now Appreciate you guys. Let me drop you that link again. It's gonna be fun, man We have not done Immaculate like a full case in a while back to my PYT sheet. All right next box guys a Lot of fire breaks night for sure top museum was unbelievable We've got Malcolm Brogdon. There you go. See Chang for the Pacers 66 out of 99 you've got wow Josh giddy 26 out of 49 for color for color Giddy up, baby. Let's go Eric R. Congrats, buddy That is so nasty 26 out of 49 on the giddy Just had a triple double recently again youngest player ever with a triple double Yeah, 19 years old Wow, you guys see he's gonna blow it out and let's go Ho ho Go in a Harper be down town Luca dodgish Boom, dude. Let's go That's awesome, man Luca on the downtown Congrats Harper.  I know man. I don't know how he knows it Absolutely got a 75 team of Lenny Wilkins. That is 11 out of 25 for the Hawks. Congrats, Atlanta Yes, I believe she is Joe. I don't know if she's gonna get straight back into breaking right away But she'll probably ease back in and be full-time breaking again That that's what I've heard at least that's I'm assuming what the plan is gonna be I That one's funny Seth Curry 10 out of 15 on the red James yes for basketball only in this product the downtown's and one and one you've got nice Jalen sucks 23 out of 99 going to the magic. There you go Orlando Orlando is Again the team of course I can't find Ken P congrats Ken No, Michael Jordan doesn't have any Panini August. He's upper-deck exclusive He is upper-deck exclusive Got James Harden that's gonna be 39 out of 99 For the Sixers Generally like how long would you say I think people for a safe bet? I would say like five days five Yeah 5 days to a week usually like if everything's flowing good like it's sooner than that but I would say on a safe On a safe bet like five days. Yeah, rookie jersey auto Clippers Brandon Boston, Jr. Nice one there for again the Clippers Very rarely it is Jordan sign Nice one there clips Same with LeBron LeBron's upper-deck exclusive hasn't signed in forever Yeah, five to seven business days. Yeah Exactly Micah, right next up. We've got a Jordan pool that is 64 out of 99 For the Warriors on the spoil card You've got 75 team or no not 75 Jamal Crawford 19 out of 99 again for Anthony with the Timberwolves nice one there nice J cross over Nineteen out of 99 nice one there God for the Thunder Lou d'Ort the dorscher chamber eight out of 30 on the blue Nice one there. Okay. See Eric R again. We've got rookie Magic Franz Wagner 16 out of 25 Congrats Ken with Orlando picking up both of their big rookies nice one there, buddy Franz Wagner not once in a while baseball not very often got Hakeem Elijah one That is 69 out of 99 for the Rockets Hakeem the dream and then we've got Redemption timeless moments autographs blue card number two Dwayne Wade Boom There we go heat Let me double check what this is number two. I'm assuming 25 Dwayne Wade blue is To 49 nice one there congrats on that one again heat de-weight My best PC card probably I have a triple one-to-one out of flawless of Ray Lewis Ed Reid and Jamal Lewis That's up there A couple other random ones too, we've got Keon Johnson rookie to 99 for the trail Blazers nice one there Blazers and then we've got Rookie Jersey autographs for the Thunder Trey man one out of 25 on the red. There you go again Eric R with the Thunder Bookend one out of 25 That'll do it for the break there guys. Thanks again for the fill next up We've got spectra tiered random teams


Chapter 5, The Judiciary. The judicial branch is discussed in Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution. So the judicial branch is composed of the Supreme Court and federal courts that are located all across the country and later on explain how that works. There are several different kinds of lower level federal courts that are located in every part of the country including in Brooklyn, but as you all probably know there's only one Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. and that Supreme Court is the highest court in the entire country. So basically what I'm talking about here with the judicial branch is the court system and the federal court system in the United States that deals with federal court cases, issues of federal law and issues of federal government actions. State laws are dealt with in state courts, local laws are dealt with in local courts. So just the way that federalism allows the national state and local governments to have their own laws so too are there separate court systems that deal with national state and local. So today we're just talking about the national court system, the federal court system which is made up of the Supreme Court and federal courts that are located all across the country. When you look at the judicial branch in comparison with the other two branches of our federal government, the executive branch and the legislative branch, the judicial branch, the judiciary, is very unique among the three branches of government in that its leaders are unelected. So the president is the head of the executive branch, the president becomes the president because we, the people, elect the president. Same thing goes for members of Congress, members of the hazard representatives and members of the Senate are both elected by the people. Judges, federal court judges and Supreme Court justices, just another word for a judge, are not elected by the people. They are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate and we talked about that in the last lecture, how the Senate has a special authority to confirm several kinds of people that are appointed by the president including federal judges and Supreme Court justices. So the judicial branch is very, very different because none of the leaders in that judicial branch, all these judges and there are hundreds of them in the United States are not elected. So because judges are not elected, the judiciary's legitimacy depends on the public trusting the judiciary to be fair and impartial. What that means is, well, so what do we mean by legitimacy? The perception that this person has a right to be there, has a right to do that job, has the authority of the American people because that's how our government operates, right? As a Democrat Republic, the power of the government comes from the people because we elect them. So since we don't elect judges, the judiciary's legitimacy, their ability to maintain respect depends on the public trusting the judiciary to be fair and impartial, that they are doing the right thing, that they are doing the honest thing and interpreting the law honestly as they should. That's kind of hard for the courts to do though because maintaining the sense of legitimacy of respect is hard because courts often roll on very divisive culture war issues. And what I mean by culture war issues is the kind of social issues that people fight about very, very passionately. These are moral issues that people feel very strongly about, like abortion, religious rights issues and issues of race and gender. These are the kinds of things that get people arguing very passionately with each other about. And the courts have to rule about these kinds of things over whether abortion should be legal or not, how much religious rights we have to do certain things, how much rights people have to be protected from discrimination or race and gender, things like that, how much equality we should give to women in certain respects or African-Americans. These are the kinds of issues that really pull people apart, these kinds of culture issues. And so the court, the Supreme Court especially, when it rules on these kinds of divisive issues, never pleases everybody. Somebody is going to be happy. One group of people is going to like what they've decided. Other people are not going to like it and think that they made the decision completely wrong for the wrong reasons and they're often criticized for that. Just in the past couple of weeks the Supreme Court has made a few very close calls, very divisive conclusions, some of which went against what President Donald Trump hoped the Supreme Court would do. And because of that Donald Trump went on Twitter and criticized the Supreme Court. So these are the kinds of things I'm talking about with these cultural issues being very divisive and putting the courts right smack in the middle of these divisive issues. Because of that the courts have become politicized when the Supreme Court, for example, makes a decision that Republicans like Democrats will criticize it and say, well they made it, you know, they made the decision because this is a very conservative court and Republican judges on the court voted the way they did not because that's what they believe the law means, but because they're Republicans. And when the court rules against Republicans then the Republicans get angry and say, well the court's being too liberal, it's being too much like Democratic Party. So the court system unfortunately has become politicized and that's unfortunate because the founding fathers did not want the federal courts to be politicized and that's exactly why they made the court system and the judicial branch made up of unelected judges. The founding fathers specifically did not want the courts to be like the legislative branch and the executive branch. They didn't want the leaders of the judiciary, the judges, to be elected because they thought they would be too much at the whim of public opinion. They did not want judges to make decisions based on whether they thought that the voters would reelect them or not. They wanted judges to make decisions based solely on what they believed the law required. And so because the founding fathers did not want federal courts to be politicized, they made sure that judges to be court justices were not elected and even more than that they wrote into the Constitution that federal judges and Supreme Court justices would serve for life.  So most judges actually do serve until they die and that again is to totally insulate them from politics. Judges can be removed, but only through impeachment, only if it's shown that judges did something corrupt or broke the law or did something immoral. So it's very difficult to remove a judge just like it's very difficult to remove a president in the United States because the mechanism for removing judges is the same as for removing a president, you have to impeach them. Now another interesting thing about the judiciary, if you compare it to today with how the founding fathers wanted it to be an act like, is that the founding fathers did not want the Supreme Court to be as powerful as it is today. If you read the Constitution, if you read Article 3 of the Constitution, it basically only says that the court should interpret law and resolve disputes. Today, however, the Supreme Court does a lot more because today the Supreme Court has the power of what's called judicial review and judicial review is a very important power that the Supreme Court has to rule a law or government action on Constitution. It's actually not just something that the Supreme Court can do, but other federal courts in the United States also have the power to do judicial review, not just to interpret a law and to say what it means if there are two different groups suing each other because they disagree about what the law says and what the law means and what the law requires, but to go even one step further with judicial review the courts have the power to say that this law shouldn't even be a law because it's unconstitutional or to say that the president can't do something he's done because it's unconstitutional. It goes against the Constitution. So today the courts and especially Supreme Court, which is the highest court in the country, not only has the power to interpret the law, but also has the power to interpret the Constitution review the Constitution review laws to make sure that they are not unconstitutional. So the Supreme Court didn't always have this power. So the Supreme Court came into being in 1789, the first year that the new government under the Constitution were in effect. It's also the same year 1789 that we had our first presidential election, the year that George Washington became our first president. The Supreme Court didn't come up with the idea of judicial review, didn't first exercise judicial review until 1803. So almost 15 years after the start of the new government and Supreme Court first exercised judicial review in the 1803 Supreme Court case Marbury versus Madison. So this was a court case that was brought by William Marbury, who was a lawyer who was appointed to be a Chief Justice by the Justice of the Peace in Washington D.C. in 1801. 1801 was an important year because that was the very end of the presidency of John Adams. And John Adams was the second president of the United States. He succeeded George Washington as the second president of the United States. And in the final days of his presidency in 1801, he appointed this guy William Marbury to be a Chief Justice of the Peace in Washington D.C. It was the end of his presidency because John Adams had run for election in the election of 1800, but he lost. And he lost to Thomas Jefferson, who was about to become the new president of the United States, the third president of the United States. That election of 1800 was a very important election because it was the first time that a president of one party was about to hand over power to the president of another party. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were from two different political parties. John Adams was a member of the Federalist Party, one of the first two political parties to exist in the United States. The Federalist Party was a party that believed very strongly in federalism, that believed in the idea of having a strong federal government, a strong national government. Thomas Jefferson, however, was a member of the Democratic Republican Party, which was anti-federalist. So Thomas Jefferson did not want the federal government to be as strong as John Adams and George Washington was also federalist wanted. Thomas Jefferson wanted to weaken the power of the federal government relative to the power of the state governments. So this was a monumental time period here in 1801, the final days of the Adams administration because Adams knew that the things that he did as president would be undone by Thomas Jefferson. That he, that Adams could do that Jefferson would not be able to undo was to appoint judges. And so one of the justice of the peace that the kind of judge I'm talking about here is a very small time judge that didn't require Senate confirmation. So all that needed to happen was for John Adams to sign a piece of paper making William Marbury a judge. So he did that. However, because John Adams did this the night before he, Thomas Jefferson became the new president, John Adams was able to sign the order making Marbury a judge, but the order was not properly filed in time before Jefferson could become president. So when Jefferson became president, he ordered his new Secretary of State James Madison. And that's where the Madison comes in Marbury, Sue's Madison. Because Madison, on the order of his new president, James Madden, and Thomas Jefferson did not file the order making Marbury a judge. So Jefferson said, All the orders that have been filed yet, James Madison, I want you to destroy because I'm going to go ahead and appoint my own people for these judge positions. So Marbury knew that Madison had not filed the order. He knew that Adams had made him a judge. And so he was naturally upset that he wasn't going to get his job. And he believed that what Jefferson and Madison had done by not filing the order that was signed by John Adams when Adams was still president was illegal. He believed that this was a violation of law. And so he filed a case with the Supreme Court. Why the Supreme Court? Because we're talking about Washington D.C. here, which is not a state. Washington D.C. is a federal territory, a territory that's run by the federal government. And so he went to the federal courts all the way up to the Supreme Court to file his lawsuit against Madison. And in the lawsuit he asked the Supreme Court to order James Madison to file the order and that would make Marbury a judge and allow him to take that position. So the Supreme Court had to basically rule on whether Marbury had a right to his job, whether John Adams had appropriately appointed William Marbury. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at the time was a guy by the name of John Marshall, who by the way was a cousin of Thomas Jefferson's. John Marshall was a very smart guy and one of the things he was worried about here was the legitimacy of the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court doesn't really have a lot of power to enforce its decisions. Yes, the Supreme Court can make a decision and order the President or Congress or a state government to do something. And as I already explained in lecture three about federalism, we saw during the Civil Rights Movement how southern states easily defied the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court doesn't have a police force or a military that it can use to enforce its order. So John Marshall felt that if he ordered James Madison and the President of the Town of Jefferson to give Marbury his job, that because Jefferson was from a different party and didn't want to give Marbury his job, Jefferson might say, well, you know what? I'm not going to do it. I don't care what the Supreme Court says. You know, they can't do anything about it. I'm the President.  And so instead what John Marshall wrote, what John Marshall and the Supreme Court concluded was that yes, Wayne Marbury should be a judge, that John Adams legally signed the order and that it was just a small little problem that it wasn't filed. While Adam was still President, Marbury should still be President.  And then, but however, Marshall then said, but we have no power to order the President or the Secretary of State James Madison to give Marbury his job because the law that Marbury is using to sue is unconstitutional. Now, the law that Marbury was using to that he used to bring his lawsuit was the Judiciary Act of 1789, which was a law that Congress passed in its first year, which set up the court system. Because if you look at Article III of the Constitution, it doesn't say a lot about how the court system, the federal court system in the United States is supposed to work. It actually is very short and very vague and just simply says the judiciary of the United States shall be located in a Supreme Court and other courts that Congress may want to create. So it gave Congress the power to create other courts. And so in the Judiciary Act, Congress did that, created all these other federal courts that I'm going to talk about in a few minutes. But the Congress also did something else in the Judiciary Act of 1789. It gave the Supreme Court what's called original jurisdiction over a number of different kinds of cases. Original jurisdiction, and I'm going to talk about that more later on, means that the power to hear a case first. So if the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over something, it means that it can hear the case first and you can bring the case directly to the Supreme Court. Now, John Marshall felt that that power to give what Congress did by giving the Supreme Court original jurisdiction, the power to hear a case directly, rather than having a case go through other courts first and then get the Supreme Court, as is usually the case today, where the Supreme Court will be the last court to hear a case not the first, was unconstitutional. So the Supreme Court in 1803, when it heard the Marlboro versus Madison case ruled that what the Congress did in the Judiciary Act by giving the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over a case like this one, Marlboro versus Madison, was unconstitutional because the Article 3 of the Constitution says that the only kind of case that the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction over is when two states sue each other, which has happened over the course of American history. And so this is what Marshall ended up saying, John Marshall and the Assistant Court ended up ruling that even though they felt that Marlboro should have a job, there was no power they had to order the president to do something because this case shouldn't have been brought to them because the case was brought to them pursuant to a law, the Judiciary Act of 79 that was unconstitutional. So forget about the details of this for a second. You don't need to memorize every single detail. What's most important about Marlboro versus Madison is that this is the first time the Supreme Court ever said that a law was unconstitutional, the first time they ever even thought about saying that a law was unconstitutional. And that power of judicial review has stuck. The Supreme Court has been using it ever since 1803. And because of this, the exercise of judicial review in Marlboro versus Madison has made the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, a much more powerful branch of government, a much more powerful institution than the founding fathers ever thought it would be ever wanted to be. So if we step back for a second now and talk more about how the federal court system looks like, the federal judiciary in the United States has a three level structure. At the bottom, at the basic level, there are 94 district courts. At the middle level, there are 13 courts of appeal. And I'm going to go into each one of these more detail in just a couple of seconds. And then one Supreme Court. So there are 94 district courts throughout the United States. 13 courts of appeal all throughout the United States. And then only one Supreme Court, which is located in the nation's capital in Washington DC. Okay, so let's take each level of the court system and talk about it in more detail, beginning with the lower level. So this is the low level, intermediate, high level district courts, courts of appeal, Supreme Court. District courts have original jurisdiction. So today, the Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction over cases where states sue each other. In most cases, the issue starts in the district court. District courts have original jurisdiction. So this is where a court case starts. And because of that, they're trial courts. So I'll give you an example. Let's say that the FBI arrests someone in Brooklyn on suspicion of drug dealing, and it's a federal charge of drug dealing. So under the Constitution, before you can put somebody in jail, before you can find somebody guilty, you have to put them on trial, you have to prove the government has to prove that they're guilty in a court of law before a jury. So that process is what takes place in the district courts. So district courts are where courts cases start and it's where you have trials. So that's the most basic level, the 94 district courts. There are also 13 courts of appeal that have what we call appellate jurisdiction. So this isn't where court cases start. This is not where you have trials, courts of appeal and not trial courts. What appellate courts do, what courts of appeal do, is that they hear issues of law and disputes about the law that originate out of a trial. So let's go back to the debate about the example of somebody being arrested by the FBI in Brooklyn on federal charges of drug dealing. So they're put on trial, the person's put on trial in federal criminal court in Brooklyn, and actually the federal courthouse in Brooklyn is right near CityTac, right behind the post office on Tiller Street. And they're found guilty. So they're found guilty of drug dealing and their sentence to 20 years in jail, whatever. The person who is found guilty and the lawyer, his or her lawyer, can appeal if they believe that there was a legal problem in the original trial. So let's say that the main piece of evidence against the person at the trial was the drugs that were found in the person's apartment. And the drugs were found because the FBI searched the apartment and they had a warrant, the FBI had a warrant, but there was a problem with the warrant. There was some kind of technical problem with the warrant, and so there was an issue, a legal issue about whether the search was legal under the Constitution under the Fourth Amendment, which I'm going to talk more about in the next lecture when we talk about civil rights and civil liberties. So let's say there was a problem with the search warrant, and so the defendant, the person who was found guilty, and his lawyer argued during the trial that because there was a problem with the warrant that the drugs should not be presented as evidence in the trial because they're obtained illegally. The government, the prosecution argued the opposite and said that, yeah, even though there was a technical problem with the warrant, it doesn't mean that the drug shouldn't be presented as evidence and the judge agreed with the government and said, yes, I'm going to allow the drugs to go into evidence. And mainly because of that, the person, the defendant, was found guilty. So now the defendant now, having been found guilty, can now appeal the case and take the case to the court of appeals, which has appellate jurisdiction. And the argument that the defendant would make in the court of appeal was that the trial judge in the original case, the original jurisdiction case, made the wrong decision. He made an error and that the court of appeal should overturn the conviction and order a new trial without the drugs being used as evidence. And so at the appellate court, you don't have another trial because the person who had been found guilty. All the appellate court is doing is deciding whether the trial judge in the original case made the right decision or the wrong decision with respect to allowing the drugs to be presented as evidence. If the appeals court says that the trial judge made a mistake and that the evidence should not have been presented to the jury in the trial court, then what happens is that the original case with the conviction is set aside, doesn't mean anything anymore, and that the government will have to retry the defendant, but this time in the second trial, they cannot introduce the drugs as evidence because the appeals court ruled that they were legally obtained. Or so that's one thing the appeals court could do. The appeals court decides that the government was correct and that the trial judge did not make an error by allowing the drugs to be presented as evidence. Then the defendant can appeal again this time to the Supreme Court, all the way up to Supreme Court. And once the Supreme Court decides something, that's it, that's the final point and then line the conclusion so whatever the Supreme Court says would be the end of this case. So that's how district courts and courts of appeal work. District courts have original jurisdiction and trial courts is where court cases begin, and that's why there's so many of them, 94 all across the country, and each state has a different federal district court. Here in Brooklyn, we're in the Eastern District of New York, which covers Brooklyn, Queens, and then Nassau and Suffolk counties of Long Island. So any case that originates in that area, so anybody who gets arrested for a federal crime in Brooklyn, Queens, Nassau or Suffolk will go to trial. In the Eastern District, in one of the two federal courthouses in the Eastern District, and there are two of them, one here in Brooklyn. Any others all the way out East in Hoplog, Long Island, all the way out in Eastern Suffolk County. And so if you do federal, if you live in Brooklyn or Queens, and you have to do federal jury duty, you're going to do federal jury duty either in the Brooklyn courthouse or in the Hoplog court. It's more likely the Brooklyn courthouse because it's closer where you live. So that's how district courts work. And not every case can get appealed because you can't just say that, well I was found guilty, but the jury made the wrong decision. You have to believe that there was an error of law, that the judge made an error of law in order to appeal something. So not all district court cases get appealed, which is why there are far less, there's a far less number of appeal courts in the US than there are district courts. There are only 13 appeal courts, whereas there are 94 district courts. Okay, so let's go now to the highest level, the Supreme Court, which is the highest court in the US. And just like the appellate courts, which do not hear appeals from every single district court case, the Supreme Court doesn't hear appeals from every appeals court case, because sometimes the appeals court will rule the way the person who brings the appeal wants, and then that's the end of the story. Or sometimes if personal appeals loses, they decide not to go any further on their own, they decide not to take it to the Supreme Court. And also the Supreme Court doesn't have to hear every case that's applied to it. And that's one of the things that makes the Supreme Court special, is they get to decide whether or not to take a case. And so the Supreme Court only accepts a tiny amount of cases that apply to be heard before it. And one of the reasons is they simply don't have the capacity, the ability to hear many cases every year because they're only one of them. And so they only hear cases that have a real debate to them about constitutional law, something that may change the way we think and look about the Constitution, the way we change the case, the only hear case that changes the way we think about our rights and the law. That's the only kinds of cases they hear. So if we go back to the district court for a second, within the district court there are two divisions. There's a criminal division and a civil division. The criminal division hears criminal cases and that's where the example of somebody who is arrested in Brooklyn on the charge of drug dealing, on the charge of violating federal drug laws. That's a criminal case because you're talking about violating a criminal law that was passed by the government. Criminal cases of a prosecutor and a defendant. The prosecutor is the person who's acting on behalf of the government to defend the law and to try to put the person who is believed to have broken the law in jail. The prosecutor in a federal case is called the U.S. Attorney. In a state case, the prosecutor would be called the district attorney, the district attorney of Brooklyn and district attorney of Queens, the district attorney of the Bronx or Staten Island. At the federal level, the prosecutor is called a U.S. Attorney. And just like federal judges, U.S. attorneys are appointed by the president, not for life, for four-year terms in office. U.S. attorneys are appointed by the president and the defendant is the person who is being charged with the crime. So the person who is arrested on suspicion of violating federal drug laws is the defendant. Civil cases do not involve criminal law. Civil cases involve what we call a tort. A tort is a rule in the law that governs people's private behavior. And these are rules that allow you to sue if you believe that someone has violated this private behavior to your detriment. So for example, one tort is liability. So let's say, for example, and I'll use an example, a more local example, let's say I'm liability negligence would be a tort, the example I'm using. So let's say tomorrow morning I go to Trader Joe's to do my shopping, to do some grocery shopping. And in the juice aisle, and as I'm walking, I slip and fall because someone had knocked over a glass bottle of juice that broke on the floor and spilled juice out. And as I'm walking by, I slip on the juice, I fall and I break my leg. And later on I find out that that broken bottle of juice had been laying on the floor there for an hour before I fell. So I could sue Trader Joe's the tort of negligence and liability and say that they were negligent, meaning they were irresponsible and not careful to clean up that juice as soon as it broke. And because they didn't, that they put me in harm's way and that because I was injured because of their recklessness and their uncarefulness, their carelessness, that any injury that I have because of that, they are responsible for monetarily. They are responsible for paying my doctor's bills. They are responsible for paying me money now for work that I might miss because I'm injured. And I could also sue them for what's called pain and suffering. So they pay me money because as a result of the injury, I sustained a lot of pain above the money that I put out and have to be compensated for. So there are two types of injuries here, compensatory damages and pain and suffering. So that's the kind of thing here that you would talk about. Another tort would be, you know, contracts. So if I, to give you an example of federal law, let's say I'm a business and I sign a contract with the federal government to sell certain goods to the federal government, a certain amount of money. And then when I get paid, I don't believe that I got paid everything I'm owed so I can sue the federal government for my belief that they violated the contract and so we can go before a judge and a jury and ask the judge and jury to decide who's right and who's wrong and whether I, the person doing the suing, called the plaintiff, if I'm right or if the defendant, the person I'm suing, is right. And if I'm right, if the court rules that I'm right, if the jury decides that I'm right, then they can order the defendant to pay me the money they think I'm owed for either of a difference in the contract of what I think I'm owed or in the case of me getting injured, how much money owed for compensatory damages to make up for what I lost or what I had to pay for doctors bills or pain and suffering, whatever they think I'm owed because I got hurt. Those are the two types of cases that are conducted in the district court, criminal cases and civil cases. So beyond that, what district courts do is resolve matters of fact and what do I mean by matters of fact? What happened? So in the case of a criminal case, let's say a person who's arrested in Brooklyn on suspicion of violating drug laws, the jury and the court will have to decide whether or not the person's guilty or not. That's a matter of fact. Did the person commit the crime they're being charged with? And that's the jury's decision to decide whether or not the person is guilty or not guilty. The judge in a district court, and there's only one judge in this trial, is only there to be a referee, is only there to be an expert of the law to decide the rules to make sure that the rules of the law are followed in how the case is handled but the actual decision about whether the person is guilty or not is done by the jury. In the civil case, it's the jury that decides, am I owed money or not? Was I injured because of the other person's negligence? Yes or no? And that again is a matter of fact. In the courts of appeal, you're not talking about resolving matters of fact, you're talking about resolving or deciding matters of law. And in the example I used before, the matter of law in a criminal case would be, did the judge in the district court correctly rule that the drug should be presented as evidence or not? So that's not a matter of law. I mean, that's not a matter of fact for a jury, a group of non-lawyers to decide, but that is instead a decision for judges, experts in law. And so that's why in a court of appeals you don't have a jury, you don't have a trial, you have a group of judges. And it could be the three, five, seven, nine, always a non-number of judges because they all hear the case and then they all decide what they think is the resolution. And then whoever, if it's a group of three judges, if two say yes and one say no, then whoever is in the majority wins. If two judges say yes, the judge was right to allow the drugs to be in evidence, then that's the ruling. If two say no, then that's the ruling. If two say yes and one say no, then the yeses win because that's the majority. So district courts hand down matters of fact by jury, courts of appeals resolve matters of law, and those are decisions handed down by judges not a jury. It's the same for the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court doesn't do trials, doesn't hear matters of fact, they hear matters of law, and then all the judges, all the justices on the Supreme Court have their own vote and then decide. Today there are nine justices on the Supreme Court. Throughout American history there have been less, but now there are nine. So the Constitution doesn't specify that there are nine, but today there are nine. There could be more or less in the future if Congress decided to either increase or decrease the size of the Supreme Court, but today there are nine justices on the Supreme Court. Okay, so as I said before, the Supreme Court only takes a small amount of cases that it is asked to consider. The Supreme Court accepts appeals from the appellate court, so it's primarily not a court of original jurisdiction because it doesn't hear cases first and only hears cases that have been heard by other levels of the court system, mainly the appellate court, and as I said before, the Supreme Court only takes cases where important constitutional issues are at stake. The only instance where the Supreme Court does hear arguments under original jurisdiction where hears cases first is where there's an argument between two states. And that has happened in the past, doesn't happen often, but it has happened. Roughly 25 years ago the state of New Jersey sued the state of New York. And the case that it sued about had to do with Liberty Island, the island that the Statue of Liberty is built on. And the state of New Jersey sued New York State because it believed that Liberty Island is a part of New Jersey. It once was part of New Jersey. If you go back all the way to the early years of the United States, Liberty Island was part of New Jersey, but today it's part of New York. And New Jersey was trying to argue, and it was not successful, but it argued that the contract where New Jersey gave New York control over the island, ownership of Liberty Island, was made under duress. And under the law, if a contract is made under duress, if a contract is not entered into willingly, it's not a valid contract. You cannot force someone to make a contract with you. Both sides have to willingly and freely enter into it. And so New Jersey tried to argue to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court ruled against New Jersey that New Jersey was under duress when it turned over control of Liberty Island to New York State. Why is that such a big deal? Why was this supposed to be a big deal at the time? Because whoever controls Liberty Island also controls the concessions, the gift shop, and the entrance fee to the Statue of Liberty. And that's millions of dollars a year, and that all gets taxed. And because the Statue of Liberty and Liberty Island are in New York, all that tax money goes to New York State. So New Jersey wanted to reclaim control of the Statue of Liberty in order to get control of all this tax money. So that's the kind of case that the Supreme Court will hear directly as a case of original jurisdiction. Whereas most cases come to the Supreme Court up through the district courts, through the Pell Court, and then to the Supreme Court. So the Supreme Court is mostly a court of appellate jurisdiction except when it comes to hearing arguments between two states. So the Supreme Court operates very differently from other courts because it is not banned by precedent. They can make new precedent. What is a precedent? A precedent is a legal habit where you respect decisions that have been made in the past. So for example, if a case goes to the appellate court about, for example, should drugs that are obtained from a certain type of warrant, or a warrant that had this kind of mistake on it, should those drugs be entered into evidence. The appellate court, when it looks at the case, can't just decide whatever it wants. It has to look at what the Supreme Court has ruled previously, what other courts have ruled previously, and then rule that same way. Meaning, according to the precedent that was set by the Supreme Court and other courts. The Supreme Court, however, can totally change and make a new precedent. So for example, if the Supreme Court, so for example, Supreme Court in 1973 said that the Constitution guarantees women the right to have an abortion under certain circumstances. But for the most part, states cannot prevent women from having an abortion in most circumstances. That was a really big decision that was made in 1973 in the case of Roe v. Wade. That was a very controversial decision that people are still arguing about today. Many people believe that the Supreme Court's decision was wrong, and that the Constitution does not actually protect a woman's right to have an abortion. And many people who disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision want the Supreme Court today to overturn Roe v. Wade and state that because the Constitution does not guarantee women the right to have an abortion, it is legal for states to pass laws that totally prohibit women from having an abortion. So the Supreme Court could do that because even though Roe v. Wade is the Supreme Court precedent, the Supreme Court itself is not bound by its own precedence. It can make new precedence. The Supreme Court next year could take an abortion case and rule that what the Supreme Court said in 1973 was totally wrong, and that the Constitution does not allow women to have an abortion, and so from now on states can ban abortion. And if that happened, many states probably would ban abortion. So this is a big deal, and that's why the Supreme Court's ability to make new precedent and not have to be bound by its own precedence is a really big deal, is a really big important power that the Supreme Court has to shape American law, American federal law, and American constitutional law. Okay, so as I said before, all federal judges are appointed by the president, and they are confirmed by the Senate. So the president will say to the Senate, this is the person I've picked for this to be a district court judge or an appellate court judge or a Supreme Court justice. And then the Senate will get to vote yes or no. If the Senate votes yes, then that person becomes a judge. If the Senate votes no, then that person doesn't become a judge and the president can turn around and appoint somebody else for that position. The confirmation process has become very political. As I said before, the fratting father did not want the courts to be political, but they'd become political. And the confirmation process itself has become very political. Just in the past three years, Donald Trump has nominated appointed two Supreme Court justices, two new Supreme Court justices. And in both cases, the Senate debate over those two Supreme Court nominees of President Trump have been very, very political, very controversial with Republicans totally supporting the president's nominees and for the most part Democrats totally not supporting the president's nominees. Supreme Court justices have two basic judicial ways of thinking. They have two basic ways of looking at the law and of shaping the law, of thinking about the law. One is called judicial restraint. One is called judicial activism. Judicial restraint is a type of thinking about the law that is a very conservative way of thinking about the law. That is the way of thinking that most Republican judges, judges who have been appointed by Republican presidents, think about the law. And so the way they think is basically embodied by the title judicial restraint. They think that judges should be very restrained in the way they think about the law, the way they interpret the law. That they should look exactly what the law says and not think about what's going on in the political world, not what's going on around society, not look at how society's changed. But simply look just at the law and say what the law means and stick to the precedent and stick to a tradition that if things are the way they've always been, that's the way they should always be and we should try to make the law grow with the way society's grown. Which is the way that judicial activism believes. So judicial activist judges believe that the law should grow to reflect the changes in society. That just because things have been done a certain way doesn't mean they should always be done a certain way. That things change and the law should change as society changes. And so judges who are judicial activists and they are mainly more liberal judges, judges who have been appointed by Democratic presidents, tend to think about the law more through the lens of judicial activism. And so I'll give you an example. One big legal change in the past 10, 15 years, the issue of gay marriage. So gay marriage became legal in the early 2000s, the mid 2000s I should say, when the state of Massachusetts became the first state to legally allow gay and lesbian couples to get married, legally in the state. And that decision was based on a court case that was brought in the before the state court system Massachusetts. And the top, the court case ended with the top Massachusetts court, their Supreme Court, their state Supreme Court, rolling that the Massachusetts Constitution required the state to allow gay marriage. Because the Massachusetts Constitution state constitution guarantees everyone what we call equal protection of the law. So according to the state constitution Massachusetts and this is also true for most state constitutions, like the state constitution New York, all the people living in the state have to be treated equally by the law. And so Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Supreme Court said that because state law allows people to get marriage license because marriage is a legal institution in states like Massachusetts, that that legal institution has to be open, not just to heterosexual couples, as was the case before this case in Massachusetts.  And so that was a big, big decision and then after that other states started slowly allowing gay marriage to be legal, either by court rulings or by the state legislative passing laws, which was the case here in New York, where in New York state gay marriage became legal when the state legislature in Albany decided to pass a law allowing gay and lesbian couples to be married in New York.  Because up to that point, at that point, there were still several states in the United States where gay marriage was still not legal. And so when the Supreme Court ruled that way, the US Supreme Court ruled that way, that made all these other state laws that still did not allow gay marriage to suddenly become unconstitutional. And that's why because of one of the things I talked about in the lecture on Chapter 2, the Constitution, the supremacy clause, when a Supreme Court ruling or federal conflicts with state law, the federal government's ruling in law trumps the state law. So now because of the Supreme Court ruling, every gay and lesbian couple, no matter where they live, has the right to be legally married in the United States. And so that court ruling is an example of judicial activism because the part of the Constitution that it relied on, the Equal Protection Clause, this idea that everyone has a right to be treated equally, never applied before to gay and lesbian couples. And so the Supreme Court in 2013 and state courts before that expanded the interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause to include gay and lesbian couples who are looking to get married. The Supreme Court justices both at the federal level and in states that who ruled that their constitutions did not protect gay marriage were operating on a more judicial straight way of thinking by saying well Equal Protection was never interpreted and never meant to apply to gay marriage before. So it shouldn't start now. We need to keep things the way they are. So that way of thinking, judicial straight versus judicial active is two very different ways of thinking about the very same piece of law, the Equal Protection Clause in constitutions that say you have to treat everyone equally. So you can take one law that's written the same way for everybody and interpret in two very different ways depending on what kind of judge you are, whether you're a judge who believes in judicial restraint as a way of thinking about the law, or whether you're a judge who thinks about judicial activism as a way of thinking and because Supreme Court justices especially have this ability to change the way we interpret the Constitution and to make new precedent. Judges justices on the Supreme Court have a very, very important power and it's a power that they have for life unlike presidents who only serve for four years or members of Congress who only serve for two or six years. So that's why the judiciary, even though it was meant to be a smaller branch of government, is actually now a very powerful branch of government. And that's the end. I'll see you for our next lecture, our next chapter, which is going to be on civil rights and civil liberties.


Hello, welcome you all to today's lecture. As we saw in the last class that we looked at various aspects of the allyl saline chemistry particularly in an intramolecular fashion where the major emphasis was on the stability of the beta carbocation. And that allowed as we saw for the first time there was a multi-component reaction where we had the oxonium cope rearrangement as one of the important steps where we were able to convert and a vinyl saline to the corresponding allyl saline via a cope rearrangement and then that undergoes the allyl saline based reaction in an intramolecular fashion to give the product after off-cyclization. In a similar fashion we saw Sakurai reaction in an intramolecular fashion, Sakurai intramolecular fashion and that led to the conjugate addition and leading to a bicyclic molecule. In a similar fashion we saw different types of carbocation that can be formed especially say for example the ketals that lead to upon reaction with a Lewis acid lead to the formation of this type of intermediate where this carbon is now electrophilic carbon and to which now in an intramolecular fashion the for example if you have a substrate allyl saline attached to this then of course we can think about that this allyl saline intramolecularly can react to allow the cyclization to take place in this fashion here. And then of course we get the cyclic product, so you have a cyclic product form. So like this we also saw the ammonium ion to be formed and then ammonium ion could be then reacted in an intramolecular fashion where you have allyl saline in a way that led to the bicyclic products and then we saw two natural products which we discussed in detail. Now we will see the remaining aspects of allyl saline based chemistry for some other interesting reactions. For example if we take a diene of this type where the silicon carbon bond is attached at the end of the diene and if we take a dienophile like this then as you know that diene and a dienophile undergo a Diels-Odder reactions. So this is basically a Diels-Odder reaction which Diels-Odder reaction. Now the dienophile is symmetrical dienophile this particular dienophile is symmetrical dienophile so it does not really matter which way the diene is oriented. And once the reaction occurs then of course as you can see that you have here the carbon silicon bond which is now alpha oriented when this reacts with a proton or an electrophile then of course the electrophile reacts with this particular double bond and there are two possibilities. The possibilities are that whether the double bond reacts supposing we simply say that this is the part of the product that is here without worrying as far as the stereochemistry is concerned right now though there are two possibilities this double bond can react. One is that it gives the electrophile attachment at this particular end of the double bond here. So if this is the electrophile that is going to attach then of course silicon will be here and the positive charge will be here. Now this positive charge is very far off and therefore there is no specific reason why this carbocation will be stabilized. On the other hand if the electrophile attaches on to this end of the double bond so if we have the attachment of the electrophile here then you generate a beta ecotin like this where now as you can easily appreciate that this is the alpha position and this is the beta position and therefore there is a beta carbocation stability. So this particular carbocation is here where you have a beta carbocation stability leading to the product that as we have seen it here. So now as we can see that the electrophile attaches opposite to the carbon silicon bond as we have discussed it last time also that the attachment takes place on the opposite phase and therefore the since the carbon silicon bond is alpha oriented here it is alpha oriented and therefore the electrophile attaches from the beta phase. And of course the junction and all that is decided by the rules of the Diels-Alder based reaction. Now we can also take another example in which there is a very interesting cyclization of this kind where the allylsilane is inbuilt as you can see it from here and then that leads after the aldehyde chelates or coordinates with the tin tetrachloride it forms an isomerate which will be then attached by the gamma carbon here this is alpha gamma this is beta and this is the alpha and therefore the attachment takes place from this side in this fashion and via this carbocation here. Now how does this reaction occur we can try and see that how this particular part undergoes as cyclization here. So we can think about that we have here something like this. So you have a five membered ring here where there is a hydrogen and then of course we have this here there is a hydrogen here. So this is the alpha hydrogen this is the beta hydrogen and this is what the silicon based things come. So once the Lewis acid coordinates here so you have a essential 4 for example here you have a positive charge and the negative charge here and then this is position number 1 here position number 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. So this is the 6 member transition state which we can write it here here. So now when the reaction occurs you have this is what is coming here and this is what is happening here. Now this is the intermediate that is formed as you can see that when the reaction occurs between this 1 carbon atom number 1 and the carbon number atom 6 the carbonyl group is oriented below which is what is alpha oriented here and the hydrogen is beta oriented so this is what is the hydrogen which is correct. And once this carbon number 1 and carbon number 6 they interact with each other is a positive charge at the carbon number 2 this is the carbon number 2 this is the carbon number 1. So this is carbon number 1 this is carbon number 2 which is beta to the silicon and therefore there is an orientation between the carbon silicon sigma bond and the p orbital they have a such an orientation that they can easily overlap and then they can stabilize the beta carbocation and thus that leads to the product formation like this. Now we can also do one thing that we can start with a molecule of this type and react with an alpha beta unsaturated ketone in the presence of pupress iodide to form this intermediate which upon treatment with a Lewis acid leads to the formation of this cyclopentane derivative. This Gignard agent can be prepared from this vinyl bromide upon it moves with magnesium and then when this Gignard agent reacts with pupress iodide this cuprate is formed. This cuprate then reacts with the alpha beta unsaturated ketone in a Michael addition fashion to form this intermediate and when this intermediate reacts with the Lewis acid like this the Lewis acid interacts with the oxygen making this carbon electrophilic then double bond reacts with this particular carbon atom from the gamma end because then a ketone will form at the beta position which is beta to the silicon and thus there is a beta silicon effect that is driving this reaction to eventually make this particular cyclopentane derivative. Now formation of this kind of cyclopentane molecules reminds of the 3 plus 2 cyclo addition strategy using parallel palladium complex. Now we take a compound like this instead of a Gignard reagent and this particular molecule has an allyl acetate part as well as allyl silane part and when this is reacted with an alpha beta unsaturated ketone in the presence of palladium 0 like this then of course we get a product like this. Now we can understand that in case this particular starting material is reacted with palladium 0 then acetate acts as a living group and the palladium 0 form say what is called as a pi allyl palladium complex and the x minus basically is an acetate ion which has come out from here then reacts with the silicon and generating a thai banan here. So maybe we can consider this particular species when x minus removes the silicon to be equivalent to this kind of 1 3 dipole because there is a double bond and of course there is a positive charge because the acetate has gone therefore this can be considered to be as an allyl cation and this silicon carbon bond is broken therefore we can consider this as an anion. So basically this particular part represents as a 1 3 dipole which adds on to alpha beta unsaturated ketone in this particular fashion to form this cyclopentane derivative. In a similar fashion if we take an inbuilt allyl acetate and allyl silane and of course an alpha beta unsaturated system like this and if we treat with palladium 0 then we get this kind of bicyclic molecule already there is a enough number of carbons to make a cyclopentane on the left hand side and the right hand side part anyway leads to the formation of a cyclopentane derivative and thus we get a bicyclic molecule like this having two cyclopentane rings. We can imagine that this particular part of the molecule here can a bond treatment with palladium 0 leads to this 1 3 dipole the way we have shown it here and thus the negative charge then attacks on to this alpha beta unsaturated system and eventually it closes to form the 5 member ring. Now how does the pi l l palladium complex formation occur? When we have an allyl compound of this kind which has a leaving group like x, x-canbin acetate chlorine bromine or iodine and when palladium 0 interacts with this kind of allyl compound there is coordination as the first step that means the double bond interacts with the palladium to form this kind of pi complex or the coordinated molecule. Then there is an oxidative addition between this carbon x bond to form this species in which the inversion occurs that means the carbon palladium bond forms from the opposite side to this carbon x bond leading to the formation of this kind of species where the palladium is now in palladium 2 oxidation state. Now we can write this particular species in this kind of pi l l palladium intermediate type where the complex is of eta 3 type. Now there is a ligand exchange x goes as x- making the palladium as positively charged and of course a neutral ligand like l which is a triphenyl phosphine in many of these cases then eventually forms this pi l l palladium complex like this with a positive charge on the palladium and also palladium being in oxidation state of 2. Now nucleophile then adds from the opposite side in such a way that again inversion occurs accompanied by reductive elimination. So eventually what happens is that the carbon x bond which is gone is then substituted by a carbon nucleophile either on the same carbon or on the other side depending on the structure of the molecule eventually leading to another inversion that means in all there is a retention of configuration overall. So there is a net retention as we can see it here. Now during this reductive elimination process then of course the palladium 0 comes off and of course that will have a coordination with the double bond as we had in the beginning and then the final product is released and along with the regeneration of palladium 0. Now we can imagine that although this all involves a highly stereoselective transformation but we can say that in in nutshell what is happening is that this allyl x moiety which has a x as a leaving group eventually forms a cation to which palladium 0 interacts to form this pylyl palladium complex and then of course the nucleophile adds on to this pylyl palladium complex but the main process that takes place is as shown here. Now if we take a molecule like this as we discussed earlier then of course we can imagine that this pylyl palladium complex formation occurs just the way I have shown here or the way we have seen it here then of course we get this pylyl palladium complex and then the acetate ion which has come out in the case of pylyl acetate then takes the silicon from here generating this kind of anion and of course that undergoes 2 plus 3 cycloaddition. So this is how the reaction occurs and of course in this particular case as we discussed that the positive charge of course can keep on shifting or the negative charge keep on shifting. So you have a pylyl palladium complex say you have pylyl palladium complex here and this can be written up equal to something of this kind. So you have a negative charge here and a positive charge here after the acetate has taken away the carbon the carbon silicon bond being broken and something like that is formed and the positive charge is here. This can also be written up as though equal to negative charge being here the negative charge being here and the positive charge here and of course we can also think about CO2ET here or this can be written up equal to and the negative charge here and this is what undergoes in cycloaddition forming the final product. So basically it is nothing but and all these cases the allyl cation is stabilized by the positive palladium 0 or the palladium species which is formed. Now it is also seen that the palladium reactions can also be quite useful in C-C bond formation in a slightly different way. For example, if we can start with a substrate like this which does not have any silicon but the only reason I am mentioning about it is that it can allow C-C bond formation using the same concept of pylyl palladium complex. As you can see it here that the acetate is beta oriented and therefore the pylyl palladium complex forms from the alpha side. So you have here the ester group which is present here and the pylyl palladium complex formation will occur from the alpha side alpha oriented and then to that the nucleophile which is nothing but this particular nucleophile this attacks from opposite to the alpha side that is from the beta side and that leads to the formation of the product. That means it is like retention of the stereochemistry where the acetate had attached. And opposite of that is in this case since the acetate is from the alpha side the palladium attaches from the beta side and then the nucleophile again comes opposite to the carbon palladium bond. So that is basically a retention of configuration. So here you have the stereochemistry being now in a similar fashion here but now what you have is a beta orientation of the carbon palladium bond and that leads to the formation of the see nucleophile here that leads to the formation of the nucleophile being here. So it is not the geometry of this particular ester group is important. What is important is is the orientation of the allyl acetate in both the cases and as you can see that the reaction of the palladium zero is highly stereo specific because it is an SN2 prime type of reaction eventually. Now we can also see that we can react the allyl saline in a nucleophilic fashion also. Not only allyl saline reacts with an electrophile but also in the Lewis acid medium but also we can make the reaction to undergo if you use fluoride ions. So you have a F- and a positive charge here. So F- takes the carbon silicon bond breaks and generates the anion here. So it is the chemistry of anion not cation. So now what you have is a enone of this type where you have now oriented an allyl anion because the silicon fluorine bond strength is quite high. Therefore, fluoride ion immediately reacts with the silicon and silicon carbon bond breaks because fluorine silicon bond strength is much higher than the carbon silicon bond. And once this happens then you have an intramolecular cyclization that leads to the formation of this particular bicyclic intermediate. Now we will stop it at this particular stage and take up the silicon based chemistry particularly vinyl saline based chemistry in the next class. Till then you can go over whatever I have discussed it today and then we will look at the other aspects of silicon based chemistry in the next class. Till then bye and take care. Thank you.


Well, I just finished doing a tour of the facility here. We're at Brentwood Town Center with Mod Electric. I had the opportunity to meet women in the trades. Women play a really vital role in our economy. They're half of the population and so they should represent half of the workforce and and that's at all levels, right? At the entry level up to the executive level. We see more young ladies getting interested and involved. My daughter's involved in our company and she's very supportive of as many women as she can get into the company. So the company moving ahead to another generation of leadership, you've got somebody there that's got a pretty good vested interest. I'm a first year apprentice. I enjoy it because wiring is kind of like a puzzle to me and I like it. It's nice to see a lot of women in the trades more now than there was.


First off, thank you. Thank you for inviting me. Thank you for the kind words. I am excited to be here. It's a pleasure to say that I am a part of this organization. So first off, thank you to everybody that's here right now. For me playing against Liberty last year. I saw a shift in the culture. That was for sure. The way that they played, you know, high octane basketball, playing both sides of the ball. A lot of young talent that was very, you know, lively and you can see that they were invested in winning and, and like I said, changing that culture. So for me, I wanted to be a part of that. Obviously, great coaching staff.  And so, yeah, I just wanted to be a part of that and to be in the city like New York, you know, it speaks for itself. I don't really have to say much about that. So, all together just felt like the right move. I know it's the right move for this chapter in my life. Appreciate your time and insight. Thank you. And I have a question for Jonathan and Sandy.  How important was it to surround Sabrina with a proven and a downright historic talent like John Quill as we go into the proverbial so important third year of a franchise based career. Yeah, I think for me, anytime you have a chance to get somebody like this right here, you jump at that. You have to. Players like John Quill do not become available very often. So the idea of pairing her with Sabrina is really exciting. And I think they're going to be a dynamic duo for a long time. I really do. Great to see so many familiar faces. This is a really great day to welcome JJ I've admired her for so many years and now I get to coach her so really, I mean I'm super excited. Glad that she's super excited and she chose New York but look Sabrina I think you saw the development of her game last year I think her and Natasha did great the pick and roll game, but now we're adding another player of the caliber of JJ. You know obviously she's a stretch for she can play inside she can play outside she's great in the pick and roll she's a facilitator. So when you've got really two great players on the court how the teams got it, you know that that makes it a little harder to chess game. But look I think the upside I spoke to JJ I think the sky's the limit for her. And that's our goal is continue to improving her game with the players that we have here and she's just a perfect fit so we're super excited to have her here. Ben Pickman from the athletic has gone to Jay back here. What's going on. Before looking, you know, at some of the Liberty perspective I do have to ask about Connecticut, you know, there was a report that you did request this trade I was wondering, you know, what was the, I don't know the straw that broke the camel's back or what led you to want to change in direction in your career. Yeah, you know, obviously I've been, or was in Connecticut for the entirety of my career until this point. And for me I felt like it was just time for a change time for a new chapter. If you go back to any of the, you know, Connecticut front office you know we had that conversation about me stepping into a new chapter in my career. Obviously bubble season happened I didn't play. We had some injuries in Connecticut at the time. And so for me last year was like okay let's see what this team looks like full straight, fully healthy. But I came into that season knowing that it will probably be my last in Connecticut. But I wanted to give it my all and I wanted to see what that team looked like and what it felt like. Obviously we didn't accomplish what we want to accomplish. This is a new chapter but I'm ultimately I knew that for my growth as a, as an athlete and as a person I wanted to be able to step into a new situation. Coming to a new organization and better myself so definitely something that took a long time to think about but I'm happy that I chose New York and I'm happy New York chose me. We're going to go to Jackie next. Hey all Jackie pal with the next good to see all of you sorry if I'm doing this the sun's just in my eye. I'm going to start with JJ. Okay. You are a player who has had a lot of experience in the playoffs, and this is a roster that you're entering that you know, they've, they've had an elimination game they've had a first round series and so my question for you is, with the amount of playoff experience and the amount of playoff heartbreak that you've had. How, I guess, do you think you're going to grow as a leader, you know with all that experience you've had, giving that to this young group of players. I'm great question. I think I'm going to, you know, drive in that role and I'm extremely excited to be in that role to be able to, you know, help the younger players and be a voice of reason, whatever they need to talk about I'm here. And, you know, being in Connecticut, I can, you know, tell them firsthand that you may think that you have more opportunities but no opportunity as important as the one that you have before you right then right now. And so I think that's going to be extremely important is getting, you know, letting them understand that every opportunity matters and every chance you get to step on the court is opportunity to play your best and, you know, the future is not promised. So in order for us to maximize our potential play at the level that we know that we're going to be capable of playing that which is a very high level. We're going to have to be willing to sacrifice and play hard every game. I appreciate that and for Jonathan and Sandy, you know, with with JJ on this team, I'm curious about how the identity of this team changes the narrative in the past couple years has been that this is a gritty group, you know, that's underestimated and that works hard. You had someone that's so talented, like JJ. How do you imagine, I guess the identity staying the same but also changing. Well I think it elevates everything you spoke about. I mean to be a championship winning team, you look at the best teams like what did Vegas do well. Okay, like for us I've spoken about playing great defense. You know, she's been in all defensive teams. She's one of the greatest rebounders in the WNBA that helps our game already. You know, and we want to make sure that we're putting the right people around her. We've got, you know, obviously JJ, but we also got Kayla Thornton this deal. And, you know, she defensive rating last year is, you know, I think she was seventh in the league. That's quite impressive. She's got that toughness. So we're getting players together that compliment each other. You know, we still want to play basketball in the right way. You know, it's playing at both ends of the floor committing to be not just a great player but a great teammate. That's how we achieve all the goals that we've set out in front of us.  And, you know, we've made progress, but we want to make we want to win. So that's the goal of not just the New York Liberty but every organization. And look, that's signing JJ's to help us that first step to get closer, you know, to achieving that but a lot of hard work needs to go in it before we can get there. All right, we're going to go to zoom very quickly and then we'll come back to the room in a vocal. We're ready for you. Yeah, thank you. I appreciate it. I have a question for JJ and then one for Jonathan. JJ, I know you were trying to win Connecticut's first championship and I know that meant a lot to you. You guys came close. What would it mean to you to help New York, an original WNBA franchise when a first championship. Oh man, that would, that would be amazing. That would be amazing. Everybody knows that New York is a basketball city. You know, people love, love the game, even when we just being here. I went to the grocery store. People are talking about it already about winning the championship. You know, I go to get something to eat people to talk to me about it. So, you know, they're really excited about it and it would mean everything to me to be able to bring a championship here to New York but also I think it would mean a lot to the WNBA for the league and its and so yeah, I'm excited about it and I know that you know we can get there and you know we keep working hard every day is definitely something that we can achieve so I'm really excited about the opportunity to be able to do that. And Jonathan just how big this move is which is enormous free agency is still coming up. Can you just talk about the fact that the Liberty may not be done in terms of what the how different the franchise may look going into this next season. Yeah, I don't happy to talk about it a little bit. I know this answer will draw groans from from here to Syracuse but it's not five o'clock yet and we don't official for agency list so look, we're going to be really aggressive I think we're helping on bringing a championship here it's what we've said from 2019 and we're going to say it every single year but I think we've proven that we're willing to be aggressive and we will continue to do that and so we're very excited at the opportunity to add talent and we'll see how this plays out over the next few weeks. Thank you appreciate it. Hi John Quill Owen Pence with Winciter and that's Republic welcome to New York outside of the basketball element of things what excites you most about coming to the city. Oh wow.  I think the opportunities are endless. And I think that was one of the biggest things that excited me. And you know I think, you're on my brand to like, not, you know not shine away from that and understand that it's an area that I can grow in and know being able to do that as well. Have you had any good meals here yet or experiences yet or I guess I've just been trying to get settled but you know they have they have some some some fish in the back for me they have some wabbit up so I was very impressed to see that already so yeah I already know it's going to be good food so I definitely got to stay in the gym when I'm up here. Thank you. Hi John Quill miles are like with Winciter and that's Republic. With Sabrina and Marine, this team has two of the most creative pick and roll guards in the W. So having seen that from the other side. How do you project their ability to draw and read defenses will open up the floor and help your game. Yeah I think it's going to be amazing I think everybody's going to eat off of us being able to thrive in a pick and roll. I think defenses are definitely going to have to respect them. You know players that are known to be able to score at a high clip. Like you said be able to create their own offense so I think it's just going to open up things for everybody and is definitely going to be mutually beneficial so yeah like I've been saying the whole time. I'm excited. And Sandy great to see you last season the team struggled at times with consistency so how do how does adding players like John Quill and Kayla Thornton just take a step towards addressing that challenge. Yeah, I mean I think the consistency thing that all basketball teams try to achieve don't they and I think when you get someone with Kayla and JJ's experience that helps it's a settling they've been in these big moments before. We relatively had a young team although we did have a lot of injuries to that we had to overcome. But you know for us is more about what do we need to do to be better. You know we can't be happy with what we've done we made progress but. Okay, let's let's get better and you know obviously Jonathan I we speak and I hear him all the time about what do we need to do and you know we're very lucky and happy that JJ chose us. We went to many other different teams but she chose us because I think she sees the vision that we have set out and and you know we think we can make her even better player than what she is and she's an amazing player already. So excited about you know integrating her with the core group that we do have and as you said you're free agency we still want to keep being aggressive and continue to build this into a championship winning team that players name the names of players doesn't have it's more about coming together and building the teamwork that we need to be great and JJ's had opportunities to play in WNBA finals and I think that experience will help us as we move forward. Hi Meredith cash insider I'll start with you JJ welcome to New York. You know, free agency and more generally player movement around the WNBA is still a relatively new thing for this league. I'm curious what it's been like to see that progression and you know see your own name in you know WNBA Twitter rumors and just chatter throughout the off season. I think for me. Like I was, I was telling some of the front office members here like I'm pretty bad with my phone right so like I think for me it's it's beneficial though right people hate it sometimes they're trying to reach me and I'm not picking up my phones I just kind of like I'll rest it down somewhere and it may be hours before I pick it up again and so I feel like it's kind of helped me manage this whole process really well. For me it kind of was really quiet like obviously I requested the trade and person was you know me having meetings with teams and you know talking to coaches and really seeing how I would fit in with the core groups that all the teams had. Then I made the decision and you know we were talking about having a press conference and you know just letting everything come, I guess naturally are the way it's supposed to go and then like it breaks on Instagram and it's like craziness just complete frenzy craziness like, and I think that's when my phone just started going crazy and you know I hit up my agent and I'm like well can I talk about it now like everybody's talking about it on social media he's like well it's not official so no so I'm like, I'm just sitting there just scrolling and seeing stuff. And I'm like this is crazy everybody else is talking about it but the person who's in the trade can post and say anything. So, it was definitely interesting. But I'm happy for the league that you know that we can get to this point in that player movement is something you know that draws the buzz and excitement and ultimately grows the league and you know for the New York franchise like I said I'm happy because I feel like it's going to be not just important for the organization but important for the WNBA. I just wanted to follow up with Sandy and Jonathan here. You know, end of season press conferences last year where there was an emphasis on free agency and what this team could be this year. But correct me if I'm wrong I didn't think JJ was part of that conversation. When did you know that this was going to be a possibility and what was the process like to bring her into the fall. Yeah, so I'm trying to really retrace this because it seems like a blur to be honest with you. It really does. And it seems like it took a long time to be fair. I mean one backstory I have, you know we always prepare for free agency well in advance you never know what's going to happen I've had a John Quill Liberty Jersey in my office for a year, but I'm not kidding because I thought before last year, she got court I thought hey maybe we'll take a run I've literally had that in my office all year all season. And when we heard after the season that there may be movement. We threw a hat in the ring right away as you would imagine, probably every team in the league did. And the process was simply that we got on a call with with our coaching staff and with JJ myself, Ohima and Sabrina actually, and we had a conversation about what this can be and how special it can be. As you, you all asked earlier about winning in New York, there is nothing like that we want to do that so we jumped at that chance and, like I said that the transaction itself and the negotiations, it goes a million different directions and I still probably haven't slept but now now I won't sleep just because of excitement so that's that's pretty much how it went down. Great ideas hi JJ New York City has a very big West Indian population, we're both of West Indian descent. How would you like the New York Liberty Liberty to celebrate us and also the league. Well, you know, that was one of the big things that actually drew me to New York as well. I kind of had like a list of teams and after I spoke with spoke with them on a zoom call and on the marketing team date. That was an emphasis for them before I even said anything to them it was like the West Indian culture what can we do. How can we tie it in and so for me it just, you know, I can tell that they took the time to really think about where I was from and you know the communities and the people that we can impact which is also extremely important to me so. You know, obviously, the behavior consulate general is here right now, and it means a lot to the Bahamas but it also means a lot to the West Indian community so I'm all airs and I'm open to anything that we can do but the marketing team has already been on that and so, like I said that's what drew me here. You know games for West Indian people, definitely the food, you know, whatever we can do, we're going to try to do it. Absolutely. One more thing that suit is clean by the way. Thank you. My second question is from a season ticket holder daydream who I know you will meet at some point. What are some of the things that you're looking forward to actually doing here, or what is what are some of the things that you like to do here. We have to know. Yeah I mean, for years I've been trying this is going to seem really like touristy but for years I've been trying to watch like the Lion King on Broadway. So I'm like I'm just like waiting for the time that I can actually go. My girlfriend went without me so it's been a popular topic that you know I'm upset with her about that but so we get to go now. Just just exploring the city and really seeing what it means to, you know, be a New Yorker because I've always done the touristy things. And so just really kind of getting it from that more. What's the word authentic point of view in terms of you know being a New Yorker and I think I want to definitely be more immersed in like the sports culture to like going to games and stuff this. I love baseball games I love basketball games and to say that I'm a part of a city like that now and I'm really excited for, you know, coming from a smaller market. I feel like it's endless in my mind is just like constantly thinking of things to do but I'm going to be out there for sure. All right, we're going to quickly go to zoom. Any constable. This question is for JJ. Hey JJ any constable from the Sun Times in Chicago. We asked a question I may ask a question about free agency but obviously it opens up tomorrow how are you approaching your role recruiting players who have been linked to the Liberty already. Anything that the organization needs me to do I'm there you know obviously we want to put on put our best foot forward and and you know I'm all in on whatever they want to do but as of right now like he said we haven't really done anything it hasn't started yet but when it does will be there. Appreciate it thank you. Mark Schindler. Hey JJ really nice to see you. So, Sandy mentioned as well and you've mentioned to in terms of taking the next step with your game. When you're thinking through that you know envisioning what it's like playing with sad and just being in a more space that offense what what kind of things are you thinking through or envisioning maybe being that next step for you. Yeah, I think you know one of the things that we talked about with the coaching staff is just me being a little bit more efficient. I think that's going to really open up the game me just being able to know roll a little bit quicker understand how to space it out. I think all of those things are going to open the court up. Obviously, like I said before Sabrina is going to be able to you know creator on shot find me in the right time right space. And so I'm really excited about that and I think the attention that I draw was going to allow her to be able to be successful as well. And Jonathan for you. You know we just spoke recently about you know some of the difficulties of being a GM and going through some of the player management. When you are inversely you know from talking to JJ when you have to call back Alan and let her know she's being traded or letting Chris Chris danger field know like what is that like as much as you can kind of let us know. Yeah, that's a good question. I'll keep some of that private just from the sense of, you know, just personal relationships with those calls are really difficult. One thing I think I'm proud of is that people, people want to be here and so it is hard to break that news to them. But what I will say is everyone was a professional on those calls, and they they understood the business side of this which gets said a lot, but I really have to emphasize this isn't fantasy basketball it's real people on the other side of these transactions they matter. They want to be here and things like that so. Yeah, doing those calls it is tough but it is part of it, and it's part of getting better as a team. Awesome thank you guys. All right, lastly we're going to go to Sasha light born on zoom. Good afternoon I JJ. Right here my first question is actually for Jonathan Jonathan do you understand that you have actually accepted an entire country on your mouth now. We're, we're thrilled. Yeah, so the entire Bahamas is now a part of the New York Liberty. And my question for JJ JJ, you know, I saw you in Connecticut you're now in New York. What, how will you get and I'm sure it's going to be so much easier to get to New York from the Bahamas because there, there are many direct flights. What would you say the behaviors now who have never had an opportunity to watch you play in person and just try to encourage them to come out to some of your games. Yes, I would say that, like you said it's a lot of direct flights. So you know start booking the tickets. You know this the schedule is already out. It's right there you can Google it. And we're ready we're excited to have as many behemoths as possible let's pack the house. Let's show up and let's be proud because I think the product that we're going to put out there is going to be really, really great. I would love for behemoths to be a part of that but um yeah this is the New York Bahamas.


Today, we're making lemon cheesecake cups that are gluten-free. In my last video, we made lemon curd and you're going to want to check that out, I'll leave a link for you in the description and we're going to use that in this recipe. It is very quick and easy to make and it's delicious and it has just the right amount of sweet and tart flavor. You're going to love it. With our lemon cheesecake cups that we're making today, there is no baking involved. We're just going to mix it all up. It's very quick and easy and we'll pop it in the fridge and it's good to go. I'm also going to show you the best graham crackers to use that are gluten-free because I've tried quite a few different brands and I've come down to the very best one that you want to use. Alright, I'm Rockin' Robin and I'm going to show you how to do it right after my chef joke. The next person that asked me for some pineapple juice, cranberry juice, lemonade and a slice of orange all in the same glass, is going to get a punch. So to start with, this is what our cheesecake cups are going to look like. I'm using these plastic containers and they work great for individual servings and so we're going to need to make our crust there on the bottom that you see there and we only need two ingredients to do that. We're going to use some Kerrygold butter which is grass fed and we're going to use simple mills, sweet thins, honey, cinnamon, little graham crackers and they are the best I've ever had. And check out the ingredients here. They are really good. They're nice and clean and like I said these things taste really good. You want to pour those into a food processor and just grind them up so that they look nice and fine like this. And for the butter we're just going to place that in the microwave and I just melt it on say 30 seconds on power level 3 and then just stir it up and see how it is. So we'll pour those graham crackers into a bowl, add the butter and then just stir it until it looks like wet sand. You just want to make sure that all the graham crackers get moistened by the butter. So this adds a nice buttery flavor. Now we'll just add a nice heaping spoonful into the bottom of each cup. You're going to want to push the graham cracker crumbs down into the bottom of the cup. You know you can use the spoon, you can use your fingers, you can even use a glass to push them down. You don't have to pack it down really tight but just you know make it somewhat firm. Using a glass worked okay but I really found using my fingers to work the best for me. Now we're ready to start the cheesecake portion. Our first order of business here is to juice some mire lemons. If you can find mire lemons they are really the best ones to use for this recipe and they are in season between you know you can get them in the stores like between December and May. So we'll go ahead and juice about a half a cup worth of lemon juice.  Blend that up with a hand mixer or a kitchen aid until it's nice and creamy and fluffy. It always works best to leave your cream cheese out on the counter for a good half hour before you even start mixing so it can soften up. Now we need to add some vanilla extract to this and some salt to bring out some good flavor. Now to get some really good lemon flavor into this we're going to use that lemon curd that we made in the previous video so go ahead and add some of that. Here's that lemon juice that we squeezed a little bit earlier and let's give that a real good mix. And be sure to use a spatula to scrape down the bowl as you're mixing so everything gets really well combined. You want this mixture to end up nice and creamy and smooth. Now we need to sweeten this up with a little bit of powdered sugar so we're going to add it a little bit at a time. I think you can see that with each addition of sugar this mixture gets smoother and smoother. And now I'll just continue alternating between a little more lemon juice and a little more sugar until it's all mixed in. Once we get everything all mixed in we're going to set this aside and then we're going to mix up some whipping cream. It's time for Chef Joke number two. Who helped the lemon rob a bank? Is partner in line? Alright for our whipping cream I am using clover organic whipping cream here and it is in my opinion the best. Look at the ingredients. There's only one. I'm going to pour that into a large mixing bowl and then I'm going to add some vanilla extract and about a tablespoon of sugar. We're going to mix this on high speed until we get some nice stiff peaks. The whipping cream should look something like this nice and stiff and now we're going to add this. We're going to fold it into our lemon cheesecake filling. Now look at that. Doesn't that look really good? So here's how you fold something in alright. Pretty much start in the middle, scoop it up and just rotate it over and you do it gently so you don't deflate that whipping cream. Want it to stay nice and light and fluffy. So just keep going like this until everything looks gently mixed in. You're not going to see big globs of whipping cream because it's all going to be blended. Now we're ready to fill those cups. Isn't this one of the easiest desserts you've ever seen? I mean you just mix it all together and put it in the cups and then it goes in the refrigerator. This is a pretty rich dessert. Don't feel like you have to fill the cup up all the way. It's about 9 ounces which would be quite a bit of dessert and this is really rich and just decadent. So fill it up like I did here and then I topped it with a little more fresh lemon curd which is just incredible. Feel free to garnish these. Here I'm using blueberries on top but you could use strawberries you know whatever you like. Blackberries would be nice. You could even put a little mint leaf on there for some color and you're good to go. I took these lemon cheesecake cups to a Bunko party one time and I tell you they were a hit. Everybody loved them and we had a great time and really enjoyed eating them. So if you want to learn how to play Bunko with your friends and have a great time click the link on the screen and I'll show you how to do it. I hope you enjoyed today's video. If you did let me know by smashing the like button and leave me a comment down below. I'd love to hear from you. Alright we'll see you back here next week for another delicious and healthy recipe.