newspaper. “Bob’s been a voice for the peo- ple for so long, and so many listen- ers have called in to his show in their time of need,” said Jessica Wolfson, who with Paul Lovelace, ROBERT ALTMAN/MICHAEL OCHS ARCHIVES, VIA GETTY IMAGES produced and directed the “Radio Unnameable” documentary. “And now h

stions that are so fundamentally ambiguous or imprecise that the answer to them cannot legally be false. Id. at 372, 375; see also United States v. Wolfson, 437 F.2d 862, 878 (2d Cir. 1970). A question is fundamentally ambiguous only if reasonable people could not agree on its meaning in context. Lighte

stions that are so fundamentally ambiguous or imprecise that the answer to them cannot legally be false. Id. at 372, 375; see also United States v. Wolfson, 437 F.2d 862, 878 (2d Cir. 1970). A question is fundamentally ambiguous only if reasonable people could not agree on its meaning in context. Lighte

stions that are so fundamentally ambiguous or imprecise that the answer to them cannot legally be false. Id. at 372, 375; see also United States v. Wolfson, 437 F.2d 862, 878 (2d Cir. 1970). A question is fundamentally ambiguous only if reasonable people could not agree on its meaning in context. Lighte

stions that are so fundamentally ambiguous or imprecise that the answer to them cannot legally be false. Id. at 372, 375; see also United States v. Wolfson, 437 F.2d 862, 878 (2d Cir. 1970). A question is fundamentally ambiguous only if reasonable people could not agree on its meaning in context. Lighte

stions that are so fundamentally ambiguous or imprecise that the answer to them cannot legally be false. Id. at 372, 375; see also United States v. Wolfson, 437 F.2d 862, 878 (2d Cir. 1970). A question is fundamentally ambiguous only if reasonable people could not agree on its meaning in context. Lighte

stions that are so fundamentally ambiguous or imprecise that the answer to them cannot legally be false. Id. at 372, 375; see also United States v. Wolfson, 437 F.2d 862, 878 (2d Cir. 1970). A question is fundamentally ambiguous only if reasonable people could not agree on its meaning in context. Lighte

stions that are so fundamentally ambiguous or imprecise that the answer to them cannot legally be false. Id. at 372, 375; see also United States v. Wolfson, 437 F.2d 862, 878 (2d Cir. 1970). A question is fundamentally ambiguous only if reasonable people could not agree on its meaning in context. Lighte

stions that are so fundamentally ambiguous or imprecise that the answer to them cannot legally be false. Id. at 372, 375; see also United States v. Wolfson, 437 F.2d 862, 878 (2d Cir. 1970). A question is fundamentally ambiguous only if reasonable people could not agree on its meaning in context. Lighte

stions that are so fundamentally ambiguous or imprecise that the answer to them cannot legally be false. Id. at 372, 375; see also United States v. Wolfson, 437 F.2d 862, 878 (2d Cir. 1970). A question is fundamentally ambiguous only if reasonable people could not agree on its meaning in context. Lighte

stions that are so fundamentally ambiguous or imprecise that the answer to them cannot legally be false. Id. at 372, 375; see also United States v. Wolfson, 437 F.2d 862, 878 (2d Cir. 1970). A question is fundamentally ambiguous only if reasonable people could not agree on its meaning in context. Lighte

stions that are so fundamentally ambiguous or imprecise that the answer to them cannot legally be false. Id. at 372, 375; see also United States v. Wolfson, 437 F.2d 862, 878 (2d Cir. 1970). A question is fundamentally ambiguous only if reasonable people could not agree on its meaning in context. Lighte

stions that are so fundamentally ambiguous or imprecise that the answer to them cannot legally be false. Id. at 372, 375; see also United States v. Wolfson, 437 F.2d 862, 878 (2d Cir. 1970). A question is fundamentally ambiguous only if reasonable people could not agree on its meaning in context. Lighte

stions that are so fundamentally ambiguous or imprecise that the answer to them cannot legally be false. Id. at 372, 375; see also United States v. Wolfson, 437 F.2d 862, 878 (2d Cir. 1970). A question is fundamentally ambiguous only if reasonable people could not agree on its meaning in context. Lighte

IGATIONS Experts Say Ballistics Report Shows Officer Was Shot By Taylor's Boyfriend, Not Friendly Fire. The Louisville (KY) Courier-Journal (10/8, Wolfson, 368K) reports, "Firearms experts say a ballistics report from Kentucky State Police shows Breonna Taylor's boyfriend fired the shot that wounded a

rier-journal.corn/story/news/locaUbreonna- taylor/2020/10/08/breonna-taylor-report-shows-officer-shot-kenneth-walker-experts-say/5914804002/> (10/8, Wolfson, 368K) reports, "Firearms experts say a ballistics report from Kentucky State Police shows Breonna Taylor's boyfriend fired the shot that wounded a

ps://wvvw.courier- journal.corn/story/news/investigations/2021/05/05/duke-basketball-zion-williamson-family-received-gifts- adidas/4938267001/> (5/5, Wolfson, 554K) reports former Adidas consultant Dan Cutler says in a sworn deposition that the firm "provided airfare and other benefits to college players,

E & CORPORATE SCANDALS Former Adidas Consultant Says Firm Gave Airline Tickets, Gifts To College Players. The Louisville (KY) Courier-Journal (5/5, Wolfson, 554K) reports former Adidas consultant Dan Cutler says in a sworn deposition that the firm "provided airfare and other benefits to college players

story/news/crime/2020/11/19/piu-offpiu- officers-dispute-claims-of-Impd-county-attorneyicers-dispute-claims-Impd-county-attomey/6348494002/> (11/19, Wolfson, 368K) reports, "A retired Louisville Metro Police sergeant and another still on the force testified Thursday the investigative file on the scandal-

IGATIONS Experts Say Ballistics Report Shows Officer Was Shot By Taylor's Boyfriend, Not Friendly Fire. The Louisville (KY) Courier-Journal (10/8, Wolfson, 368K) reports, "Firearms experts say a ballistics report from Kentucky State Police shows Breonna Taylor's boyfriend fired the shot that wounded a