Podcasts about Breaking news

In part two of Red Eye Radio with Gary McNamara and Eric Harley, Democrats play the "ratio game" by making skewed numbers of comparisons of how many cars burned vs, those not burned..in ALL of California. Also hilarious headlines from the Babylon Bee, interviews from local LA TV stations demonstrating the insanity of LA residents and Deputy Mayor of LA accusing federal agents of being terrorists .. and BREAKING NEWS as an Air India flight A-171 bound to London with some 200 on board, crashes minutes after takeoff. As of this writing no details on casualties or other information. For more talk on the issues that matter to you, listen on radio stations across America Monday-Friday 12am-5am CT (1am-6am ET and 10pm-3am PT), download the RED EYE RADIO SHOW app, asking your smart speaker, or listening at RedEyeRadioShow.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In United States v. Combs, 24-cr-542 (AS), counsel for Mr. Sean Combs submitted a reply supporting the motion to limit extrajudicial statements made by potential witnesses and their attorneys, as referenced in ECF No. 42. This filing responds to the government's opposition (ECF No. 53) following the Court's directive on November 4, 2024 (ECF No. 58). In its opposition, the government contends that granting the motion would either necessitate a broad order covering all civil complainants and their legal representatives or compel the government to reveal its victims and witnesses ahead of schedule.Mr. Combs' counsel argues that either outcome is reasonable. The defense believes limiting public statements by witnesses and their counsel is essential for preserving a fair trial environment and preventing undue influence on public opinion. Furthermore, they assert that requiring the government to disclose potential witnesses or victims early would not be prejudicial, as it would promote transparency and fairness in the proceedings.(commercial at 7:49)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:2024.11.05 Combs 23.1 letter 110524

In the case of United States v. Sean Combs (24-cr-542), the defense has filed a memorandum seeking a hearing, suppression of evidence, and other relief. The defense argues that government leaks have led to prejudicial pre-trial publicity, compromising Combs' right to a fair trial. They specifically allege that the Department of Homeland Security leaked a 2016 video showing Combs assaulting his then-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura, to tarnish his reputation. The defense requests an evidentiary hearing to investigate these leaks, discovery of related government communications, a gag order to prevent further disclosures, and suppression of any evidence obtained through these alleged leaks.Additionally, the defense contends that the conditions of Combs' pre-trial detention hinder his ability to prepare for trial, infringing upon his constitutional rights. They propose a comprehensive bail package, including a $50 million bond secured by property and co-signed by family members, home detention with electronic monitoring, and strict limitations on communication and visitation. The defense asserts that these measures sufficiently mitigate any concerns regarding flight risk or danger to the community, emphasizing Combs' strong family ties and community involvement.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.98.0.pdf

On June 11, the trial entered its fifth day of testimony from the witness known as “Jane,” Combs's former girlfriend and key prosecution witness. She recounted disturbing details about the coercive dynamics of their relationship between 2021 and 2024, including multiday “hotel nights”—sex parties involving male escorts that witnessed her using Rhino erection pills, prepping matching outfits for participants, and being forced into prolonged foreplay that she described as “really not so fun”.   Under direct examination, she detailed how Combs allegedly coerced her into unprotected sex with porn stars and escorts, and physically assaulted her during these “freak-offs”During cross-examination by defense attorney Teny Geragos, Jane was compelled to read aloud dozens of explicit text messages she had sent to Combs—expressions of love, gratitude, and desire—including passages like “I never had a man take care of me like you do”—a strategy aimed at undermining her credibility and suggesting consent.   This emotionally charged moment culminated in Jane breaking down and crying on the stand,   The defense also highlighted luxury gifts—such as a $20,000 business investment, monthly rent, designer bags, and a Van Cleef necklace—to argue she benefited materially from the relationship and wasn't entirely coerced.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:June 11, 2025 - Day 21 of testimony in the Sean ‘Diddy' Combs trial | CNN

On June 11, the trial entered its fifth day of testimony from the witness known as “Jane,” Combs's former girlfriend and key prosecution witness. She recounted disturbing details about the coercive dynamics of their relationship between 2021 and 2024, including multiday “hotel nights”—sex parties involving male escorts that witnessed her using Rhino erection pills, prepping matching outfits for participants, and being forced into prolonged foreplay that she described as “really not so fun”.   Under direct examination, she detailed how Combs allegedly coerced her into unprotected sex with porn stars and escorts, and physically assaulted her during these “freak-offs”During cross-examination by defense attorney Teny Geragos, Jane was compelled to read aloud dozens of explicit text messages she had sent to Combs—expressions of love, gratitude, and desire—including passages like “I never had a man take care of me like you do”—a strategy aimed at undermining her credibility and suggesting consent.   This emotionally charged moment culminated in Jane breaking down and crying on the stand,   The defense also highlighted luxury gifts—such as a $20,000 business investment, monthly rent, designer bags, and a Van Cleef necklace—to argue she benefited materially from the relationship and wasn't entirely coerced.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:June 11, 2025 - Day 21 of testimony in the Sean ‘Diddy' Combs trial | CNN

In this letter to Judge Subramanian in United States v. Combs, the defense opposes the government's request to recall expert witness Dr. Dawn Hughes for a second appearance during its case-in-chief. The defense argues that it relied on the Court's original framework—reinforced in both the opening jury instructions and pretrial rulings—that each witness would testify only once. They further contend that recalling Dr. Hughes after her cross-examination would be unfair and prejudicial, as the defense structured its questioning with the understanding that it would be their sole opportunity to challenge her testimony during the government's presentation of its case.The letter also raises concern about the signal it would send to the jury, suggesting that the Court is endorsing the government's effort to rehabilitate a witness whose methodology and credibility were already subjected to extensive scrutiny. The defense emphasizes that it cannot repeat its prior cross-examination, nor should it be expected to. They argue that such a move is highly irregular and risks altering the fairness of the proceedings. The letter urges the Court to deny the government's request and preserve the integrity of its prior rulings regarding the scope and structure of Dr. Hughes's testimony.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.393.0.pdf

In the case of United States v. Sean Combs (24-cr-542), the defense has filed a memorandum seeking a hearing, suppression of evidence, and other relief. The defense argues that government leaks have led to prejudicial pre-trial publicity, compromising Combs' right to a fair trial. They specifically allege that the Department of Homeland Security leaked a 2016 video showing Combs assaulting his then-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura, to tarnish his reputation. The defense requests an evidentiary hearing to investigate these leaks, discovery of related government communications, a gag order to prevent further disclosures, and suppression of any evidence obtained through these alleged leaks.Additionally, the defense contends that the conditions of Combs' pre-trial detention hinder his ability to prepare for trial, infringing upon his constitutional rights. They propose a comprehensive bail package, including a $50 million bond secured by property and co-signed by family members, home detention with electronic monitoring, and strict limitations on communication and visitation. The defense asserts that these measures sufficiently mitigate any concerns regarding flight risk or danger to the community, emphasizing Combs' strong family ties and community involvement.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.98.0.pdf

In this letter to Judge Subramanian in United States v. Combs, the defense opposes the government's request to recall expert witness Dr. Dawn Hughes for a second appearance during its case-in-chief. The defense argues that it relied on the Court's original framework—reinforced in both the opening jury instructions and pretrial rulings—that each witness would testify only once. They further contend that recalling Dr. Hughes after her cross-examination would be unfair and prejudicial, as the defense structured its questioning with the understanding that it would be their sole opportunity to challenge her testimony during the government's presentation of its case.The letter also raises concern about the signal it would send to the jury, suggesting that the Court is endorsing the government's effort to rehabilitate a witness whose methodology and credibility were already subjected to extensive scrutiny. The defense emphasizes that it cannot repeat its prior cross-examination, nor should it be expected to. They argue that such a move is highly irregular and risks altering the fairness of the proceedings. The letter urges the Court to deny the government's request and preserve the integrity of its prior rulings regarding the scope and structure of Dr. Hughes's testimony.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.393.0.pdf

Attorney Tony Buzbee, representing over 120 individuals alleging sexual misconduct by Sean "Diddy" Combs, has announced plans to pursue legal action against high-profile individuals who attended Combs' notorious "freak off" parties. Buzbee asserts that these attendees, including celebrities and politicians, are "just as liable" for the alleged abuses, even if they did not directly participate. He emphasizes that witnessing or being aware of misconduct without intervening constitutes complicity.To address this, Buzbee has sent demand letters to several prominent figures, seeking to resolve matters privately. He warns that failure to respond will result in lawsuits. Buzbee's approach underscores his commitment to holding not only the primary perpetrator accountable but also those who enabled or ignored the alleged misconduct. He believes that exposing these enablers is crucial for justice and transparency.Also...Ray J has recently expressed concerns about the involvement of other celebrities in the allegations against Sean "Diddy" Combs. He suggested that high-profile individuals are financially compensating alleged victims to keep their names out of Diddy's legal troubles, which include charges of sex trafficking, racketeering, and prostitution. Ray J indicated that these celebrities are engaging in a "catch and kill" scheme to protect their reputations and avoid exposure. He also predicted that more celebrities and people in power might either step down or be exposed as the situation unfolds.(commercial at 9:24)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ray J claims celebs told him they are afraid of Diddy affiliation and have paid alleged victims to keep quiet | Daily Mail OnlineDiddy's Celebrity “Freak Off” Guests Facing Legal Action, Accusers' Attorney Claims  - AllHipHop

In the case of Doe v. Combs (No. 1:24-cv-08054-MKV), the court denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration regarding her request to proceed under a pseudonym. The plaintiff, alleging sexual assault by Sean Combs, initially sought to maintain anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the case. However, the court emphasized the importance of transparency in judicial proceedings and found that the plaintiff's concerns did not outweigh the public's right to open access.The court acknowledged the plaintiff's fears of potential harm but determined that these concerns were speculative and unsupported by concrete evidence. It noted that many plaintiffs in similar cases proceed under their real names without incident. Consequently, the court upheld its original decision, requiring the plaintiff to refile the complaint using her legal name to ensure fairness and uphold the principles of open justice.(commercial at 8:18)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.630450.22.0.pdf

In the case of United States v. Combs (24-cr-542), Sean Combs' legal team filed a reply memorandum reinforcing their request for the government to disclose the identities of the alleged victims in the indictment. They argue that withholding this information impedes Combs' ability to prepare an effective defense, as it prevents thorough investigation and the opportunity to challenge the credibility of the accusers. The defense contends that knowing the identities is essential for locating potential witnesses and gathering exculpatory evidence, thereby ensuring a fair trial.The memorandum also addresses the government's concerns about protecting the privacy and safety of the alleged victims. Combs' attorneys propose implementing protective measures, such as confidentiality agreements and limited disclosure, to balance the accusers' privacy with the defendant's right to a fair defense. They emphasize that the court has the authority to enforce such measures, ensuring that the disclosure of identities does not lead to public exposure or harassment. The defense maintains that without access to this critical information, Combs' constitutional rights are compromised, and they urge the court to grant the motion to compel the government to identify the alleged victims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.63.0.pdf

In the case of United States v. Combs (24-cr-542), Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team has filed a reply memorandum to bolster their renewed motion for bail. They argue that new evidence undermines the prosecution's case, including claims that video evidence from 2016 depicts consensual interaction, contrary to the government's allegations of abuse. The defense contends that these developments diminish the justification for Combs' continued detention.Additionally, the defense addresses concerns about potential witness tampering and flight risk. They propose stringent bail conditions, such as home confinement with electronic monitoring and a substantial financial bond, to mitigate these risks. Combs' attorneys emphasize his strong community ties and lack of prior criminal history as factors supporting his release pending trial.(commercial at 7:59)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.80.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In McKinney v. Combs et al., Case No. 24-CV-03931, defendants Sean Combs, along with several associated entities including Bad Boy Entertainment LLC, Sean John Clothing LLC, and Daddy's House Recordings, Inc., submitted a letter to Judge Buchwald outlining their motion to dismiss the plaintiff's Amended Complaint. The defendants argue that the claims lack substantive legal merit and that procedural deficiencies render the case unsustainable. Representing both Sean Combs and the corporate defendants, they emphasize the insufficiency of the allegations and seek dismissal based on the failure to establish a valid cause of action under applicable laws. The filing complies with the court's procedural requirements and aims to streamline resolution.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.621909.40.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

According to UMG, there is no basis in fact to the allegations and they say that they can prove that in court, but considering that there is no evidence to support the allegations, they say that the case should be dismissed via summary judgement.    In this episode, we take a look at their response and breakdown where things might go from here.(commercial at 7:34)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Diddy probe: Record label fires back after music producer accuses him of assault | Fox NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The judge overseeing the lawsuit filed by "Jane Doe" against Sean "Diddy" Combs ruled that the plaintiff cannot proceed anonymously. In her decision, the judge emphasized the importance of transparency in judicial proceedings, noting that while privacy concerns are understandable in sensitive cases, they do not outweigh the legal principle of openness in the courtroom. The court found that the plaintiff's request lacked specific evidence of harm that would justify anonymity, especially given the public interest surrounding the high-profile case. As a result, the plaintiff has been given a deadline to refile her case using her real name if she wishes to proceed; failure to do so could result in the case's dismissal.(commercial at 10:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:doe-v-combs-ruling-usdc-southern-new-york.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

This document records the presentment hearing for Sean Combs (also known by various aliases including Puff Daddy, P. Diddy, Diddy, PD, and Love) held on September 17, 2024, at 2:30 p.m. in the Southern District of New York before U.S. Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky. The case is formally docketed as United States v. Combs, 24 Cr. 542 (RFT). The presentment marked Combs' initial appearance in federal court following the unsealing of the indictment charging him with racketeering conspiracy and related offenses.During this proceeding, the Court advised Combs of the charges against him and the potential penalties, ensured that he was represented by counsel, and addressed matters related to bail and pretrial conditions. The hearing served as the procedural starting point for the federal criminal case, officially bringing Combs under the jurisdiction of the Court. No substantive arguments or evidence were presented at this stage; the focus remained on formal advisement and setting the framework for future proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:O9HLComCBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

With Las Vegas Raiders Insider and Beat Writer @HondoCarpenter at the facility, Bryan Anthony Davis gives what we know so far regarding the Silver and Black signing of former Bengal Germaine Pratt on the @FansFirstSN. #Raiders #NFL #RaiderNation Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A small plane experiencing landing gear issues made a rough landing at Honolulu’s airport. A judge orders UFC Hall of Famer BJ Penn to immediately move out of the Hilo home he shares with his mother. And on Hawaii Island, Kilauea's current episode is producing lava fountains 1,000 feet in the air!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A Boeing Co. 787 Dreamliner aircraft operated by Air India that was bound for London crashed shortly after taking off in Ahmedabad, in what stands to be the worst accident involving the US planemaker’s most advanced widebody airliner. Flight AI171 was carrying 242 passengers and crew. Video footage shared on social media showed a giant plume of smoke engulfing the crash site, with no reports of survivors. The aircraft entered a slow descent shortly after taking off, with its landing gear still extended before exploding into a huge fireball upon impact. The crash took place in a residential area, which could mean a higher death toll. The twin-engine plane had reached an altitude of 625 feet (190.5 meters) at a speed of 174 knots, according to data from Flightradar24. The accident extends a series of serious and fatal incidents in the civil aviation industry this year, including a mid-air collision in Washington early in 2025 between a military helicopter and an aircraft. Air India is in the middle of a strategic turnaround that includes a huge aircraft order as it seeks to tap growing demand from a rising Indian middle class. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said the accident is “heartbreaking beyond words,” according to a statement, adding that he’s been in touch with ministers and authorities assisting the salvage operation.Boeing shares fell 7% in premarket US trading. The 787 is the company’s most advanced in-service aircraft and is popular with airlines because it is more fuel efficient thanks to its use of lightweight composite materials. Boeing said it’s “aware of initial reports and are working to gather more information.”See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In addition to President Trump's decisive handling of the L.A. riots and an American public fully behind him, he announces a trade deal with China has been struck. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Green (R-GA) joins Stigall to break the news and discuss her opposition to the big, beautiful bill after voting to pass it because of what it contains about A.I. regulations. This week also marks the 250th anniversary of the Army, and former Green Beret and current Florida State Senator Jay Collins reflects on the rich history, his time in service, and this president's restoration of pride and tradition of toughness in the military ranks. And as always, far more headlines than you have the time to read. Dive in, Stigall unpacks it all! -For more info visit the official website: https://chrisstigall.comInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/chrisstigallshow/Twitter: https://twitter.com/ChrisStigallFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/chris.stigall/Listen on Spotify: https://tinyurl.com/StigallPodListen on Apple Podcasts: https://bit.ly/StigallShow-Help protect your wealth with real, physical gold and silver. Texas Bullion Exchange helps everyday Americans diversify with tailored portfolios, IRA rollovers, and expert support every step of the way.

Grab your popcorn because it's getting messy!

Mark shares his top 5 Brian Wilson songs after the news of his passing. He talks more about the shocking news about the Penguins and Mario. Dan Rosen joins to talk about the Cup Finals See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On November 27, 2024, U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian denied Sean "Diddy" Combs's third request for bail. Combs, facing charges of sex trafficking and racketeering, had proposed a $50 million bond and stringent conditions, including 24/7 surveillance and house arrest at a Manhattan apartment. Despite these measures, the judge expressed concerns about the potential for witness tampering and the safety of the community, citing Combs's alleged attempts to interfere with the investigation while in custody.Prosecutors argued that Combs had a history of manipulating witnesses and obstructing justice, presenting evidence of his violent behavior and efforts to influence the case from jail. They highlighted instances where Combs allegedly bribed security officers to destroy surveillance footage and contacted witnesses through unauthorized means. The judge concluded that no combination of conditions could ensure community safety or prevent obstruction of justice, leading to the denial of bail.(commercial at 8:17)Let's dive in!to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Diddy denied bail for THIRD time ahead of sex trafficking trial | Daily Mail Online

Sean "Diddy" Combs is facing five new lawsuits alleging sexual misconduct, filed by individuals who claim he drugged and sexually assaulted them. The allegations include incidents involving both men and women, with one man asserting he was drugged at a Miami afterparty, and a woman alleging she was coerced into performing oral sex at a Halloween event. Another claim involves a teenager who states she was raped at a Fourth of July party, and a separate man alleges assault during a music video shoot. These incidents reportedly occurred between 2001 and 2022.Attorney Tony Buzbee, representing over 120 alleged victims, has criticized Combs' legal team, who maintain his innocence. Combs is currently facing charges of racketeering and sex trafficking and is held in federal custody.(commercial at 8:00)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sean 'Diddy' Combs accused of rape in 5 new lawsuits

The upcoming Peacock documentary, "Diddy: The Making of a Bad Boy," delves into serious allegations against music mogul Sean "Diddy" Combs. One of the most disturbing claims comes from Ashley Parham, who alleges that in 2018, Combs assaulted her with a TV remote control after she suggested his involvement in Tupac Shakur's death. Parham's lawsuit, seeking $50 million in damages, details the assault and subsequent threats to ensure her silence. Combs, currently awaiting trial on related charges, denies these allegations, labeling them as unfounded.The documentary also features testimonies from former associates who describe a pattern of predatory behavior. Allegations include hosting coercive sex parties, engaging in sexual activities with underage girls, and using his influence to exploit women. Former employees recount being coerced into luring women for Combs and witnessing disturbing incidents. Combs' legal team has dismissed these claims as false and defamatory, criticizing the documentary for promoting baseless conspiracy theories.(commercial at 10:34)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:'Diddy: The Making of a Bad Boy' doc's biggest claims

In the case of Doe v. Combs (No. 1:24-cv-08054-MKV), the plaintiff, Jane Doe, filed a Memorandum of Law supporting her motion for reconsideration of the court's decision denying her request to proceed under a pseudonym. She also sought permission to file a supporting declaration under seal. The plaintiff argued that the court had overlooked critical factors, including the highly sensitive nature of the allegations and the potential for significant harm if her identity were disclosed. She emphasized that revealing her identity could lead to severe emotional distress and possible retaliation, given the prominence of the defendant, Sean Combs.Additionally, the plaintiff contended that allowing her to proceed anonymously would not prejudice the defendants and would serve the public interest by encouraging victims of sexual assault to come forward without fear of exposure. The request to file the declaration under seal was made to protect the confidentiality of detailed personal information pertinent to her motion.(commercial at 7:07)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.630450.21.0.pdf

Sean Combs, the appellant in United States v. Combs, case number 24-CR-542 (AS), has filed a motion for pretrial release from federal custody. The motion argues that Combs does not pose a flight risk, citing his deep ties to the community, longstanding residency in the United States, and significant business investments. Combs' defense emphasizes that he is fully prepared to comply with any conditions of release, including electronic monitoring or home confinement, to ensure his presence at trial.The motion also contends that Combs' continued detention negatively impacts his ability to prepare an adequate defense, citing limited access to legal counsel and case materials while in custody. The defense argues that pretrial release is essential to ensure a fair trial, noting that Combs has no history of failing to appear in court and that the charges against him, while serious, do not warrant indefinite pretrial incarceration. The decision on this motion remains pending before the appellate court.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.ca2.234342fd-2384-426f-a4a4-aeca250ee12d.16.1_2.pdf

In response to Sean Combs' appeal for pretrial release, the appellee (the prosecution) has filed an affirmation opposing the motion. The government argues that Combs poses a significant flight risk due to his vast resources, international connections, and alleged history of witness intimidation. They emphasize that the seriousness of the charges, which include sex trafficking and racketeering, increases the likelihood of Combs attempting to evade justice if released.The prosecution also highlights concerns regarding public safety, citing allegations of ongoing criminal behavior that could continue if Combs is granted pretrial release. They argue that his wealth and influence could enable him to obstruct the investigation or intimidate witnesses, further compromising the integrity of the trial. The appellee maintains that the initial decision to deny pretrial release was justified and urges the appellate court to uphold that ruling.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.ca2.234342fd-2384-426f-a4a4-aeca250ee12d.29.0.pdf

In the Reply Memorandum of Law supporting Sean Combs' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in Thalia Graves v. Sean Combs and Joseph Sherman, Combs' legal team reiterates that the plaintiff's claims are both legally and factually insufficient. They argue that the amended complaint relies on conclusory allegations without concrete evidence of Combs' direct involvement in the alleged misconduct. The reply further contends that the complaint improperly attempts to attribute liability to Combs through speculative inferences about his association with co-defendant Joseph Sherman, rather than demonstrating specific acts or intent required under the applicable legal standards.Additionally, Combs' attorneys assert that many of the claims are time-barred and fall outside the statute of limitations. The reply memorandum emphasizes that the plaintiff's attempt to revive these claims through generalized references to a purported ongoing pattern of misconduct is legally untenable. They also argue that the complaint fails to meet the heightened pleading standards required for claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and other tort-based allegations. On these grounds, the defense urges the court to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, with prejudice.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.630450.87.0.pdf

During the afternoon session on June 10th, 2025, at the federal trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs, the defense team continued its sustained cross-examination of Jane Doe Victim 2. The questioning remained sharply focused on attempting to undermine her credibility before the jury. Defense attorneys zeroed in on alleged inconsistencies between her in-court testimony and prior statements made to law enforcement and in civil litigation. They pressed her on precise dates, locations, and details of the alleged trafficking incidents she described, suggesting that elements of her narrative had shifted over time. The defense also highlighted text messages and communications that they argued were inconsistent with the portrayal of coercion and control presented by the government.Throughout the afternoon, Jane Doe 2 maintained her composure but showed visible signs of fatigue under the lengthy and at times repetitive questioning. The defense probed her connections to other accusers and her interactions with civil attorneys, implying possible coordination or financial motivation. Prosecutors objected at several points to the tone and scope of the questioning, but Judge Subramanian largely allowed the cross-examination to proceed. No new evidence was introduced; the session remained centered on testing the consistency and reliability of Jane Doe 2's testimony. The court adjourned with the cross-examination still ongoing, setting the stage for its conclusion in the next session.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:June 10, 2025 - Day 20 of testimony in the Sean ‘Diddy' Combs trial | CNN

In a letter to Judge Subramanian, the Government opposed the defense's motion to strike exhibits GX E-331-F-R and GX E-331-H-R, which had already been admitted into evidence on June 6, 2025. The Government argued that these exhibits were properly admitted and remain central to proving the sex trafficking allegations against Sean Combs. The letter also addressed the defense's arguments, raised in their June 8th filing and discussed in court, suggesting that the Government's overarching theory of sex trafficking should be limited or curtailed.The prosecution maintained that its theory of sex trafficking, as presented to the jury, is fully supported by both the law and the evidence admitted thus far. The letter emphasized that the exhibits in question are not only relevant but critical to establishing the elements of the trafficking offense, particularly in demonstrating the coercion, pattern of conduct, and exploitation alleged. The Government urged the Court to reject the defense's attempt to narrow the scope of the case or to exclude key evidence that speaks directly to the heart of the charges.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.396.0.pdf

Sean "Diddy" Combs, currently detained at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn on charges including sex trafficking and racketeering, faces additional allegations of witness tampering and obstruction of justice. Prosecutors assert that Combs has attempted to influence potential jurors and evade law enforcement monitoring while incarcerated. They allege he used other inmates' phone access, unauthorized messaging services, and enlisted his children to create a social media campaign around his birthday to sway public opinion.Further accusations include Combs orchestrating a social media campaign involving his children to sway potential jurors in his favor. Prosecutors claim he directed his kids to make a seemingly heartfelt birthday video to generate sympathy and taint the jury pool. The video, shared on social media, featured his seven children expressing their love and support for their father.   These actions have led prosecutors to argue against granting bail, citing concerns over potential witness tampering and obstruction of justice. Combs' trial is scheduled for May 2025. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sean 'Diddy' Combs tried to sway witnesses from jail amid sex trafficking trial: docs | Fox News

In this letter to Judge Subramanian, the defense opposes the government's plan to introduce certain testimony from Dawn Richard. The defense argues that the government intends to elicit inadmissible and irrelevant testimony regarding alleged statements and purported threats made by Sean Combs and Bad Boy Records President Harve Pierre. They contend that such statements, along with Ms. Richard's subjective understanding of them, fall outside the scope of permissible evidence and would unfairly prejudice the jury.The defense asserts that allowing this line of testimony would improperly introduce speculative and potentially inflammatory material that lacks proper evidentiary foundation. They request that the Court preclude the government from eliciting or offering this evidence through Ms. Richard, maintaining that it does not meet the standards for admissibility and risks distracting the jury from the core issues of the case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.398.0.pdf

In this letter to Judge Subramanian regarding the United States v. Combs trial, the defense objects to several exhibits the government intends to introduce during Jane Doe's testimony—specifically, text messages and Notes App entries Jane used as a diary during her relationship with Sean Combs. The defense argues that many of these notes fail to meet the admissibility standards under Rules 801(d)(1)(B) and 803(3) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. They contend that some notes should be excluded entirely because they were written after Jane read Cassie Ventura's lawsuit and after the government began its investigation, thereby lacking the necessary contemporaneity required under Rule 801(d)(1)(B). The defense also asserts that many of the notes do not meet Rule 803(3)'s standards regarding statements of then-existing mental state and should not be used to improperly guide Jane's direct testimony or bolster her credibility.Additionally, the defense objects to Exhibit C-251, arguing it contains inadmissible hearsay in the form of messages between Jane and Kristina Khorram from December 2023. They also raise a Rule 106 objection concerning the admission of certain text messages without fuller contextual information that could alter their meaning. Finally, the defense opposes the admission of Government Exhibit E-171 on both hearsay grounds and under Rule 403, asserting that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. The letter urges the Court to prevent what the defense views as improper use of these materials to frame and improperly enhance Jane Doe's testimony.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.401.0.pdf

Rachel Kennedy, a former dancer, shared a disturbing account of her experience with Sean "Diddy" Combs while in Japan. She claims that during the early 2000s, she was invited by Diddy to what she believed would be a party, but upon arrival, realized it was just a small, intimate gathering with him at his hotel. Kennedy detailed that after some partying, including drug use (although Diddy himself allegedly did not partake), things took an uncomfortable turn.Diddy, wearing a robe and drinking champagne, allegedly showed Kennedy and her friends multiple Jennifer Lopez music videos, which felt awkward given that Diddy was dating Lopez at the time. Eventually, Kennedy and her friend were invited into his bedroom, where they engaged in sexual acts. The situation escalated when Diddy's bodyguard entered the room aggressively, scaring the women. Kennedy described the interaction as unsettling, feeling that the bodyguard was there to intimidate and forcibly remove them, leaving her with the impression that this behavior was calculated and routine in Diddy's circle.This experience, part of Diddy's broader pattern of alleged "Freak Offs"—intimate, drug-fueled gatherings where guests were coerced into sexual acts—highlighted how he allegedly used his power and influence to manipulate those around him, creating a dangerous atmosphere where victims felt they had little recourse​.(commercial at 7:44)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Exclusive | Sean 'Diddy' Combs tricked me into a 'Freak Off,' then cruelly kicked me to the curb: ex-dancer (nypost.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In United States v. Combs, case number 24-cr-542 (AS), Sean Combs has submitted a letter to Judge Arun Subramanian proposing specific language for a gag order in response to alleged leaks by the government. Combs argues that these leaks have involved confidential, damaging, and false information released to the media, which could prejudice his right to a fair trial. The defense believes a gag order is necessary to mitigate the impact of this information on the jury pool and to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.The proposed gag order, outlined in the attached Exhibit A, seeks to restrict public statements by both parties and limit the release of information related to the case. Combs' legal team contends that this measure is crucial to ensure a fair and unbiased trial, citing previous court discussions on October 10, 2024, regarding the need for such relief. They maintain that without these protections, the continued flow of leaked information could compromise the defendant's ability to receive a fair hearing.(commercial at 11:35)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.50.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In case 24-cr-542 (AS), Judge Arun Subramanian issued an order addressing pretrial matters in the prosecution of Sean Combs. The order reaffirms the need to maintain the integrity of the trial process, particularly in light of media coverage and the high-profile nature of the case. Judge Subramanian emphasized that both parties must adhere strictly to court rules, ensuring that public statements and information sharing do not jeopardize the fairness of the proceedings.The order also outlines the implementation of specific measures, such as restricted access to certain documents and a potential gag order to limit public comments from attorneys and witnesses. Judge Subramanian notes that these measures are necessary to prevent undue influence on potential jurors and to maintain a balanced judicial process. Further hearings and motions related to this order are expected to be scheduled as the case progresses.(commercial at 8:10)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.50.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Sean Combs, the appellant in United States v. Combs, case number 24-CR-542 (AS), has filed a motion for pretrial release from federal custody. The motion argues that Combs does not pose a flight risk, citing his deep ties to the community, longstanding residency in the United States, and significant business investments. Combs' defense emphasizes that he is fully prepared to comply with any conditions of release, including electronic monitoring or home confinement, to ensure his presence at trial.The motion also contends that Combs' continued detention negatively impacts his ability to prepare an adequate defense, citing limited access to legal counsel and case materials while in custody. The defense argues that pretrial release is essential to ensure a fair trial, noting that Combs has no history of failing to appear in court and that the charges against him, while serious, do not warrant indefinite pretrial incarceration. The decision on this motion remains pending before the appellate court.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.ca2.234342fd-2384-426f-a4a4-aeca250ee12d.16.1_2.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Sean Combs, the appellant in United States v. Combs, case number 24-CR-542 (AS), has filed a motion for pretrial release from federal custody. The motion argues that Combs does not pose a flight risk, citing his deep ties to the community, longstanding residency in the United States, and significant business investments. Combs' defense emphasizes that he is fully prepared to comply with any conditions of release, including electronic monitoring or home confinement, to ensure his presence at trial.The motion also contends that Combs' continued detention negatively impacts his ability to prepare an adequate defense, citing limited access to legal counsel and case materials while in custody. The defense argues that pretrial release is essential to ensure a fair trial, noting that Combs has no history of failing to appear in court and that the charges against him, while serious, do not warrant indefinite pretrial incarceration. The decision on this motion remains pending before the appellate court.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.ca2.234342fd-2384-426f-a4a4-aeca250ee12d.16.1_2.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a letter to Judge Subramanian, the Government opposed the defense's motion to strike exhibits GX E-331-F-R and GX E-331-H-R, which had already been admitted into evidence on June 6, 2025. The Government argued that these exhibits were properly admitted and remain central to proving the sex trafficking allegations against Sean Combs. The letter also addressed the defense's arguments, raised in their June 8th filing and discussed in court, suggesting that the Government's overarching theory of sex trafficking should be limited or curtailed.The prosecution maintained that its theory of sex trafficking, as presented to the jury, is fully supported by both the law and the evidence admitted thus far. The letter emphasized that the exhibits in question are not only relevant but critical to establishing the elements of the trafficking offense, particularly in demonstrating the coercion, pattern of conduct, and exploitation alleged. The Government urged the Court to reject the defense's attempt to narrow the scope of the case or to exclude key evidence that speaks directly to the heart of the charges.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.396.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

During the afternoon session on June 10th, 2025, at the federal trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs, the defense team continued its sustained cross-examination of Jane Doe Victim 2. The questioning remained sharply focused on attempting to undermine her credibility before the jury. Defense attorneys zeroed in on alleged inconsistencies between her in-court testimony and prior statements made to law enforcement and in civil litigation. They pressed her on precise dates, locations, and details of the alleged trafficking incidents she described, suggesting that elements of her narrative had shifted over time. The defense also highlighted text messages and communications that they argued were inconsistent with the portrayal of coercion and control presented by the government.Throughout the afternoon, Jane Doe 2 maintained her composure but showed visible signs of fatigue under the lengthy and at times repetitive questioning. The defense probed her connections to other accusers and her interactions with civil attorneys, implying possible coordination or financial motivation. Prosecutors objected at several points to the tone and scope of the questioning, but Judge Subramanian largely allowed the cross-examination to proceed. No new evidence was introduced; the session remained centered on testing the consistency and reliability of Jane Doe 2's testimony. The court adjourned with the cross-examination still ongoing, setting the stage for its conclusion in the next session.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:June 10, 2025 - Day 20 of testimony in the Sean ‘Diddy' Combs trial | CNNBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this letter to Judge Subramanian regarding the United States v. Combs trial, the defense objects to several exhibits the government intends to introduce during Jane Doe's testimony—specifically, text messages and Notes App entries Jane used as a diary during her relationship with Sean Combs. The defense argues that many of these notes fail to meet the admissibility standards under Rules 801(d)(1)(B) and 803(3) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. They contend that some notes should be excluded entirely because they were written after Jane read Cassie Ventura's lawsuit and after the government began its investigation, thereby lacking the necessary contemporaneity required under Rule 801(d)(1)(B). The defense also asserts that many of the notes do not meet Rule 803(3)'s standards regarding statements of then-existing mental state and should not be used to improperly guide Jane's direct testimony or bolster her credibility.Additionally, the defense objects to Exhibit C-251, arguing it contains inadmissible hearsay in the form of messages between Jane and Kristina Khorram from December 2023. They also raise a Rule 106 objection concerning the admission of certain text messages without fuller contextual information that could alter their meaning. Finally, the defense opposes the admission of Government Exhibit E-171 on both hearsay grounds and under Rule 403, asserting that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. The letter urges the Court to prevent what the defense views as improper use of these materials to frame and improperly enhance Jane Doe's testimony.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.401.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this letter to Judge Subramanian in United States v. Combs, the defense opposes the government's request to recall expert witness Dr. Dawn Hughes for a second appearance during its case-in-chief. The defense argues that it relied on the Court's original framework—reinforced in both the opening jury instructions and pretrial rulings—that each witness would testify only once. They further contend that recalling Dr. Hughes after her cross-examination would be unfair and prejudicial, as the defense structured its questioning with the understanding that it would be their sole opportunity to challenge her testimony during the government's presentation of its case.The letter also raises concern about the signal it would send to the jury, suggesting that the Court is endorsing the government's effort to rehabilitate a witness whose methodology and credibility were already subjected to extensive scrutiny. The defense emphasizes that it cannot repeat its prior cross-examination, nor should it be expected to. They argue that such a move is highly irregular and risks altering the fairness of the proceedings. The letter urges the Court to deny the government's request and preserve the integrity of its prior rulings regarding the scope and structure of Dr. Hughes's testimony.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.393.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a recent ruling, Judge Analisa Torres of the U.S. District Court granted the accuser in a high-profile lawsuit against Jay-Z the ability to remain anonymous. The accuser, identified only as "Jane Doe," had filed a lawsuit alleging sexual assault by the rapper and business mogul. Judge Torres acknowledged the significant public interest in the case but determined that the plaintiff's privacy and safety outweighed the need for public disclosure of her identity. The order emphasized the potential risks of harassment, intimidation, and stigma that could arise if her identity were revealed, particularly given Jay-Z's prominence and the heightened media scrutiny surrounding the case.The ruling does not impact the progression of the legal proceedings, as the court will ensure both parties have access to necessary information for a fair trial. However, it sets an important precedent in balancing the rights of accusers in sensitive cases with public transparency. Judge Torres underscored that allowing Jane Doe to proceed anonymously would not prejudice Jay-Z's defense or compromise the integrity of the judicial process.(commercial at 8:42)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.630244.53.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Hawaii's largest health insurer is trying to overturn a landmark ruling. We'll tell you what lawyers for HMSA argued at the Hawaii Supreme Court. Maui Mayor Richard Bissen signed the Maui County budget into law. We'll tell you what the top priorities are and when it will go into effect. The U.S. Army is celebrating its 250th birthday. This morning we'll hear from a Hawai'i soldier who is remembering his time in the Korean War.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A small plane makes a hard landing at Honolulu's Airport. Annalisa Burgos has the latest details from the airport. Five people, including 3 children, were rushed to the hospital after a two-car crash on the H-1 freeway. Hawaii's largest health insurer is trying to convince the state's highest court to overturn a landmark ruling.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Oklahoma City Mayor David Holt sits down with Forbes to discuss the city's rise as a sports hub and its economic impact. Holt delves into the strategic use of public-private partnerships in funding major projects like a new 'Thunder Dome' for its NBA franchise.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Welcome back to The Viall Files: Reality Recap! It's another jam-packed episode as we welcome Robyn DelMonte aka GirlBossTown to get into everything from the first 6 episodes of Love Island USA, pick her producer-level brain, and opinions on Justin Bieber. Plus, Jim Jefferies and his wife Tasie Lawrence stop by to get into their relationship with Lisa Vanderpump and talk about Jim's new show The Snake. Meanwhile, we get into recasting The Valley, where Summer House goes from here, Bachelor Breaking News, and more! Enjoy! “I have something to say about Belldasha…” Subscribe to The ENVY Media Newsletter Today: https://www.viallfiles.com/newsletter  OUT NOW! Listen to Humble Brag with Cynthia Bailey and Crystal Kung Minkoff. Available wherever you get your podcasts and YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@humblebragpod https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/humble-brag-with-crystal-and-cynthia/id1774286896 Start your 7 Day Free Trial of Viall Files + here: https://viallfiles.supportingcast.fm/  Please make sure to subscribe so you don't miss an episode and as always send in your relationship questions to asknick@theviallfiles.com to be a part of our Monday episodes. Follow us on X/Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheViallFiles Listen To Disrespectfully now! Listen on Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/disrespectfully/id1516710301 Listen on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0J6DW1KeDX6SpoVEuQpl7z?si=c35995a56b8d4038 Watch on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCh8MqSsiGkfJcWhkan0D0w To Order Nick's Book Go To: http://www.viallfiles.com  If you would like to get some texting advice on Office Hours send an email to asknick@theviallfiles.com with “Texting Office Hours” in the subject line! To advertise on this podcast please email: ad-sales@libsyn.com or go to: https://advertising.libsyn.com/theviallfiles     THANK YOU TO OUR SPONSORS: 3 Day Blinds - Right now get quality window treatments that fit your budget with 3 Day Blinds. Head to https://3dayblinds.com/viall for their buy one get one 50% off deal on custom blinds, shades, shutters, and drapery. Rosetta Stone - Don't wait - unlock your language learning potential NOW! The Viall Files listeners can grab Rosetta Stone's LIFETIME Membership for 50% OFF! That's unlimited access to 25 language courses for life! Visit www.rosettastone.com/viall to get started and claim your 50% off TODAY! Addyi - It's not about fixing you – it's about helping you feel like you. So go to https://addyi.com to learn more Fireflies - Right now, when you sign up for a yearly Fireflies subscription, you get your first two months FREE! Just go to https://fireflies.ai/viall. Pique Life - If you're tired of feeling depleted and want to finally nourish your body the right way, now's the time– get 20% off plus a FREE rechargeable frother and glass beaker with our exclusive link: https://piquelife.com/viall   Timestamps: (00:00) - Intro (03:19) - Bachelor News (16:38) - Robyn Joins (24:10) - Secret Lives of Mormon Wives (29:49) - The Valley and Bravo (40:08) - Love Island Recap (01:11:07) - Bachelor Feedback (01:15:25) - Breaking News (01:21:40) - Jim Jefferies and Tasie Lawrence Interview (02:12:34) - Outro Episode Socials: @viallfiles @nickviall @nnataliejjoy @girlbosstown @jimjefferies @tasiel @ciaracrobinson @justinkaphillips @leahgsilberstein @dereklanerussell       

In this letter to Judge Subramanian, the defense reiterated its renewed objections to the admission of exhibits GXE-331-F-R and GXE-331-H-R, which were introduced during the continued direct examination of the witness “Jane” on June 6, 2025. The defense argued that these exhibits were either improperly authenticated or unfairly prejudicial, lacking the necessary foundation for admission under the Federal Rules of Evidence. They maintained that the government's use of these materials risked misleading the jury and compromising the defendant's right to a fair trial.Additionally, the defense sought to provide broader legal context to guide the Court's rulings on any similar evidentiary issues moving forward. They emphasized the importance of applying a consistent and rigorous standard to the admission of exhibits that could impact witness credibility or the core allegations in the case. The letter urged the Court to sustain the defense's objections and exercise heightened scrutiny to prevent the introduction of unreliable or prejudicial evidence that could unduly influence the jury.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.387.0.pdf