Podcasts about case no

In the case of Anthony Tate v. Sean Combs et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-8810-LAK, the plaintiff, Anthony Tate, has filed an amended complaint against defendants Sean Combs, Daddy's House Recordings Inc., CE OPCO, LLC (doing business as Combs Global and formerly known as Combs Enterprises LLC), Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings, Inc., Bad Boy Productions Holdings, Inc., Bad Boy Books Holdings, Inc., Bad Boy Records LLC, Bad Boy Entertainment LLC, Bad Boy Productions LLC, and unnamed organizational and individual defendants referred to as Does 1-10. The amended complaint includes a demand for a jury trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.632026.24.0.pdf

Second Amendment: May New Jersey ban AR-15s and magazines that hold more than ten rounds? - Argued: Wed, 15 Oct 2025 6:55:0 EDT

Privacy: May law enforcement enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring? - Argued: Wed, 15 Oct 2025 15:10:38 EDT

Criminal Procedure: Is criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) penal for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause? - Argued: Tue, 14 Oct 2025 15:7:24 EDT

Civil Procedure: Must a claim presented in a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 be dismissed under § 2244(b)(1)? - Argued: Tue, 14 Oct 2025 15:5:47 EDT

Administrative Law: May a non-profit sue in district court to challenge cuts to their funding? - Argued: Tue, 14 Oct 2025 14:46:41 EDT

Plaintiff Sara Rivers files this complaint in Case No. 1:25-cv-01726, bringing legal action against the defendant based on personal knowledge, information, and belief. Represented by legal counsel, Rivers outlines the specific allegations, detailing the defendant's alleged misconduct and the legal grounds supporting the claims. The complaint asserts that the defendant's actions have caused harm and seeks accountability through the judicial system.This lawsuit requests appropriate legal remedies, including compensation and other relief deemed necessary by the court. The filing establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting facts, and sets forth claims that Rivers intends to prove. Through this action, the plaintiff seeks justice and redress for the alleged wrongdoing, holding the defendant legally responsible for the damages incurred.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sara cmplt

Plaintiff Sara Rivers files this complaint in Case No. 1:25-cv-01726, bringing legal action against the defendant based on personal knowledge, information, and belief. Represented by legal counsel, Rivers outlines the specific allegations, detailing the defendant's alleged misconduct and the legal grounds supporting the claims. The complaint asserts that the defendant's actions have caused harm and seeks accountability through the judicial system.This lawsuit requests appropriate legal remedies, including compensation and other relief deemed necessary by the court. The filing establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting facts, and sets forth claims that Rivers intends to prove. Through this action, the plaintiff seeks justice and redress for the alleged wrongdoing, holding the defendant legally responsible for the damages incurred.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sara cmplt

Plaintiff Sara Rivers files this complaint in Case No. 1:25-cv-01726, bringing legal action against the defendant based on personal knowledge, information, and belief. Represented by legal counsel, Rivers outlines the specific allegations, detailing the defendant's alleged misconduct and the legal grounds supporting the claims. The complaint asserts that the defendant's actions have caused harm and seeks accountability through the judicial system.This lawsuit requests appropriate legal remedies, including compensation and other relief deemed necessary by the court. The filing establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting facts, and sets forth claims that Rivers intends to prove. Through this action, the plaintiff seeks justice and redress for the alleged wrongdoing, holding the defendant legally responsible for the damages incurred.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sara cmplt

Plaintiff Sara Rivers files this complaint in Case No. 1:25-cv-01726, bringing legal action against the defendant based on personal knowledge, information, and belief. Represented by legal counsel, Rivers outlines the specific allegations, detailing the defendant's alleged misconduct and the legal grounds supporting the claims. The complaint asserts that the defendant's actions have caused harm and seeks accountability through the judicial system.This lawsuit requests appropriate legal remedies, including compensation and other relief deemed necessary by the court. The filing establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting facts, and sets forth claims that Rivers intends to prove. Through this action, the plaintiff seeks justice and redress for the alleged wrongdoing, holding the defendant legally responsible for the damages incurred.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sara cmplt

Plaintiff Sara Rivers files this complaint in Case No. 1:25-cv-01726, bringing legal action against the defendant based on personal knowledge, information, and belief. Represented by legal counsel, Rivers outlines the specific allegations, detailing the defendant's alleged misconduct and the legal grounds supporting the claims. The complaint asserts that the defendant's actions have caused harm and seeks accountability through the judicial system.This lawsuit requests appropriate legal remedies, including compensation and other relief deemed necessary by the court. The filing establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting facts, and sets forth claims that Rivers intends to prove. Through this action, the plaintiff seeks justice and redress for the alleged wrongdoing, holding the defendant legally responsible for the damages incurred.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sara cmplt

Plaintiff Sara Rivers files this complaint in Case No. 1:25-cv-01726, bringing legal action against the defendant based on personal knowledge, information, and belief. Represented by legal counsel, Rivers outlines the specific allegations, detailing the defendant's alleged misconduct and the legal grounds supporting the claims. The complaint asserts that the defendant's actions have caused harm and seeks accountability through the judicial system.This lawsuit requests appropriate legal remedies, including compensation and other relief deemed necessary by the court. The filing establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting facts, and sets forth claims that Rivers intends to prove. Through this action, the plaintiff seeks justice and redress for the alleged wrongdoing, holding the defendant legally responsible for the damages incurred.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sara cmplt

Plaintiff Sara Rivers files this complaint in Case No. 1:25-cv-01726, bringing legal action against the defendant based on personal knowledge, information, and belief. Represented by legal counsel, Rivers outlines the specific allegations, detailing the defendant's alleged misconduct and the legal grounds supporting the claims. The complaint asserts that the defendant's actions have caused harm and seeks accountability through the judicial system.This lawsuit requests appropriate legal remedies, including compensation and other relief deemed necessary by the court. The filing establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting facts, and sets forth claims that Rivers intends to prove. Through this action, the plaintiff seeks justice and redress for the alleged wrongdoing, holding the defendant legally responsible for the damages incurred.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sara cmplt

Plaintiff Sara Rivers files this complaint in Case No. 1:25-cv-01726, bringing legal action against the defendant based on personal knowledge, information, and belief. Represented by legal counsel, Rivers outlines the specific allegations, detailing the defendant's alleged misconduct and the legal grounds supporting the claims. The complaint asserts that the defendant's actions have caused harm and seeks accountability through the judicial system.This lawsuit requests appropriate legal remedies, including compensation and other relief deemed necessary by the court. The filing establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting facts, and sets forth claims that Rivers intends to prove. Through this action, the plaintiff seeks justice and redress for the alleged wrongdoing, holding the defendant legally responsible for the damages incurred.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sara cmplt

Plaintiff Sara Rivers files this complaint in Case No. 1:25-cv-01726, bringing legal action against the defendant based on personal knowledge, information, and belief. Represented by legal counsel, Rivers outlines the specific allegations, detailing the defendant's alleged misconduct and the legal grounds supporting the claims. The complaint asserts that the defendant's actions have caused harm and seeks accountability through the judicial system.This lawsuit requests appropriate legal remedies, including compensation and other relief deemed necessary by the court. The filing establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting facts, and sets forth claims that Rivers intends to prove. Through this action, the plaintiff seeks justice and redress for the alleged wrongdoing, holding the defendant legally responsible for the damages incurred.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sara cmplt

Federalism: May district courts enjoin the president from unlawfully federalizing the State's national guard? - Argued: Thu, 09 Oct 2025 8:46:16 EDT

Immigration: May a State criminalize the entry into of an undocumented alien into the State? - Argued: Thu, 09 Oct 2025 8:49:49 EDT

Civil Procedure: Is an intentional refusal to deliver mail actionable under the Federal Torts Claims Act? - Argued: Wed, 08 Oct 2025 8:56:16 EDT

Election Law: Do federal candidates have standing to challenge State laws that count ballots received after Election Day? - Argued: Wed, 08 Oct 2025 8:51:42 EDT

When a 30(b)(6) representative is deposed, the testimony is that of the organization, not of the individual answering the questions. However, in the heat of battle, it can be challenging to remember this distinction. Questions in 30(b)(6) depos that use words like "you" - and answers that use words like "I" or "me" - can blur the roles and lead an examiner to see the testimony as also being that of the witness individually. But it isn't. Psychologists refer to this confusion as an "attribution error," meaning that we may attribute the testimony to the wrong source.This confusion can be fatal to a claim if the representative is also a key witness individually and wasn't deposed separately. Today, Jim discusses a brand new court ruling where a federal judge dismissed a claim against an individual defendant (and key witness) who was only deposed as a 30(b)(6) deponent. The question there was, when a 30(b)(6) witness says “I,” who's really speaking—the individual or the entity? Learn how that 30(b)(6) deposition in Ademi wasn't enough to survive summary judgment, and what every litigator must do to avoid the same trap. Essential listening for anyone taking or defending corporate rep depositions.SHOW NOTESAdemi, et al. v. Central Park Boathouse, LLC, and Dean Poll, individually, No. 22-cv-8535 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2025) (summary judgment granted in favor of individual defendant where plaintiff's counsel only deposed defendant in a 30(b)(6) capacity and, thus, had no testimony from the witness himself)Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) (designated representative rule)King v. Pratt and Whitney, 161 F. R. D. 275 (S. D. Fla. Apr. 27, 1995) (rule governing representative depositions doesn't limit scope of questions that can be asked, beyond topic list); Joseph v. Chronister, et al, 2019 WL 8014505, Case No. 8:16-cv-274-T-35CPT (M. D. Florida January 29, 2019) (scope of designated-representative deposition is not strictly confined to topics set forth in notice; further noting the twin benefit of this type of deposition, being that it limits the number of people within a corporation to be deposed, and prevents bandying); See Marksberry v. FCA US LLC, 2021 WL 2142655, No. 19-2724 (D. Kan. May 26, 2021) (lawyers may object to topics as “outside the scope” of that listed on the 30(b)(6) notice, and such objections have been held to be permissible, but the witness “must nevertheless answer the question because Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) - not the deposition notice defines the scope of discovery”).

Criminal Procedure: Does the Sixth Amendment guarantee criminal defendants the right to discussing their testimony with counsel during an overnight recess? - Argued: Mon, 06 Oct 2025 8:52:56 EDT

Criminal Procedure: Does the imposition of two sentences for convictions of using a firearm in the course of a felony, and homicide by firearm during the commission of a felony violate double jeopardy? - Argued: Tue, 07 Oct 2025 16:13:51 EDT

Free Speech: Does a law banning "conversion therapy" violate the First Amendment? - Argued: Tue, 07 Oct 2025 16:10:29 EDT

Civil Procedure: In a diversity action, does a state law requiring a complain to be accompanied by an expert affidavit apply in federal court? - Argued: Mon, 06 Oct 2025 8:55:12 EDT

Immigration: May the Trump Administration use expedited removal proceedings to deport non-citizens arrested within the United States? - Argued: Mon, 06 Oct 2025 8:50:1 EDT

This document is a motion in limine filed by Sean Combs' legal team in his federal criminal case (Case No. 24-cr-542) in the Southern District of New York, seeking to exclude the testimony of Dr. Dawn Hughes, a psychological expert the prosecution intends to call. Dr. Hughes is expected to testify about general behavioral patterns of victims and perpetrators of sexual and domestic abuse, which the defense argues would unfairly bolster the credibility of the government's witnesses — including alleged victims — without having evaluated any facts specific to this case. The defense asserts that Dr. Hughes's testimony is not based on a reliable scientific application to the actual circumstances surrounding Combs and instead consists of broad generalizations that risk misleading the jury by presenting “typical” abuse behavior as evidence of guilt.Combs' attorneys argue that Hughes's proposed testimony violates the standards set by Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 403, which regulate expert witness admissibility. They claim her statements offer no specialized knowledge beyond what jurors already understand — such as abusers exploiting power or victims remaining in abusive relationships — and that she conflates clinical definitions of coercion with legal ones, potentially confusing the jury. The motion asserts that Hughes's testimony is “advocacy masquerading as expertise” and warns it would improperly bolster the credibility of government witnesses under the guise of psychology. The defense urges the court to block her from testifying, citing that her opinions are methodologically unsound and prejudicial rather than probative.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.206.0.pdf

In the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Michael Ejiawoko has filed a civil lawsuit against Sean “Diddy” Combs, Vici Properties Inc., Wynn Resorts Ltd., and Northwood Investors LLC, along with unnamed John Doe and Roe entities. The complaint, Case No. 2:25-cv-6750, alleges that Combs committed sexual battery in violation of California Civil Code §1708.5, and that the corporate defendants knowingly benefited from or facilitated the misconduct. The filing asserts that the defendants participated in or enabled a civil conspiracy that allowed acts of abuse and exploitation to occur under their watch or within their properties. Ejiawoko is seeking damages and has demanded a jury trial, signaling an intent to publicly challenge what he describes as a pattern of predatory conduct and corporate complicity.The complaint further invokes the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (18 U.S.C. §1595), suggesting that Combs and the associated corporate entities may have violated federal anti-trafficking laws by facilitating or profiting from a network of coercive sexual exploitation. This elevates the case beyond a state-level civil matter into potential federal jurisdiction, where penalties and liabilities are significantly higher. The inclusion of major hospitality and investment corporations such as Wynn Resorts and Vici Properties indicates that Ejiawoko's legal team aims to expose not only individual misconduct but also the broader systems and business relationships that may have enabled Combs's alleged criminal behavior to persist.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. Sexual Battery (Cal. Civ. Code § 1708.5) 2. Civil Conspiracy 3. Violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (18 U.S.C. § 1595) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

In recent court filings, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team has argued that videos of his so-called "Freak Off" parties demonstrate consensual sexual activities among adults, countering allegations of coercion and misconduct. The defense contends that the footage shows participants engaging willingly, without evidence of force or manipulation, challenging the prosecution's portrayal of these events as exploitative.Combs faces serious charges, including sex trafficking and racketeering, with prosecutors alleging that he orchestrated drug-fueled sex parties involving non-consenting individuals. His attorneys have requested fewer restrictions on viewing the videos to prepare their defense, asserting that the government's case is unjustly criminalizing consensual adult behavior. Combs, who has pleaded not guilty, remains detained without bail, with a trial scheduled for May 2025.In United States v. Combs, Case No. 24-cr-542 (AS), Sean Combs's legal team has filed a request for a modification to the Protective Order issued by the court. The current order restricts the defense from receiving electronic copies of video evidence referenced in Paragraphs 12(a) and 12(c) of the indictment, permitting only inspection of the footage. Combs's attorneys argue that this restriction hinders their ability to fully investigate the evidence and demonstrate its exculpatory value. They contend that the videos strongly support Combs's innocence and must be electronically produced for proper evaluation and use in his defense.Citing Rule 16(a)(1)(E), which mandates the government to provide access to relevant evidence, and Rule 16(d)(1), which limits restrictions on such evidence to cases with demonstrated "good cause," the defense asserts that no valid justification exists for withholding electronic copies. They emphasize that the videos are critical to ensuring a fair trial and argue that the government's restrictions undermine the defense's ability to effectively utilize the material alongside other Rule 16 and Brady disclosures. The motion urges the court to modify the Protective Order and allow for standard electronic production of the videos.In United States v. Combs, Case No. 24 Cr. 542 (AS), the government has requested that the court direct Sean Combs's defense team to remove and refile their January 14, 2025, motion to amend the Protective Order. The government argues that the defense's filing violated the existing Protective Order by failing to appropriately redact sensitive information. The motion in question seeks to modify restrictions on video evidence, which is currently limited to inspection by counsel and the defendant, without allowing for electronic production.The government asserts that the defense's incomplete redactions breach the terms of the Protective Order (Dkt. 26), which is designed to safeguard the handling of specific evidence in the case. While acknowledging the defense's request to amend the order regarding the video evidence, the government emphasizes that compliance with the current protective measures is essential. They request the court to ensure the filing is re-submitted with redactions that fully adhere to the established rules.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.126.0.pdf

Second Amendment: May the District of Columbia ban firearms on public transit? - Argued: Fri, 03 Oct 2025 9:34:11 EDT

Privacy: May the IRS share tax information with ICE for the purposes of immigration enforcement? - Argued: Fri, 03 Oct 2025 9:31:56 EDT

This document is a motion in limine filed by Sean Combs' legal team in his federal criminal case (Case No. 24-cr-542) in the Southern District of New York, seeking to exclude the testimony of Dr. Dawn Hughes, a psychological expert the prosecution intends to call. Dr. Hughes is expected to testify about general behavioral patterns of victims and perpetrators of sexual and domestic abuse, which the defense argues would unfairly bolster the credibility of the government's witnesses — including alleged victims — without having evaluated any facts specific to this case. The defense asserts that Dr. Hughes's testimony is not based on a reliable scientific application to the actual circumstances surrounding Combs and instead consists of broad generalizations that risk misleading the jury by presenting “typical” abuse behavior as evidence of guilt.Combs' attorneys argue that Hughes's proposed testimony violates the standards set by Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 403, which regulate expert witness admissibility. They claim her statements offer no specialized knowledge beyond what jurors already understand — such as abusers exploiting power or victims remaining in abusive relationships — and that she conflates clinical definitions of coercion with legal ones, potentially confusing the jury. The motion asserts that Hughes's testimony is “advocacy masquerading as expertise” and warns it would improperly bolster the credibility of government witnesses under the guise of psychology. The defense urges the court to block her from testifying, citing that her opinions are methodologically unsound and prejudicial rather than probative.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.206.0.pdf

In the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Michael Ejiawoko has filed a civil lawsuit against Sean “Diddy” Combs, Vici Properties Inc., Wynn Resorts Ltd., and Northwood Investors LLC, along with unnamed John Doe and Roe entities. The complaint, Case No. 2:25-cv-6750, alleges that Combs committed sexual battery in violation of California Civil Code §1708.5, and that the corporate defendants knowingly benefited from or facilitated the misconduct. The filing asserts that the defendants participated in or enabled a civil conspiracy that allowed acts of abuse and exploitation to occur under their watch or within their properties. Ejiawoko is seeking damages and has demanded a jury trial, signaling an intent to publicly challenge what he describes as a pattern of predatory conduct and corporate complicity.The complaint further invokes the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (18 U.S.C. §1595), suggesting that Combs and the associated corporate entities may have violated federal anti-trafficking laws by facilitating or profiting from a network of coercive sexual exploitation. This elevates the case beyond a state-level civil matter into potential federal jurisdiction, where penalties and liabilities are significantly higher. The inclusion of major hospitality and investment corporations such as Wynn Resorts and Vici Properties indicates that Ejiawoko's legal team aims to expose not only individual misconduct but also the broader systems and business relationships that may have enabled Combs's alleged criminal behavior to persist.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. Sexual Battery (Cal. Civ. Code § 1708.5) 2. Civil Conspiracy 3. Violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (18 U.S.C. § 1595) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Civil Procedure: Are boutique firms entitled to big law rates when claiming attorney's fees? - Argued: Tue, 15 Jul 2025 12:27:59 EDT

Free Speech: May a visa holder object on free speech grounds to the Secretary of State's revocation of their visa? - Argued: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 20:38:58 EDT

Free Speech: May a visa holder object on free speech grounds to the Secretary of State's revocation of their visa? - Argued: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 20:33:48 EDT

Free Speech: When may the police arrest someone for filming their activities on a public street? - Argued: Wed, 01 Oct 2025 10:18:59 EDT

Separation of Powers: May a federal court enjoin the dismantling of the Voice of America? - Argued: Mon, 22 Sep 2025 10:31:21 EDT

Abortion: Must Planned Parenthood reimburse Texas and Louisiana for Medicaid funds paid under a court injunction that was later vacated? - Argued: Thu, 25 Sep 2025 10:35:22 EDT

https://vimeo.com/1122471502?share=copy#t=0 https://www.currentfederaltaxdevelopments.com/podcasts/2025/9/27/2025-09-29-the-end-of-individual-refund-checks-approaches This week we look at: Hobby Loss Rules: Young v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2025-95 Drought-Forced Livestock Sales: IRS Notice 2025-52 Per Diem Rates: IRS Notice 2025-54 End of Paper Refunds: IR-2025-94 / E.O. 14247 Syndicated Conservation Easements: Jackson Stone South, LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2025-96 Constructive Receipt & § 4958: Fumo v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2025-97 Whistleblower Awards: In re: Sealed Case, CA DC, Case No. 24-1001 Employee vs. Independent Contractor: Gil v. United States, USDC ED PA

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In this episode, Jim Garrity uses a pending bar disciplinary proceeding against a Florida lawyer as a potent reminder of the consequences of failing to ensure that your conversations during breaks in remote (virtual) depositions are not heard by others. As always, he offers practical guidance to help you avoid this potentially career-ending mistake. Citations to the referenced case are in the show notes.SHOW NOTESZoom community forum reporting audio feed despite activation of mute button (https://community.zoom.com/t5/Zoom-Meetings/Participant-on-mute-yet-I-can-still-hear-them/m-p/142674)Excerpt from Zoom's terms of service at https://www.zoom.com/en/trust/terms/ (You agree [that the software and services are provided “as is” and that Zoom makes no guarantee] . . . .that the services or software will...be...error free. . . . [Y]ou will be solely responsible for any damage to you resulting from the use of the services or software. The entire risk arising out of use or performance of the services or software remains with you”)Complaint, The Florida Bar v. Ferro, Case No. SC-2024-0156 (Fla. Sup. Ct. filed February 1, 2024); Florida Bar File Nos. Case Nos. 2023 – 30,035 (09B), 2023–30,115 (09B), and 2023-30,187(09B)Respondent's Response to Complaint, The Florida Bar v. Ferro, Case No. SC-2024-0156 (Fla. Sup. Ct. filed March 11, 2024); Florida Bar File Nos. Case Nos. 2023 – 30,035 (09B), 2023–30,115 (09B), and 2023-30,187(09B)Report of Referee, The Florida Bar v. Ferro, Case No. SC-2024-0156 (Fla. Sup. Ct. filed April 28, 2025); Florida Bar File Nos. Case Nos. 2023 – 30,035 (09B), 2023–30,115 (09B), and 2023-30,187(09B)Amended Initial Brief (attorney appealing Report & Recommendation of Referee), The Florida Bar v. Ferro, Case No. SC-2024-0156 (Fla. Sup. Ct. filed September 15); Florida Bar File Nos. Case Nos. 2023 – 30,035 (09B), 2023–30,115 (09B), and 2023-30,187(09B)

This week we look at: Hobby Loss Rules: Young v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2025-95 Drought-Forced Livestock Sales: IRS Notice 2025-52 Per Diem Rates: IRS Notice 2025-54 End of Paper Refunds: IR-2025-94 / E.O. 14247 Syndicated Conservation Easements: Jackson Stone South, LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2025-96 Constructive Receipt & § 4958: Fumo v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2025-97 Whistleblower Awards: In re: Sealed Case, CA DC, Case No. 24-1001 Employee vs. Independent Contractor: Gil v. United States, USDC ED PA

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Federalism: May New Jersey impose a residency requirement on those seeking medical aid in dying? - Argued: Wed, 17 Sep 2025 10:26:34 EDT

Antitrust: Does the NCAA's 5-year rule, which counts time spent in junior college, violate the Sherman Act? - Argued: Wed, 17 Sep 2025 10:43:22 EDT

While the team enjoys some much needed late summer break, Father Martins and co open the vault to let listeners hear one of the exclusive cases where Father goes back and shares what we didn't have time to dig into in the originals. Vault members have had access to this for a year. SponsorsFast Growing Trees- Get FIFTEEN PERCENT OFF at using the code EXFILES at checkoutTake the online quiz and introduce Ollie to your pet. Visit https://www.ollie.com/exfiles today for 60% off your first box of meals! #ToKnowThemIsToLoveThemTake your food to the next level with Graza Olive Oil. Visit https://graza.co/EXFILES and use promo code EXFILES today for 10% off your first order! Want more case behind the case? Check out exorcistfiles.supercast.com and sign up for the VaultSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.