Podcasts about case no

Administrative Law: When can a district court enjoin the government from engaging in layoffs from a federal agency? - Argued: Wed, 25 Feb 2026 14:17:27 EDT

Property: Does selling a home to pay a debt to the government violate the Fifth and Eighth Amendments, when the auction price is artificially below fair market value? - Argued: Wed, 25 Feb 2026 14:13:31 EDT

Civil Procedure: Do district courts have the authority to excuse the thirty-day procedural time limit for removal in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1)? - Argued: Tue, 24 Feb 2026 14:10:43 EDT

I started documenting Goliath Ventures on 1 September 2025 after investors began quietly telling me withdrawals had stalled.At the time, the explanation was simple: liquidity delays, wallet restrictions, MSB approvals in progress. Weekly emails reassured everyone that patience was required. What began as a financial dispute has now become a federal criminal case.Christopher Alexander Delgado, CEO of Goliath Ventures Inc, has been arrested and charged by the United States government with wire fraud and money laundering. The Department of Justice is alleging that what investors were told was a sophisticated cryptocurrency liquidity pool operation was, in fact, a $328 million Ponzi scheme.THE SCAM BEGINSAccording to the federal complaint, from January 2023 through January 2026 Goliath Ventures raised at least $328 million from investors. The pitch was modern and technical. Funds would be deployed into cryptocurrency liquidity pools. Monthly returns between 3% and 8% were presented as achievable. Some were told returns were effectively guaranteed. Joint Venture Agreements promised principal would be returned “without diminution or impairment,” with withdrawals processed within five to seven business days.That language created confidence. The contracts looked structured. The dashboards showed monthly distribution rates. The numbers increased. Investors saw what appeared to be performance.THE STRUCTURE UNRAVELSFederal investigators now allege that although investors were told their money was being placed into liquidity pools, little to none of it was meaningfully deployed that way. Instead, the complaint states that new investor funds were used to pay purported returns to earlier investors, to return principal to those requesting withdrawals, and to cover corporate and personal expenses.Bank records cited in the complaint show hundreds of millions flowing into specific business accounts. Approximately $253 million was deposited into one JP Morgan Chase account. Another $75 million went into a Bank of America account. Tens of millions moved into Coinbase wallets allegedly controlled by Delgado. He was identified as the sole signatory on key accounts.Blockchain analysis, including work performed by Chainalysis Government Solutions, allegedly showed only a small fraction of funds ever reaching platforms like Uniswap. Meanwhile, investor dashboards continued to reflect steady monthly returns.If proven, that gap between representation and reality becomes the core of the case.THE LIFESTYLEThe complaint also details real estate purchases allegedly funded with investor money. Properties in Winter Park, Kissimmee, Windermere, and Sanford, each valued between approximately $1.15 million and $8.5 million. The government outlines transactions that form part of the money laundering count, including a $300,000 transfer cited in the charging documents.For months, investors were told delays were temporary. Meanwhile, according to the affidavit, funds were cycling internally and assets were being acquired.THE ARRESTOn February 24, 2026, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida issued a press release titled “Goliath Ventures CEO Arrested for Wire Fraud and Money Laundering.” The case is now formally listed as United States v. Christopher Alexander Delgado, Case No. 6:26-mj-01240-LHP.The investigation is being conducted by IRS Criminal Investigation and Homeland Security Investigations. Prosecutors named in the case include AssistBuy Me a Coffee I'm on @buymeacoffee. If you like my work, you can buy me a coffee and share your thoughts.Support the show

International Law: Must a plaintiff prove that the defendant trafficked in property confiscated by the Cuban government as to which the plaintiff owns a claim when making a claim for expropriation? - Argued: Mon, 23 Feb 2026 11:44:16 EDT

International Law: Does the Helms-Burton Act abrogates foreign sovereign immunity in cases against Cuban instrumentalities? - Argued: Mon, 23 Feb 2026 11:45:47 EDT

Administrative Law: May a company offer fertility support services to those on government insurance programs, where its products cause fertility issues, without violating anti-kickback prohibitions? - Argued: Mon, 23 Feb 2026 11:57:56 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: Under Home Rule, may the Tennessee legislature strip Nashville of its governing powers without its consent? - Argued: Thu, 12 Feb 2026 16:10:34 EDT

Criminal Procedure: Must an indictment be dismissed where the Attorney General extends the term of an interim U.S. attorney by making them an acting U.S. attorney? - Argued: Thu, 12 Feb 2026 15:46:17 EDT

Criminal Procedure: Does jury tampering by the Clerk of Court require the reversal of Alex Murdaugh's murder conviction? - Argued: Wed, 11 Feb 2026 14:52:17 EDT

Today's Spivey v. Boyd/Williams hearing is available to all on our YouTube channel. Or Join LUNASHARK Premium to Join Our Hosts for all the context and community. But first... Investigative journalists ⁠⁠Mandy Matney⁠⁠ and⁠ ⁠Liz Farrell⁠⁠ and attorney Eric Bland break down the stunning oral arguments in Alex Murdaugh's murder conviction appeal before the South Carolina Supreme Court — and they have a lot of questions about the questions that weren't asked.  The team dissects how the justices appeared to do the defense's heavy lifting, going hard on Judge Newman's evidentiary decisions and the state's case while going easy on Dick Harpootlian and Jim Griffin.  Plus, Buster Murdaugh quietly settles his federal defamation lawsuit against Warner Brothers and Mandy shares her raw frustration after her motion to quash a deposition in the Parker case was denied, sparking a fierce conversation about First Amendment rights, discovery abuse, and why journalists shouldn't be harassed by untrustworthy lawyers who's clients don't like their deeds exposed for the world to see. ☕ Cups Up! ⚖️Episode References Eric Bland on CourtTV's “Opening Statements with Julie Grant” 

Civil Rights: May health insurance plans categorically decline coverage for "gender affirming care" for minors? - Argued: Thu, 12 Feb 2026 15:29:6 EDT

Torts: What must flight attendants show to sustain a claim that the uniforms that American Airlines required them to wear were toxic? - Argued: Fri, 13 Feb 2026 15:32:34 EDT

In March of 2015, Denise Huskins was kidnapped, drugged, sexually assaulted, and held for 48 hours. When she was released, police called it a hoax and demanded that she apologize for wasting resources. The media dubbed it the "Gone Girl" case and death threats started flooding in. Except it wasn't a hoax at all. It was a Harvard-educated serial rapist named Matthew Muller who'd been terrorizing California for years. In this episode, we'll go through the kidnapping, the police misconduct that revictimized the survivors, Detective Misty Carausu's brilliant investigative work that finally caught Muller, and how Denise and Aaron turned trauma into national advocacy. From victims to suspects to survivors...their story changed how law enforcement handles sexual assault cases across America.For Survivors of Sexual Violence:- RAINN National Sexual Assault Hotline: 1-800-656-HOPE (4673)- RAINN Online Chat:https://hotline.rainn.org/online- Crisis Text Line: Text HOME to 741741- National Sexual Violence Resource Center:https://www.nsvrc.org/For Victims of Police Misconduct:- ACLU:https://www.aclu.org/- National Police Accountability Project:https://www.nlg-npap.org/- Innocence Project:https://innocenceproject.org/Mental Health Support:- National Suicide Prevention Lifeline: 988- SAMHSA National Helpline: 1-800-662-4357- Psychology Today Therapist Finder:https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapistsSources:San Francisco Chronicle (Henry K. Lee's Reporting):- https://www.sfchronicle.com/ (Search "Denise Huskins" for extensive archive)Major National News Outlets:- https://abcnews.go.com/ - https://www.nbcnews.com/ - https://www.cnn.com/ - https://www.nytimes.com/ - https://www.latimes.com/ - https://www.usatoday.com/ Bay Area Local News:- https://www.ktvu.com/ - https://www.kron4.com/ - https://www.mercurynews.com/ - https://www.sfgate.com/ - https://www.timesheraldonline.com/ People Magazine & Entertainment:- https://people.com/ (Search "Denise Huskins" for features)American Nightmare (2024):- https://www.netflix.com/title/81456520 "Victim F: From Crime Victims to Suspects to Survivors" (2021):- https://www.amazon.com/Victim-Crime-Victims-Suspects-Survivors/dp/1538720558Federal Court Case:- https://www.justice.gov/usao-edca - Case: USA v. Matthew Daniel Muller, Case No. 2:15-cr-00242-TLN- https://www.pacer.gov/ State Court Cases:- https://www.solano.courts.ca.gov/ - https://www.santaclaracourt.org/ - https://www.cc-courts.org/ Defamation Lawsuit:- Huskins v. City of Vallejo - Settled March 2018 for $2.5 millionDenise Huskins' Attorneys:- Doug Rappaport- https://www.rappaportlaw.com/ Aaron Quinn's Attorneys:- Daniel Russo- https://russoandrusso.com/ Law Enforcement Training:- The case is now taught at police academies nationwide- Featured in FBI training materials on sexual assault investigations- https://www.fbi.gov/services/training-academy Criminal History & Background:- https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (Federal Bureau of Prisons Inmate Locator)- Search: Matthew Daniel Muller, Register Number: 04664-111California State Bar:- https://www.calbar.ca.gov/ - Search for Matthew Muller's disciplinary records and disbarmentYouTube:- https://www.youtube.com/@ABCNews - https://www.youtube.com/@DatelineNBC - https://www.youtube.com/@netflix 2015 News Archives:- https://www.newspapers.com/ - https://news.google.com/newspapers Articles Analyzing the Case:- https://www.vulture.com/ (Vulture - entertainment analysis)- https://www.rollingstone.com/ (Rolling Stone features)- https://www.vanityfair.com/ (Vanity Fair long-form)"Gone Girl" Film (2014):- https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2267998/ Denise & Aaron's Advocacy Work:- They've trained law enforcement agencies nationwide- Spoken at conferences on sexual assault investigation best practices- Worked with prosecutors on Muller's cold casesCalifornia Prosecutors' Recognition:- 2025: Named "Witnesses of the Year" by California prosecutors- https://www.cdaa.org/California District Attorneys Association:- https://www.cdaa.org/ (2025 Witnesses of the Year announcement)Snopes:- https://www.snopes.com/ (Search "Denise Huskins" for fact-checking)FBI Press Releases:- https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases (Search "Matthew Muller")U.S. Attorney's Office:- https://www.justice.gov/usao-edca/pr (Press releases on Muller's prosecution)Vallejo Police 2021 Apology:- Issued by Chief Shawny Williams on August 25, 2021- Archived in news articles and official city records$2.5 Million Settlement (March 2018):- City of Vallejo settled defamation lawsuit- No admission of wrongdoing required by settlement terms- Covered extensively in news mediaDenise & Aaron's Media Appearances:- ABC News 20/20- Dateline NBC- Various podcast interviews- Law enforcement training events- Public policy panelsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/reverie-true-crime--4442888/support.Keep In Touch:Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/reveriecrimepodInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/reverietruecrimeTumblr: https://reverietruecrimepodcast.tumblr.comFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/reverietruecrimeContact: ReverieTrueCrime@gmail.com Intro & Outro by Jahred Gomes: https://www.instagram.com/jahredgomes_official 

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein's abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein's trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdf

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein's abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein's trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdf

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein's abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein's trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdf

Intellectual Property: When are techniques for training machine learning models patentable? - Argued: Mon, 02 Feb 2026 11:6:27 EDT

Federalism: Can the Trump Administration bar municipal grant recipients from having DEI programs, providing abortion services, or being sanctuary cities? - Argued: Mon, 09 Feb 2026 11:18:37 EDT

Immigration: What due process rights do excludable aliens have when slated for third country removal? - Argued: Tue, 03 Feb 2026 11:8:54 EDT

Intellectual Property: Does removing copyright management information from open source code violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act when used to train AI models? - Argued: Wed, 11 Feb 2026 11:22:36 EDT

Second Amendment: How broadly may a State define "sensitive places" where firearm possession may be restricted? - Argued: Wed, 11 Feb 2026 11:30:34 EDT

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein's abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein's trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdf

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein's abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein's trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdf

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein's abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein's trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdf

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein's abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein's trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdf

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.

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein's abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein's trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdf

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.

National Security: What must be shown for DOD to designate a company as a "Chinese military company"? - Argued: Fri, 06 Feb 2026 13:39:12 EDT

Privacy: Is there a right to privacy in the photos that police take of the scene of a loved one's death? - Argued: Wed, 04 Feb 2026 13:46:28 EDT

Civil Rights: Does denying a professors request to teach remotely fail to provide a reasonable disability accommodation? - Argued: Thu, 05 Feb 2026 13:44:10 EDT

Religious Liberty: May the courts enjoin ICE from conducting raids in churches? - Argued: Thu, 05 Feb 2026 13:41:14 EDT

Administrative Law: May the Trump Administration be enjoined from freezing congressionally appropriated funds owed to nonprofit organizations? - Argued: Fri, 06 Feb 2026 13:36:0 EDT

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein's abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein's trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein's abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein's trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein's abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein's trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein's abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein's trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.