Podcasts about case no

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-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.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.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Immigration: May the Trump Administration impose arrest quotas on ICE agents if they lead to arbitrary and unlawful arrests? - Argued: Mon, 28 Jul 2025 10:41:45 EDT

Immigration: May the Trump Administration issue a blanket revocation of humanitarian parole for removable aliens? - Argued: Mon, 28 Jul 2025 10:45:51 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-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

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.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.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.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.

Intellectual Property: When is it copyright infringement to base a tattoo on a photograph? - Argued: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 11:21:33 EDT

Civil Procedure: Is the listing of a separate "charge" on a bill, separate from the good or service purchased, misleading if it is used by the vendor to make a profit? - Argued: Wed, 09 Jul 2025 11:9:41 EDT

Immigration: Does the DHS Secretary have absolute discretion to terminate the temporary protected status of a class of immigrants? - Argued: Wed, 16 Jul 2025 11:26:33 EDT

Labor: When may the President terminate a federal employee union contract on grounds of "national security"? - Argued: Thu, 17 Jul 2025 11:28:57 EDT

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 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 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 the memorandum of law filed in Case No. 25-cv-00996, the Combs Defendants—consisting of Sean Combs and several affiliated Bad Boy entities—move to dismiss the complaint brought by a plaintiff identified as John Doe. The defense argues that the complaint fails to meet the basic legal standards required for litigation, lacking specific factual allegations that would establish a plausible claim for relief. They contend that the complaint is overly broad, relies on conclusory assertions, and does not clearly link the named defendants to any actionable conduct. The motion emphasizes that Doe's claims are insufficient under Rule 12(b)(6) and should not survive judicial scrutiny.Additionally, the Combs Defendants argue that the complaint improperly lumps together numerous corporate entities and unidentified “Doe” defendants without distinguishing their individual roles or responsibilities, making it impossible to determine who allegedly did what. They maintain that this generalized approach violates federal pleading standards and fails to provide the clarity needed for a meaningful legal defense. The memorandum ultimately requests that the court dismiss the complaint in its entirety and with prejudice, asserting that further amendments would be futile given the lack of concrete factual support.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.636272.44.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the memorandum of law filed in Case No. 25-cv-00996, the Combs Defendants—consisting of Sean Combs and several affiliated Bad Boy entities—move to dismiss the complaint brought by a plaintiff identified as John Doe. The defense argues that the complaint fails to meet the basic legal standards required for litigation, lacking specific factual allegations that would establish a plausible claim for relief. They contend that the complaint is overly broad, relies on conclusory assertions, and does not clearly link the named defendants to any actionable conduct. The motion emphasizes that Doe's claims are insufficient under Rule 12(b)(6) and should not survive judicial scrutiny.Additionally, the Combs Defendants argue that the complaint improperly lumps together numerous corporate entities and unidentified “Doe” defendants without distinguishing their individual roles or responsibilities, making it impossible to determine who allegedly did what. They maintain that this generalized approach violates federal pleading standards and fails to provide the clarity needed for a meaningful legal defense. The memorandum ultimately requests that the court dismiss the complaint in its entirety and with prejudice, asserting that further amendments would be futile given the lack of concrete factual support.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.636272.44.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the memorandum of law filed in Case No. 25-cv-00996, the Combs Defendants—consisting of Sean Combs and several affiliated Bad Boy entities—move to dismiss the complaint brought by a plaintiff identified as John Doe. The defense argues that the complaint fails to meet the basic legal standards required for litigation, lacking specific factual allegations that would establish a plausible claim for relief. They contend that the complaint is overly broad, relies on conclusory assertions, and does not clearly link the named defendants to any actionable conduct. The motion emphasizes that Doe's claims are insufficient under Rule 12(b)(6) and should not survive judicial scrutiny.Additionally, the Combs Defendants argue that the complaint improperly lumps together numerous corporate entities and unidentified “Doe” defendants without distinguishing their individual roles or responsibilities, making it impossible to determine who allegedly did what. They maintain that this generalized approach violates federal pleading standards and fails to provide the clarity needed for a meaningful legal defense. The memorandum ultimately requests that the court dismiss the complaint in its entirety and with prejudice, asserting that further amendments would be futile given the lack of concrete factual support.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.636272.44.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the memorandum of law filed in Case No. 25-cv-00996, the Combs Defendants—consisting of Sean Combs and several affiliated Bad Boy entities—move to dismiss the complaint brought by a plaintiff identified as John Doe. The defense argues that the complaint fails to meet the basic legal standards required for litigation, lacking specific factual allegations that would establish a plausible claim for relief. They contend that the complaint is overly broad, relies on conclusory assertions, and does not clearly link the named defendants to any actionable conduct. The motion emphasizes that Doe's claims are insufficient under Rule 12(b)(6) and should not survive judicial scrutiny.Additionally, the Combs Defendants argue that the complaint improperly lumps together numerous corporate entities and unidentified “Doe” defendants without distinguishing their individual roles or responsibilities, making it impossible to determine who allegedly did what. They maintain that this generalized approach violates federal pleading standards and fails to provide the clarity needed for a meaningful legal defense. The memorandum ultimately requests that the court dismiss the complaint in its entirety and with prejudice, asserting that further amendments would be futile given the lack of concrete factual support.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.636272.44.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Tort: Did Amazon defraud consumers by rescinding Prime Member's entitlement to free delivery of groceries from Whole Foods? - Argued: Wed, 09 Jul 2025 14:10:58 EDT

Free Speech: Can a professor's off-campus use of racist speech constitute a campus disruption sufficient to terminate him from the university? - Argued: Wed, 09 Jul 2025 14:8:5 EDT

First Amendment: May New Jersey prohibit the release of personal information about public officials and employees? - Argued: Wed, 09 Jul 2025 11:35:37 EDT

In this episode, Jim Garrity argues for more frequent videotaping of depositions, especially those of parties and witnesses likely to be unavailable at trial. The reason? Unlike live witnesses - who are generally called once in trial - videotaped testimony can be played two or more times. This technique utilizes one of the most effective tools of persuasion ever invented, repetition, borrowed straight from Madison Avenue, where repetition is everything. Clips played during the trial, during closing, and sometimes in opening by consent or court order, allow you to essentially present the same witness and testimony multiple times. This kind of repetition isn't possible with live witnesses, and is far superior to reading deposition transcripts to the jury. In a world where people are accustomed to getting their information through video, reading a transcript of testimony is likely to test your jurors' attention span (and patience). Garrity discusses a UCLA professor's "7-38-55 rule" to underscore the point. The gist of this rule is that when people communicate, only 7% of the message is conveyed through words, 38% through tone and voice, and a whopping 55% through body language. That's what makes the presentation of deposition testimony by video clips so powerful. Listen in!SHOW NOTESSmith, et al. v. City of Chicago, etc., Case No. 21-cv-1159, 2025 WL 1744919 (N. D. Ill. June 24, 2025) (denying use of video depo testimony in opening, but allowing it in closing argument that was admitted into evidence during trial, over objections by defendants that permitting video testimony during closing statements would be “unfairly prejudicial because it emphasizes testimony that is presented by video through repetition, and that opportunity does not exist for a live witness”)Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., No. C-05-00334 RMW, 2008 WL 190990, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2008) (denying use of video depo testimony in opening, but would consider allowing reading from transcript; “If the parties wish to read a portion of a deposition transcript in their opening statement, they are to exchange any excerpt with opposing counsel sufficiently in advance of opening statements so that the court can rule on any dispute over use”)Doe v. City of San Diego, No. 12CV689-MMA (DHB), 2014 WL 11997809, at *6 (S.D. Cal. July 25, 2014) (collecting cases refusing to allow playing of videotaped deposition testimony during opening statements) (“See In re Ethicon, Inc., 2014 WL 505234, at *8 (S.D. W. Va. Feb. 5, 2014) (“[T]he use of video clips during opening statements is precluded as to all parties ....”) (quoting In re Bard, Inc., 2013 WL 3282926, at *8 (S.D. W. Va. June 27, 2013)); Carpenter v. Forest Meadows Owners Ass'n, 2011 WL 3207778, at *7 (“Video recordings of the deposition will not be permitted.”) (emphasis in original); Chopourian v. Catholic Healthcare W., No. 09–2972 KJM, 2011 WL 6396500, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2011) (denying the plaintiff's motion to use portions of videotaped depositions during opening statement); Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., 2008 WL 190990, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (“Neither side shall use any videotaped deposition testimony in its opening statement.”); but see Sadler v. Advanced Bionics, LLC, at *3 (W.D. Kent. April 1, 2013) (providing that the court “may” consider allowing the parties to utilize videotaped deposition testimony during opening statements); MBI Acquisition Partners, L.P. v. Chronicle Pub. Co., 2002 WL 32349903, at *2 (permitting party to play segments of video deposition in its opening statement))Beem v. Providence Health & Servs., No. 10-CV-0037-TOR, 2012 WL 13018728, at *2 (E.D. Wash. Apr. 19, 2012) (rejecting request to play videotaped deposition during opening, and rejecting argument by plaintiff that, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(3), she may use the deposition of an adverse party “for any purpose,” stating that “What Plaintiff proposes to do, is to introduce evidence during opening statement. The Court will not allow the showing of video deposition excerpts during opening statement. The motion is denied.”)K.C. ex rel. Calaway v. Schucker, No. 02-2715-STA-CGC, 2013 WL 5972192, at *7 (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 8, 2013) (“there is no per se ban on the use of video excerpts of depositions in closing arguments”; also citing 88 C.J.S. Trial § 300 (2013) (“[T]here is no blanket prohibition against counsel playing selected portions of a videotaped deposition for a jury during closing argument, and trial courts have discretion to permit, or to refuse, the replaying of videotape segments in closing argument.”)MBI Acquisition Partners, L.P. v. Chron. Pub. Co., No. 01-C-0177-C, 2002 WL 32349903, at *1 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 2, 2002) (allowing use of video depo excerpt in opening, stating, without further discussion, that “Defendants may use excerpts from the video deposition of David Straden during opening argument. Counsel are to advise plaintiff's counsel promptly of the particular excerpts they intend to show”)Sadler v. Advanced Bionics, LLC, No. 3:11-CV-00450-TBR, 2013 WL 1340350, at *3 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 1, 2013) (preliminarily allowing use of videotaped deposition testimony in opening statements, saying If this testimony is otherwise admissible at trial and is not unnecessarily lengthy, the Court may consider allowing this procedure for both parties”)Northfield Ins. Co. v. Royal Surplus Lines Ins. Co., No. SACV 03-0492-JVS, 2003 WL 25948971, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2003) (subject to further objection and ruling before trial, “The Court is generally of the view that a party in opening statement may use any piece of evidence which the party in good faith believes will be ultimately received at trial. Rule 32(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits the use of a party deposition “for any purpose”) you like the shoes I wore in high schoolSmith v. I-Flow Corp., No. 09 C 3908, 2011 WL 12627557, at *4 (N.D. Ill. June 15, 2011) (“The Court denies I–Flow's request to bar use in opening statement of excerpts from video deposition testimony. The Court will expect plaintiffs to disclose by no later than noon on the Friday before the start of trial any such excerpts they intend to use in opening statements and will expect defendants to make reciprocal disclosures by no later than 5:00 p.m. on the Saturday before the start of trial.”)Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(3) (providing that "An adverse party may use for any purpose the deposition of a party or anyone who, when deposed, was the party's officer, director, managing agent, or designee...") (emphasis added)

The case Doe v. Combs, Case No.: 23-cv-10628 (JGLC) involves a civil lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by a plaintiff identified as Jane Doe against Sean "Diddy" Combs, Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings, and other entities. The lawsuit alleges sexual assault, coercion, and other forms of abuse dating back several years. The claims are part of a larger set of accusations against Combs involving misconduct at parties, often referred to as "freak-offs."Jane Doe asserts that she was sexually assaulted by Combs and his associates when she was a minor. She is now in her late 30s, and her complaint argues that she suffered significant harm during these events. The case also touches on other previous legal actions involving Combs, including allegations made by Cassie, another former associate. The defense has raised concerns about the fairness of the proceedings due to Jane Doe's anonymity, arguing that it hampers their ability to investigate and defend against the claims.This lawsuit is part of a wave of legal challenges against Combs, with over 120 alleged victims coming forward, many of whom claim they were minors at the time of the abuse. The case continues to develop as more evidence is gathered, including videos and witness statements that could play a crucial role in the proceedings. Combs and his legal team have denied all allegations and are preparing for trial​.(commercial at 7:43)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.611545.64.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Immigration: May the president use the Alien Enemies Act to summarily deport suspected gang members from Latin America? - Argued: Mon, 30 Jun 2025 12:18:48 EDT

Executive Power: Is President Trump immune from a defamation judgment won by E. Jean Carroll? - Argued: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 12:15:19 EDT

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.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Free Speech: Do anti-abortion groups have a First Amendment right to advertise abortion "reversal" services? - Argued: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 12:57:21 EDT

Now that the pandemic is fading from our memories, courts are showing a renewed willingness to order plaintiffs to appear in person for their depositions, even when a plaintiff has relocated to distant places and will incur considerable expense and inconvenience if forced to travel. In this episode, Jim Garrity dissects a brand-new court ruling on the topic, explains in detail why the plaintiff in that case failed to win a protective order requiring her to travel 2,000 miles back to the litigation forum. Then he offers crucial tactical advices for both plaintiffs and defendants when fighting this battle. SHOW NOTESOrder Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order, Krishmar-Junker v. Kingline Equipment, Inc., Case No. 23-0431-KD-B, 2025 WL 1710041 (S.D. Ala. June 18, 2025) (court refused to issue protective order where plaintiff, who moved cross-country since filing her lawsuit, claimed financial and medical hardships but failed to meet her burden of a particularized showing of harm to justify relief)

In State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, the defense submitted a reply challenging the State's opposition to its motion to continue the trial. Kohberger's legal team argues that the prosecution's objection ignores the complex and voluminous nature of discovery materials still being reviewed, which include thousands of pages of documents, hours of surveillance footage, and extensive forensic data. The defense emphasizes that proceeding without adequate time to evaluate this evidence would compromise Kohberger's constitutional right to a fair trial and effective assistance of counsel.Additionally, the reply underscores that this is a capital case with unique legal and investigative demands, requiring more preparation time than the prosecution acknowledges. The defense contends that rushing the proceedings would not serve justice and that the need for a continuance is both reasonable and necessary given the gravity of the charges and the scope of the case. They urge the court to grant the motion and reject the State's assertion that further delay is unwarranted.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:061625+Defendants+Reply+to+the+States+Opposition+to+Defendants+Motion+to+Continue.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, the defense submitted a reply challenging the State's opposition to its motion to continue the trial. Kohberger's legal team argues that the prosecution's objection ignores the complex and voluminous nature of discovery materials still being reviewed, which include thousands of pages of documents, hours of surveillance footage, and extensive forensic data. The defense emphasizes that proceeding without adequate time to evaluate this evidence would compromise Kohberger's constitutional right to a fair trial and effective assistance of counsel.Additionally, the reply underscores that this is a capital case with unique legal and investigative demands, requiring more preparation time than the prosecution acknowledges. The defense contends that rushing the proceedings would not serve justice and that the need for a continuance is both reasonable and necessary given the gravity of the charges and the scope of the case. They urge the court to grant the motion and reject the State's assertion that further delay is unwarranted.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:061625+Defendants+Reply+to+the+States+Opposition+to+Defendants+Motion+to+Continue.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, the defense submitted a reply challenging the State's opposition to its motion to continue the trial. Kohberger's legal team argues that the prosecution's objection ignores the complex and voluminous nature of discovery materials still being reviewed, which include thousands of pages of documents, hours of surveillance footage, and extensive forensic data. The defense emphasizes that proceeding without adequate time to evaluate this evidence would compromise Kohberger's constitutional right to a fair trial and effective assistance of counsel.Additionally, the reply underscores that this is a capital case with unique legal and investigative demands, requiring more preparation time than the prosecution acknowledges. The defense contends that rushing the proceedings would not serve justice and that the need for a continuance is both reasonable and necessary given the gravity of the charges and the scope of the case. They urge the court to grant the motion and reject the State's assertion that further delay is unwarranted.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:061625+Defendants+Reply+to+the+States+Opposition+to+Defendants+Motion+to+Continue.pdf

In State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, the defense submitted a reply challenging the State's opposition to its motion to continue the trial. Kohberger's legal team argues that the prosecution's objection ignores the complex and voluminous nature of discovery materials still being reviewed, which include thousands of pages of documents, hours of surveillance footage, and extensive forensic data. The defense emphasizes that proceeding without adequate time to evaluate this evidence would compromise Kohberger's constitutional right to a fair trial and effective assistance of counsel.Additionally, the reply underscores that this is a capital case with unique legal and investigative demands, requiring more preparation time than the prosecution acknowledges. The defense contends that rushing the proceedings would not serve justice and that the need for a continuance is both reasonable and necessary given the gravity of the charges and the scope of the case. They urge the court to grant the motion and reject the State's assertion that further delay is unwarranted.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:061625+Defendants+Reply+to+the+States+Opposition+to+Defendants+Motion+to+Continue.pdf

Federalism: Should the Department of Education be permitted to withhold previously approved COVID relief funds? - Argued: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 12:25:46 EDT

In the amended complaint filed in Joseph Rose v. Sean Combs et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-07974-JMF, plaintiff Joseph Rose brings a civil action against Sean Combs and various affiliated entities, including Daddy's House Recordings, Combs Global (formerly Combs Enterprises), multiple Bad Boy corporate entities, and unnamed organizational and individual defendants. The plaintiff alleges a range of misconduct tied to Combs and his corporate network, seeking to hold them liable for damages stemming from what appears to be a pattern of unlawful, abusive, or otherwise harmful conduct.The complaint, which includes a demand for a jury trial, reflects an effort by Rose to pierce the corporate veil and hold Combs and his business empire accountable through civil litigation. By naming multiple corporate shells and unidentified individuals and organizations, the plaintiff signals an intent to expose a broader network potentially involved in or facilitating the alleged wrongdoing. The lawsuit seeks legal redress under federal jurisdiction and continues a growing list of civil claims now surrounding Combs and his business operations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.630243.64.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the amended complaint filed in Joseph Rose v. Sean Combs et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-07974-JMF, plaintiff Joseph Rose brings a civil action against Sean Combs and various affiliated entities, including Daddy's House Recordings, Combs Global (formerly Combs Enterprises), multiple Bad Boy corporate entities, and unnamed organizational and individual defendants. The plaintiff alleges a range of misconduct tied to Combs and his corporate network, seeking to hold them liable for damages stemming from what appears to be a pattern of unlawful, abusive, or otherwise harmful conduct.The complaint, which includes a demand for a jury trial, reflects an effort by Rose to pierce the corporate veil and hold Combs and his business empire accountable through civil litigation. By naming multiple corporate shells and unidentified individuals and organizations, the plaintiff signals an intent to expose a broader network potentially involved in or facilitating the alleged wrongdoing. The lawsuit seeks legal redress under federal jurisdiction and continues a growing list of civil claims now surrounding Combs and his business operations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.630243.64.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Federalism: May President Trump nationalize the California National Guard in response to immigration protests in Los Angeles? - Argued: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 21:52:29 EDT