Podcasts about case no

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

Contracts: Are insurers liable when gun sellers face liability for trafficking in ghost gun parts? - Argued: Wed, 17 Sep 2025 11:29:29 EDT

Intellectual Property: Does Super JoJo infringe the intellectual property rights of CocoMelon? - Argued: Wed, 17 Sep 2025 11:23:46 EDT

First Amendment: Is the sale of an AutoKeyCard, a template that can be used to make an AR-15 into an automatic rifle, protected by the First Amendment? - Argued: Thu, 11 Sep 2025 11:17:58 EDT

Free Speech: May the Trump Administration condition grants on whether a school has a DEI policy? - Argued: Thu, 11 Sep 2025 16:20:10 EDT

Free Speech: May the legislature punish disrespectful speech, including misgendering, in legislative proceedings? - Argued: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 16:4:35 EDT

International Law: Was Hungary "occupied" by the Germans during WWII, enabling Holocaust survivors to sue for the return of stolen art? - Argued: Mon, 08 Sep 2025 12:9:5 EDT

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

This week's roundup spotlights four brand-new deposition rulings from across the country. Two address when plaintiffs may appear remotely—what courts require, what constitutes good cause, and the practical showings that move the needle. The other two confront a quiet but consequential trial hazard: deposition testimony that's read or played for the jury yet never placed into the record. (Many reporters pause their keyboards during read-ins, assuming the material is already transcribed—an easy oversight that can derail an appeal if the missing testimony is essential.) Join us for a concise tour of the standards, the pitfalls, and the simple steps to protect your record before it's too late. It's another critical episode from the country's leading expert on depositions. Citations and parentheticals to every case discussed appear in our show notes. Have a great week!SHOW NOTESNorth Carolina v. Johnson, No. COA24-451, 2025 WL 2408913 (N.C. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2025) (court could not consider arguments in favor of reversal that were based on videotaped testimony played at trial but not placed into the trial record)G.W. Aru LLC, et al. v. W.R. Grace & Co. No. CV JKB-22-2636, 2025 WL 2402194 (D. Md. Aug. 19, 2025) (court ordered parties to transcript deposition excerpts played at trial, and then file those excerpts by stipulation, where they had not been entered into the docket)Shumaker v. Alarsi, et al., No. 1:23-CV-4-SA-DAS, 2025 WL 2418386 (N.D. Miss. Aug. 20, 2025) (rejecting motion for protective order, to allow plaintiffs to avoid 900-mile trip for in-person deposition, where the motion lacked any meaningful detail showing good cause for such an order)Shah v. Fortive Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-312 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 21, 2025) (rejecting plaintiff's request to appear remotely where travel to the forum of the litigation would require "40,000 miles of flight over 48 hours"; plaintiff failed to show distinct hardship or expense)

Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D. Baker YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/live/X7H24DzEPnI Due to numerous public records requests in the Bryan Kohberger Case, law enforcement agencies in Idaho released over 200 crime scene photos online, some of which depict the victims, albeit blurred. Though it was blurred it still leaves room for the imagination and recommended that it be blacked out redactions. This widespread release occurred because the case did not go to trial, meaning the photos didn't undergo the official sealing process typically seen in court proceedings like the Alex Murdaugh case. The lack of judicial oversight in the release process of the Bryan Kohberger Case led to a lawsuit against the city of Moscow. Madison Mogen's mother, Karen Laramie, requested a temporary restraining order (TRO) after redacted crime scene photos were released. On August 15th, Idaho Second District Judge Marshall issued a TRO, blocking the city from releasing any further images, audio, or video depicting the inside of Madison Mogen's bedroom until a preliminary injunction hearing on August 21st. While the TRO specifically applies to Mogen's bedroom, the city has stated it will not release photos or videos from any victim's bedroom until the court fully reviews the matter. The attorney representing the families, Leander James, emphasized that the families want peace and not conflict, and urged the public to avoid viewing the photos. RESOURCES Alex Murdaugh Trial Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gK8GOeWkGfi7acMnT-D0zaw Official Press Release - https://www.ci.moscow.id.us/CivicSend/ViewMessage/Message/268331 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Civil Procedure: Are government documents respecting the plans for mass layoff of federal employees protected by the deliberative process privilege? - Argued: Thu, 21 Aug 2025 19:55:10 EDT

Administrative Law: May a district court enjoin the Office of Personnel Management from ordering six agencies to fire probationary employees en masse? - Argued: Tue, 19 Aug 2025 19:42:6 EDT

Civil Procedure: In a securities fraud class action, may reliance be presumed only if corrective statements "expressly and specifically negate" the misstatement or "directly render" it false? - Argued: Thu, 14 Aug 2025 20:23:43 EDT

In Bryan Kohberger's trial (Case No. CR29-22-2805), the defense filed a motion to strike the "utter disregard" aggravator, a legal factor that could justify seeking the death penalty by arguing the crime was committed with complete indifference to human life. The defense contends that the prosecution's use of this aggravator is unwarranted based on the evidence. They argue that the threshold for proving "utter disregard" has not been met and that the evidence doesn't support the claim that Kohberger's actions demonstrated such extreme disregard for human life.This motion is significant because it directly impacts the prosecution's ability to pursue the death penalty. If the judge agrees with the defense and strikes the aggravator, it could weaken the state's case for capital punishment, potentially altering the trial's trajectory. The "utter disregard" aggravator is typically applied in cases of extreme violence or brutality, and the defense is aiming to prevent its application by emphasizing that the evidence presented does not reach this level of severity. The outcome of this motion could be pivotal for both sides as the trial progresses.(commercial at 9:40)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:OFFICE OF THE KOOTENAI COUNTYBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the case Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Case No. 1:22-cv-10904-JSR), the U.S. Virgin Islands filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment arguing that JPMorgan Chase knowingly facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation by continuing to provide him with banking services despite mounting evidence of criminal conduct. The memorandum asserts that the bank had repeated opportunities to sever ties with Epstein but instead chose profit over compliance, turning a blind eye to suspicious transactions, large cash withdrawals, and internal warnings. The Government contends that JPMorgan ignored numerous red flags—including sex abuse allegations and Epstein's 2008 conviction—because he was viewed as a “high-value client,” thereby making the bank legally and financially liable for aiding and abetting his criminal enterprise.Additionally, JPMorgan, acting as a Third-Party Plaintiff, has tried to shift blame to James “Jes” Staley, its former senior executive, claiming he misled the bank about Epstein's behavior and maintained an unusually close relationship with the disgraced financier. The Virgin Islands government argues, however, that JPMorgan's own internal communications and compliance failures show the misconduct was institutional, not isolated to Staley. Their summary judgment motion aims to have the court rule, without trial, that JPMorgan violated anti-trafficking and anti-money laundering laws, positioning the bank as a central financial enabler of Epstein's decades-long abuse. This motion, if granted, would significantly advance the territory's case and increase pressure on the bank to settle or face further reputational and legal fallout.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - MSJ BRIEF 7.24.23 Final WORD_Highlighted Black for Redactions (bwbx.io)

In the case Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Case No. 1:22-cv-10904-JSR), the U.S. Virgin Islands filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment arguing that JPMorgan Chase knowingly facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation by continuing to provide him with banking services despite mounting evidence of criminal conduct. The memorandum asserts that the bank had repeated opportunities to sever ties with Epstein but instead chose profit over compliance, turning a blind eye to suspicious transactions, large cash withdrawals, and internal warnings. The Government contends that JPMorgan ignored numerous red flags—including sex abuse allegations and Epstein's 2008 conviction—because he was viewed as a “high-value client,” thereby making the bank legally and financially liable for aiding and abetting his criminal enterprise.Additionally, JPMorgan, acting as a Third-Party Plaintiff, has tried to shift blame to James “Jes” Staley, its former senior executive, claiming he misled the bank about Epstein's behavior and maintained an unusually close relationship with the disgraced financier. The Virgin Islands government argues, however, that JPMorgan's own internal communications and compliance failures show the misconduct was institutional, not isolated to Staley. Their summary judgment motion aims to have the court rule, without trial, that JPMorgan violated anti-trafficking and anti-money laundering laws, positioning the bank as a central financial enabler of Epstein's decades-long abuse. This motion, if granted, would significantly advance the territory's case and increase pressure on the bank to settle or face further reputational and legal fallout.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - MSJ BRIEF 7.24.23 Final WORD_Highlighted Black for Redactions (bwbx.io)

In the case Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Case No. 1:22-cv-10904-JSR), the U.S. Virgin Islands filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment arguing that JPMorgan Chase knowingly facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation by continuing to provide him with banking services despite mounting evidence of criminal conduct. The memorandum asserts that the bank had repeated opportunities to sever ties with Epstein but instead chose profit over compliance, turning a blind eye to suspicious transactions, large cash withdrawals, and internal warnings. The Government contends that JPMorgan ignored numerous red flags—including sex abuse allegations and Epstein's 2008 conviction—because he was viewed as a “high-value client,” thereby making the bank legally and financially liable for aiding and abetting his criminal enterprise.Additionally, JPMorgan, acting as a Third-Party Plaintiff, has tried to shift blame to James “Jes” Staley, its former senior executive, claiming he misled the bank about Epstein's behavior and maintained an unusually close relationship with the disgraced financier. The Virgin Islands government argues, however, that JPMorgan's own internal communications and compliance failures show the misconduct was institutional, not isolated to Staley. Their summary judgment motion aims to have the court rule, without trial, that JPMorgan violated anti-trafficking and anti-money laundering laws, positioning the bank as a central financial enabler of Epstein's decades-long abuse. This motion, if granted, would significantly advance the territory's case and increase pressure on the bank to settle or face further reputational and legal fallout.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - MSJ BRIEF 7.24.23 Final WORD_Highlighted Black for Redactions (bwbx.io)

Are deposition expenses busting your budget? In this episode, Jim Garrity spotlights a clever strategy conceived by a southern California litigator to sharply cut the costs of deposition transcripts. It's yet another effort by trial lawyers to combat the insane costs of stenographic reporting, and one worth trying. The show notes point to seventeen relevant filings on this issue, four federal rules, and a website for a service that is actively helping lawyers cut deposition costs.Like this podcast? Our production crew LOVES 5-star reviews. They're free, fast to leave, and provide us the kind of appreciative good vibes we crave. Would you mind taking ten seconds and clicking on the five-star rating? Thanks!SHOW NOTES:Note: All filings listed below are from the case Black v. City of San Diego, Case No. 21-cv-1990-RBM-JLB (S.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2025)Plaintiff's Application For Leave To Conduct Deposition By Video And To Prepare Transcript Using Voice Recognition Technology According To FRCP Rule 30(b)(3)(A) (initial application by Plaintiff) PACER Doc. 153Defendants' Opposition To Plaintiffs Application For Leave To Prepare Deposition Transcript Using Voice Recognition Technology, PACER Doc. 160.Declaration Of Casey Stark In Support Of Plaintiffs Motion For Leave To Conduct Deposition By Video And To Prepare Transcript Using Voice Recognition Technology According To FRCP 30(b)(3)(A), PACER DOC. 153-1Defendant Tutterow's Notice Of Joinder In Defendant City Of San Diego's Opposition To Plaintiffs Ex Parte Application For Leave To Conduct Deposition By Video And Prepare Transcript Using Voice Recognition, PACER Doc. 162.Defendants Supplement To Opposition To Plaintiffs Application For Leave To Prepare Deposition Transcript Using Voice Recognition Technology, PACER Doc. 164Plaintiffs Reply To Opposition To Application For Leave To Conduct Deposition By Video And To Prepare Transcript Using Voice Recognition Technology According To FRCP Rule 30(b)(3)(A), PACER Doc. 165Second Supplemental Declaration Of Casey Stark In Support Of Plaintiff Motion For Leave To Conduct Deposition. Etc., PACER Doc. 170Defendants Second Supplement To Opposition To Plaintiffs Application For Leave To Prepare Deposition Transcript Using Voice Recognition Technology, PACER Doc. 171Order (Magistrate Judge) Denying Plaintiff's Application For Leave To Conduct Deposition By Video And To Prepare Transcript Using Voice Recognition Technology, PACER Doc. 172Plaintiff's Notice Of Objection To Order Denying Application For Leave To Conduct Deposition, Etc. PACER Doc. 173 (appealing magistrate judge's order to district judge)Defendant's Response To Plaintiff's Objection To Magistrate's Order Denying Claims Application For Leave, PACER Doc. 174Plaintiffs Opposition To Defendants Response To Player's Objection To Magistrate's Order Denying Plaintiff's Application, Etc., PACER Doc. 175Order (District Judge) Overruling Plaintiff's Objections, PACER Doc. 178Order Granting Joint Motion For Protective Order, PACER Doc. 32 (providing that certain information was to remain confidential)Modified Protective Order, PACER Doc. 156Readback.legal (reporting agency dedicated to reducing deposition -related costs; interview of Readback's Chief Legal Officer in podcast episode 87)1993 Committee Note to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (noting that where a deposition isn't stenographically recorded, transcripts are often later prepared by counsels' own law firmsFed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(3)(a) (allowing lawyers to capture deposition testimony by stenographic means only, audio only, video only, or any combination of the three)FRCP 26(a)(3)(A)(ii) and FRCP 32(c) (providing that if counsel chooses to record a deposition by video only and plan to present it at trial or hearing, they must provide a transcript of the testimony to the other parties and the court)Readback.legal (innovative and budget-friendly service advertised as "certified, court-admissible deposition service built for legal professionals who need clarity, speed, and accuracy, without relying on outdated stenography")

In the case Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Case No. 1:22-cv-10904-JSR), the U.S. Virgin Islands filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment arguing that JPMorgan Chase knowingly facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation by continuing to provide him with banking services despite mounting evidence of criminal conduct. The memorandum asserts that the bank had repeated opportunities to sever ties with Epstein but instead chose profit over compliance, turning a blind eye to suspicious transactions, large cash withdrawals, and internal warnings. The Government contends that JPMorgan ignored numerous red flags—including sex abuse allegations and Epstein's 2008 conviction—because he was viewed as a “high-value client,” thereby making the bank legally and financially liable for aiding and abetting his criminal enterprise.Additionally, JPMorgan, acting as a Third-Party Plaintiff, has tried to shift blame to James “Jes” Staley, its former senior executive, claiming he misled the bank about Epstein's behavior and maintained an unusually close relationship with the disgraced financier. The Virgin Islands government argues, however, that JPMorgan's own internal communications and compliance failures show the misconduct was institutional, not isolated to Staley. Their summary judgment motion aims to have the court rule, without trial, that JPMorgan violated anti-trafficking and anti-money laundering laws, positioning the bank as a central financial enabler of Epstein's decades-long abuse. This motion, if granted, would significantly advance the territory's case and increase pressure on the bank to settle or face further reputational and legal fallout.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - MSJ BRIEF 7.24.23 Final WORD_Highlighted Black for Redactions (bwbx.io)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Case No. 1:22-cv-10904-JSR), the U.S. Virgin Islands filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment arguing that JPMorgan Chase knowingly facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation by continuing to provide him with banking services despite mounting evidence of criminal conduct. The memorandum asserts that the bank had repeated opportunities to sever ties with Epstein but instead chose profit over compliance, turning a blind eye to suspicious transactions, large cash withdrawals, and internal warnings. The Government contends that JPMorgan ignored numerous red flags—including sex abuse allegations and Epstein's 2008 conviction—because he was viewed as a “high-value client,” thereby making the bank legally and financially liable for aiding and abetting his criminal enterprise.Additionally, JPMorgan, acting as a Third-Party Plaintiff, has tried to shift blame to James “Jes” Staley, its former senior executive, claiming he misled the bank about Epstein's behavior and maintained an unusually close relationship with the disgraced financier. The Virgin Islands government argues, however, that JPMorgan's own internal communications and compliance failures show the misconduct was institutional, not isolated to Staley. Their summary judgment motion aims to have the court rule, without trial, that JPMorgan violated anti-trafficking and anti-money laundering laws, positioning the bank as a central financial enabler of Epstein's decades-long abuse. This motion, if granted, would significantly advance the territory's case and increase pressure on the bank to settle or face further reputational and legal fallout.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - MSJ BRIEF 7.24.23 Final WORD_Highlighted Black for Redactions (bwbx.io)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Case No. 1:22-cv-10904-JSR), the U.S. Virgin Islands filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment arguing that JPMorgan Chase knowingly facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation by continuing to provide him with banking services despite mounting evidence of criminal conduct. The memorandum asserts that the bank had repeated opportunities to sever ties with Epstein but instead chose profit over compliance, turning a blind eye to suspicious transactions, large cash withdrawals, and internal warnings. The Government contends that JPMorgan ignored numerous red flags—including sex abuse allegations and Epstein's 2008 conviction—because he was viewed as a “high-value client,” thereby making the bank legally and financially liable for aiding and abetting his criminal enterprise.Additionally, JPMorgan, acting as a Third-Party Plaintiff, has tried to shift blame to James “Jes” Staley, its former senior executive, claiming he misled the bank about Epstein's behavior and maintained an unusually close relationship with the disgraced financier. The Virgin Islands government argues, however, that JPMorgan's own internal communications and compliance failures show the misconduct was institutional, not isolated to Staley. Their summary judgment motion aims to have the court rule, without trial, that JPMorgan violated anti-trafficking and anti-money laundering laws, positioning the bank as a central financial enabler of Epstein's decades-long abuse. This motion, if granted, would significantly advance the territory's case and increase pressure on the bank to settle or face further reputational and legal fallout.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - MSJ BRIEF 7.24.23 Final WORD_Highlighted Black for Redactions (bwbx.io)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Immigration: May the president abolish birthright citizenship? - Argued: Fri, 01 Aug 2025 18:35:29 EDT

Administrative Law: May the Trump Administration issue a blanket cancellation of grants to researchers at the University of California? - Argued: Thu, 31 Jul 2025 18:46:23 EDT

Immigration: May the president abolish birthright citizenship? - Argued: Fri, 01 Aug 2025 18:36:58 EDT

Executive Power: May the president impose economic tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act? - Argued: Fri, 01 Aug 2025 15:13:41 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

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

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.

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