Podcasts about compel

Investigative journalists Mandy Matney and Liz Farrell dive into the fight for justice for Scott Spivey, who was killed in a shooting incident in Horry County, SC, after allegedly being chased for nine miles. Scott's sister, Jennifer Spivey Foley, has emerged as a powerful force demanding accountability. Along with attorney Mark ‘The Tiger' Tinsley, Jennifer's lawsuit has unearthed a "treasure trove of evidence" pointing to an allegedly "corrupt and inept investigation by Horry County Police" and a flawed review by SLED and the Attorney General's Office. Jennifer reveals how she discovered crucial audio recordings from evidence collected on the shooter Weldon Boyd's phone, which contradict the official narrative. You'll hear Jennifer's powerful and emotional speech before the Horry County Council, where she outlined the biased investigation, mishandling of evidence (including Scott's body), and challenged officials directly. We also share the chilling audio from Weldon's own phone where he boasts Scott was "terrified" during the chase. The episode explores the political response, including a letter from Horry County lawmakers asking the governor to intervene. We scrutinize State Representative William Bailey's decision not to sign this letter and examine disturbing recorded phone calls where Weldon Boyd discusses a potential "proclamation for bravery" allegedly crafted by his attorney Ken Moss and SC State Rep. Bailey. Bailey denies involvement, but his statements appear contradicted by the evidence. We also dissect the Horry County Police Department's press conference aimed at mitigating backlash. Chief Kris Leonhart's explanation of "improperly labeled videos" is obviously inadequate. More significantly, Chief Leonhart's claim that former Deputy Chief Brandon Strickland had "no action on scene" is directly countered by Strickland's own voice on tape admitting he was "working in the shadows" for Weldon Boyd the night of the shooting.  Lots to cover, so let's dive in...

A mysterious image. A centuries-old debate. A piece of linen that may—or may not—hold the face of Christ. Join us on a gripping journalistic journey as we unravel the history, legends, and scientific intrigue surrounding the Shroud of Turin. Through interviews with experts, skeptics, and true believers, we chase down clues, challenge assumptions, and seek answers to one compelling question: Could this cloth be tangible evidence of history's greatest miracle—or its most enduring hoax?Coming soon. Subscribe Now.Pure Life Ministries has been a pioneer in dealing with sexual addiction and its consequences for over 35 years. Order your copy of 20 Truths That Helped Me in My Battle with Porn Addiction here. https://store.purelifeministries.org/product/20-truths-that-helped-me-in-my-battle-with-porn-addiction/ Follow Compel Studio for more updates and Behind the Scenes content.Check out our Instagram @compel.studioVisit our website Compel.Studio

Pat Taggart is the Founder and Chief Creative of SkyBlue Creative, helping many nonprofits effectively use video as part of their communications portfolio. He visits the SnapCast to talk about the right way to create and use video. Among the things we cover: The biggest hurdle to promoting a non-profit on video is often the reluctance of leadership to put themselves on camera Tell vs. Compel    What can you film yourself vs. getting help from a pro  How/where to share  Video FAQs for non-profits We welcome support of the Nonprofit SnapCast via Patreon. We welcome your questions and feedback via The Nonprofit SnapCast website. Learn more about Nonprofit Snapshot's consulting services.

Starbucks introducing new, ‘more consistent’ dress code for baristas Please Subscribe + Rate & Review KMJ’s Afternoon Drive with Philip Teresi & E. Curtis Johnson wherever you listen! --- KMJ’s Afternoon Drive with Philip Teresi & E. Curtis Johnson is available on the KMJNOW app, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music or wherever else you listen. --- Philip Teresi & E. Curtis Johnson – KMJ’s Afternoon Drive --- Weekdays 2-6 PM Pacific on News/Talk 580 & 105.9 KMJ DriveKMJ.com | Podcast | Facebook | X | Instagram --- Everything KMJ: kmjnow.com | Streaming | Podcasts | Facebook | X | Instagram See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Starbucks introducing new, ‘more consistent’ dress code for baristas Please Subscribe + Rate & Review KMJ’s Afternoon Drive with Philip Teresi & E. Curtis Johnson wherever you listen! --- KMJ’s Afternoon Drive with Philip Teresi & E. Curtis Johnson is available on the KMJNOW app, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music or wherever else you listen. --- Philip Teresi & E. Curtis Johnson – KMJ’s Afternoon Drive --- Weekdays 2-6 PM Pacific on News/Talk 580 & 105.9 KMJ DriveKMJ.com | Podcast | Facebook | X | Instagram --- Everything KMJ: kmjnow.com | Streaming | Podcasts | Facebook | X | Instagram See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The document is a filing from prosecutors objecting to Bryan Kohberger's motion to compel disclosure of alleged I.C.R. 16(b)(7) materials and to impose sanctions for what his defense claims is a failure to produce exculpatory evidence. Prosecutors argue that the defense is mischaracterizing both the nature of the materials requested and the State's obligations under Idaho Criminal Rule 16. They assert that the materials Kohberger seeks — including investigative leads, interviews, and certain law enforcement notes — either do not exist, are not in the State's possession, or are not subject to mandatory disclosure because they do not fall under Rule 16(b)(7)'s scope. The prosecution maintains that they have complied fully with discovery requirements, including the timely disclosure of expert reports, digital evidence, and witness lists.The State also criticizes the defense's demand for sanctions, calling it procedurally improper and legally unsupported. Prosecutors argue that Kohberger's team has not shown any evidence of bad faith, willful withholding, or prejudice resulting from any alleged non-disclosure. They emphasize that the defense is attempting to convert discovery disputes into grounds for punitive sanctions — an approach the State characterizes as baseless and aimed at delaying proceedings. The filing closes with a request for the court to deny the motion in full, stating that the State has upheld its legal obligations and that the defense's accusations are speculative and unfounded.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:123124-Objection-Defendants-MtC-ICR16b7-Material-Sanctions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The document is a filing from prosecutors objecting to Bryan Kohberger's motion to compel disclosure of alleged I.C.R. 16(b)(7) materials and to impose sanctions for what his defense claims is a failure to produce exculpatory evidence. Prosecutors argue that the defense is mischaracterizing both the nature of the materials requested and the State's obligations under Idaho Criminal Rule 16. They assert that the materials Kohberger seeks — including investigative leads, interviews, and certain law enforcement notes — either do not exist, are not in the State's possession, or are not subject to mandatory disclosure because they do not fall under Rule 16(b)(7)'s scope. The prosecution maintains that they have complied fully with discovery requirements, including the timely disclosure of expert reports, digital evidence, and witness lists.The State also criticizes the defense's demand for sanctions, calling it procedurally improper and legally unsupported. Prosecutors argue that Kohberger's team has not shown any evidence of bad faith, willful withholding, or prejudice resulting from any alleged non-disclosure. They emphasize that the defense is attempting to convert discovery disputes into grounds for punitive sanctions — an approach the State characterizes as baseless and aimed at delaying proceedings. The filing closes with a request for the court to deny the motion in full, stating that the State has upheld its legal obligations and that the defense's accusations are speculative and unfounded.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:123124-Objection-Defendants-MtC-ICR16b7-Material-Sanctions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The document is a filing from prosecutors objecting to Bryan Kohberger's motion to compel disclosure of alleged I.C.R. 16(b)(7) materials and to impose sanctions for what his defense claims is a failure to produce exculpatory evidence. Prosecutors argue that the defense is mischaracterizing both the nature of the materials requested and the State's obligations under Idaho Criminal Rule 16. They assert that the materials Kohberger seeks — including investigative leads, interviews, and certain law enforcement notes — either do not exist, are not in the State's possession, or are not subject to mandatory disclosure because they do not fall under Rule 16(b)(7)'s scope. The prosecution maintains that they have complied fully with discovery requirements, including the timely disclosure of expert reports, digital evidence, and witness lists.The State also criticizes the defense's demand for sanctions, calling it procedurally improper and legally unsupported. Prosecutors argue that Kohberger's team has not shown any evidence of bad faith, willful withholding, or prejudice resulting from any alleged non-disclosure. They emphasize that the defense is attempting to convert discovery disputes into grounds for punitive sanctions — an approach the State characterizes as baseless and aimed at delaying proceedings. The filing closes with a request for the court to deny the motion in full, stating that the State has upheld its legal obligations and that the defense's accusations are speculative and unfounded.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:123124-Objection-Defendants-MtC-ICR16b7-Material-Sanctions.pdf

The document is a filing from prosecutors objecting to Bryan Kohberger's motion to compel disclosure of alleged I.C.R. 16(b)(7) materials and to impose sanctions for what his defense claims is a failure to produce exculpatory evidence. Prosecutors argue that the defense is mischaracterizing both the nature of the materials requested and the State's obligations under Idaho Criminal Rule 16. They assert that the materials Kohberger seeks — including investigative leads, interviews, and certain law enforcement notes — either do not exist, are not in the State's possession, or are not subject to mandatory disclosure because they do not fall under Rule 16(b)(7)'s scope. The prosecution maintains that they have complied fully with discovery requirements, including the timely disclosure of expert reports, digital evidence, and witness lists.The State also criticizes the defense's demand for sanctions, calling it procedurally improper and legally unsupported. Prosecutors argue that Kohberger's team has not shown any evidence of bad faith, willful withholding, or prejudice resulting from any alleged non-disclosure. They emphasize that the defense is attempting to convert discovery disputes into grounds for punitive sanctions — an approach the State characterizes as baseless and aimed at delaying proceedings. The filing closes with a request for the court to deny the motion in full, stating that the State has upheld its legal obligations and that the defense's accusations are speculative and unfounded.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:123124-Objection-Defendants-MtC-ICR16b7-Material-Sanctions.pdf

The document is a filing from prosecutors objecting to Bryan Kohberger's motion to compel disclosure of alleged I.C.R. 16(b)(7) materials and to impose sanctions for what his defense claims is a failure to produce exculpatory evidence. Prosecutors argue that the defense is mischaracterizing both the nature of the materials requested and the State's obligations under Idaho Criminal Rule 16. They assert that the materials Kohberger seeks — including investigative leads, interviews, and certain law enforcement notes — either do not exist, are not in the State's possession, or are not subject to mandatory disclosure because they do not fall under Rule 16(b)(7)'s scope. The prosecution maintains that they have complied fully with discovery requirements, including the timely disclosure of expert reports, digital evidence, and witness lists.The State also criticizes the defense's demand for sanctions, calling it procedurally improper and legally unsupported. Prosecutors argue that Kohberger's team has not shown any evidence of bad faith, willful withholding, or prejudice resulting from any alleged non-disclosure. They emphasize that the defense is attempting to convert discovery disputes into grounds for punitive sanctions — an approach the State characterizes as baseless and aimed at delaying proceedings. The filing closes with a request for the court to deny the motion in full, stating that the State has upheld its legal obligations and that the defense's accusations are speculative and unfounded.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:123124-Objection-Defendants-MtC-ICR16b7-Material-Sanctions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The document is a filing from prosecutors objecting to Bryan Kohberger's motion to compel disclosure of alleged I.C.R. 16(b)(7) materials and to impose sanctions for what his defense claims is a failure to produce exculpatory evidence. Prosecutors argue that the defense is mischaracterizing both the nature of the materials requested and the State's obligations under Idaho Criminal Rule 16. They assert that the materials Kohberger seeks — including investigative leads, interviews, and certain law enforcement notes — either do not exist, are not in the State's possession, or are not subject to mandatory disclosure because they do not fall under Rule 16(b)(7)'s scope. The prosecution maintains that they have complied fully with discovery requirements, including the timely disclosure of expert reports, digital evidence, and witness lists.The State also criticizes the defense's demand for sanctions, calling it procedurally improper and legally unsupported. Prosecutors argue that Kohberger's team has not shown any evidence of bad faith, willful withholding, or prejudice resulting from any alleged non-disclosure. They emphasize that the defense is attempting to convert discovery disputes into grounds for punitive sanctions — an approach the State characterizes as baseless and aimed at delaying proceedings. The filing closes with a request for the court to deny the motion in full, stating that the State has upheld its legal obligations and that the defense's accusations are speculative and unfounded.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:123124-Objection-Defendants-MtC-ICR16b7-Material-Sanctions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Subscribe for more Videos: http://www.youtube.com/c/PlantationSDAChurchTV Deeper Dive Theme: Pastor Rose explains why you can't do ministry on the cheap (i.e. when it's convenient for you). If there are no challenges in your Christian walk, there's something seriously wrong. Episode Title: Where Is Your Cross? Host: Dawn Williams Guest: Pastor N. Abraham Rose Date: April 2, 2025 Tags: #psdapodcast #psdatv #cross #sacrifice #ministry #worth #disciples #compel #resources #time #ability #service #CrossEqualsSacrifice #NoMinistryOnTheCheap #ItsWorthIt #CrossInExchange4Crown For more life lessons and inspirational content, please visit us at http://www.plantationsda.tv. Church Copyright License (CCLI): 1659090 CCLI Streaming Plus License: 21338439Support the show: https://adventistgiving.org/#/org/ANTBMV/envelope/startSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Subscribe for more Videos: http://www.youtube.com/c/PlantationSDAChurchTV Deeper Dive Theme: Pastor Rose explains why you can't do ministry on the cheap (i.e. when it's convenient for you). If there are no challenges in your Christian walk, there's something seriously wrong. Episode Title: Where Is Your Cross? Host: Dawn Williams Guest: Pastor N. Abraham Rose Date: April 2, 2025 Tags: #psdapodcast #psdatv #cross #sacrifice #ministry #worth #disciples #compel #resources #time #ability #service #CrossEqualsSacrifice #NoMinistryOnTheCheap #ItsWorthIt #CrossInExchange4Crown For more life lessons and inspirational content, please visit us at http://www.plantationsda.tv. Church Copyright License (CCLI): 1659090 CCLI Streaming Plus License: 21338439Support the show: https://adventistgiving.org/#/org/ANTBMV/envelope/startSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Subscribe for more Videos: http://www.youtube.com/c/PlantationSDAChurchTV Theme: Those who are true disciples of Jesus, will be "compelled...to bear His cross." Their service to the cause of Christ will require sacrifice, that of themselves, their resources, their time, and their abilities. There is no genuine service to God without sacrifice. Speaker: Pastor N. Abraham Rose Title: Where Is Your Cross? Key text: https://www.bible.com/bible/59/MRK.15.21.esv Bulletin/Notes: http://bible.com/events/49411080 Date: March 29, 2025 Tags: #psdatv #cross #sacrifice #ministry #worth #disciples #compel #resources #time #ability #service #CrossEqualsSacrifice #NoMinistryOnTheCheap #ItsWorthIt #CrossInExchange4Crown For more life lessons and inspirational content, please visit us at http://www.plantationsda.tv. Church Copyright License (CCLI): 1659090Support the show: https://adventistgiving.org/#/org/ANTBMV/envelope/startSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Joan y Carles nos hablan de comunicación no violenta y de observar sin juzgar. De no confundir la realidad con lo que uno piensa. Un tema muy interesante. ¿Lo de la resaca? Escuchad el programa y lo entenderéis.Además, repasan, como cada semana, las novedades de las redes sociales y del mundo digital; y nos recomiendan:Usuario: @AskPerplexity Web: https://www.airhint.comPelícula: WolfgangÚnete a nuestra comunidad:Telegram: t.me/caviaronlineFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/caviaronline

Episode 26: Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District, et al.Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District, argued before the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on March 19, 2025. Argued by Cameron Norris (on behalf of Parents Defending Education); Elliott Gaiser, Solicitor General of Ohio (on behalf of Ohio and 22 other states as amici curiae); and Jaime Santos (on behalf of the Olentangy Local School District Board of Education, et al.).Background of the case, from the Institute for Free Speech's second amicus brief (in support of reversal): While students may freely identify as having genders that do not correspond to their biological sex, other students enjoy the same right to credit their own perceptions of reality—and to speak their minds when addressing their classmates. Students cannot be compelled to speak in a manner that confesses, accommodates, and conforms to an ideology they reject—even if that ideology's adherents are offended by any refusal to agree with them or endorse their viewpoint. Yet that is what the Olentangy school district's speech code does.“Pronouns are political.” Dennis Baron, What's Your Pronoun? 39 (2020). History shows that people have long used pronouns to express messages about society and its structure—often in rebellion against the prevailing ideology. And the same is true today. Choosing to use “preferred” or “non-preferred” pronouns often “advance[s] a viewpoint on gender identity.” Meriwether v. Hartop, 992 F.3d 492, 509 (6th Cir. 2021). So mandating that students use “preferred” pronouns or none at all elevates one viewpoint while silencing the other. It compels students to adopt the district's ideology on gender identity while at school, and in doing so, “invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control.” W. Va. Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943).Statement of the Issues, from the Brief of Appellant Parents Defending Education:The use of gender-specific pronouns is a “hot issue” that “has produced a passionate political and social debate” across the country. Meriwether v. Hartop, 992 F.3d 492, 508-09 (6th Cir. 2021). One side believes that gender is subjective and so people should use others' “preferred pronouns”; the other side believes that sex is immutable and so people should use pronouns that correspond with biological sex. Id. at 498. Like the general public, students have varying views on this important subject, and the Supreme Court has long recognized that students don't “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969). Yet the Olentangy Local School District has adopted policies that punish speech expressed by one side of the debate—the use of pronouns that are contrary to another student's identity. The district court upheld the Policies as consistent with the First Amendment and denied PDE's preliminary-injunction motion.The issues presented in this appeal are:Whether the District's speech policies likely violate the First Amendment because they compel speech, discriminate based on viewpoint, prohibit speech based on content without evidence of a substantial disruption, or are overbroad.Whether, if PDE is likely to succeed on the merits, the remaining preliminary-injunction criteria favor issuing a preliminary injunction.Resources:CourtListener docket page for Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School Dist, et al.Brief for Appellant Parents Defending EducationBrief for Appellee Olentangy Local School Dist, et al.Supplemental En Banc Brief of Plaintiff-Appellant Parents Defending EducationInstitute for Free Speech first amicus brief (in support of rehearing en banc)Institute for Free Speech second amicus brief (in support of reversal)

We had the pleasure of Stuart Estes and his family come and share a report from the Association of Baptist Students at the University of Arkansas.  He finished with this challenge from Jesus as recorded in Luke's gospel.  We cannot be complacent at the Great Commission of Jesus.  Compel the lost to come to Jesus … Continue reading Compel Them →

REVELATION 13 1. Resist the Persuasive Power of Evil Empires (v1-10) a. He Wants your Love and Loyalty (1-2) b. He Wants your Wonder and Worship (3-4) c. He Wants your Surrender and Submission (5-10) 2. Reject the Pervasive Pressure of Imperial Idolatry (11-18) a. He Wants to Deceive and Distort You b. He Wants to Impress and Influence You c. He Wants to Compel and Control You

For centuries, elite bloodlines have conjured extraterrestrials, secret chiefs, and reptilians. Some researchers surmise that these occult families possess reptilian or serpent DNA and are the real controllers of the planet. This hidden order gave us the ideas shared in the mystery religions, codified the rites of sacrifice, centralized access to extra-dimensional entities, and was responsible for creating the concepts given to us in the Bible and other so-called sacred texts. Will these beings of dark origin openly reveal themselves as we come closer to the eschaton? Tonight on Ground Zero (7-10 pm, pacific time on groundzero.radio), Clyde Lewis talks about REPTILIAN LINEAGE – MAY THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPEL U…FOS.

Visit the Law Nerd Shop at https://LawNerdShop.comThe civil lawsuit against Diddy and Jay-Z was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, meaning it cannot be brought again. Jay-Z and his attorney, Alex Spiro, have released statements, emphasizing that there was no settlement. Jay-Z's legal battles with attorney Buzbee in California and Texas are continuing. Diddy is suing NBC for $100 million over a documentary. There are ongoing issues related to a search of Diddy's jail pod and attorney-client privilege. The Karen Reed case is heating up as we approach the April 1st trial date! We're breaking down the latest discovery disputes, expert witness battles, and the pending motion to dismiss. The legal battle between Blake Lively and the Baldoni parties continues with broad subpoenas, allegations of media leaks, and a new defamation lawsuit in Texas from Jed Wallace. We'll discuss the implications of these filings and what to expect next.RESOURCESHollywood Reporter Article - https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/blake-lively-subpoenas-phone-records-justin-baldoni-legal-battle-1236135188Karen Read Motion to Compel - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M04gYYieIj4 Jay-Z & Diddy Civil Lawsuit - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxSCZvUOQywThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy

In the case of Giuffre v. Maxwell (1:15-cv-07433), on February 26, 2016, plaintiff Virginia Giuffre filed a motion to compel defendant Ghislaine Maxwell to produce documents that Maxwell had withheld, citing objections deemed improper by the plaintiff. Giuffre argued that Maxwell's objections were unfounded and that the withheld documents were essential for the case. The motion sought the court's intervention to mandate the disclosure of these materials, which Giuffre believed were pertinent to her allegations against Maxwell.In response, Maxwell filed a motion for a protective order on March 2, 2016, aiming to limit the scope of discovery and prevent the release of certain documents. The court addressed both motions, ultimately granting Giuffre's motion to compel and denying Maxwell's motion for a protective order. This decision required Maxwell to produce the contested documents, thereby advancing the discovery process in the litigation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Giuffre v. Maxwell | MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Documents Subject To Improper Objections . Document | CasetextBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case of Giuffre v. Maxwell (1:15-cv-07433), on February 26, 2016, plaintiff Virginia Giuffre filed a motion to compel defendant Ghislaine Maxwell to produce documents that Maxwell had withheld, citing objections deemed improper by the plaintiff. Giuffre argued that Maxwell's objections were unfounded and that the withheld documents were essential for the case. The motion sought the court's intervention to mandate the disclosure of these materials, which Giuffre believed were pertinent to her allegations against Maxwell.In response, Maxwell filed a motion for a protective order on March 2, 2016, aiming to limit the scope of discovery and prevent the release of certain documents. The court addressed both motions, ultimately granting Giuffre's motion to compel and denying Maxwell's motion for a protective order. This decision required Maxwell to produce the contested documents, thereby advancing the discovery process in the litigation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Giuffre v. Maxwell | MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Documents Subject To Improper Objections . Document | CasetextBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case of Giuffre v. Maxwell (1:15-cv-07433), on February 26, 2016, plaintiff Virginia Giuffre filed a motion to compel defendant Ghislaine Maxwell to produce documents that Maxwell had withheld, citing objections deemed improper by the plaintiff. Giuffre argued that Maxwell's objections were unfounded and that the withheld documents were essential for the case. The motion sought the court's intervention to mandate the disclosure of these materials, which Giuffre believed were pertinent to her allegations against Maxwell.In response, Maxwell filed a motion for a protective order on March 2, 2016, aiming to limit the scope of discovery and prevent the release of certain documents. The court addressed both motions, ultimately granting Giuffre's motion to compel and denying Maxwell's motion for a protective order. This decision required Maxwell to produce the contested documents, thereby advancing the discovery process in the litigation.o contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Giuffre v. Maxwell | MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Documents Subject To Improper Objections . Document | CasetextBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case of Giuffre v. Maxwell (1:15-cv-07433), on February 26, 2016, plaintiff Virginia Giuffre filed a motion to compel defendant Ghislaine Maxwell to produce documents that Maxwell had withheld, citing objections deemed improper by the plaintiff. Giuffre argued that Maxwell's objections were unfounded and that the withheld documents were essential for the case. The motion sought the court's intervention to mandate the disclosure of these materials, which Giuffre believed were pertinent to her allegations against Maxwell.In response, Maxwell filed a motion for a protective order on March 2, 2016, aiming to limit the scope of discovery and prevent the release of certain documents. The court addressed both motions, ultimately granting Giuffre's motion to compel and denying Maxwell's motion for a protective order. This decision required Maxwell to produce the contested documents, thereby advancing the discovery process in the litigation.o contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Giuffre v. Maxwell | MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Documents Subject To Improper Objections . Document | CasetextBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this episode we get back to the court documents and take a look at the declaration of Anne Taylor in support of Bryan Kohberger third motion to compel discovery.(commercial at 7:29)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:062323+Declaration+of+Anne+C+Taylor+in+Support+of+Defendants+Third+Motion+to+Compel.pdf (amazonaws.com)

We are diving back into the court documents in this episode and we are taking a look at the states motion to compel notice of defense of alibi or alternatively bar certain evidence. We also have on tap the affidavit of Rylene Nowlin and the response to the states response to the order to reconsider a speedy trial. (commercial at 9:58)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072423+Response+to+States+Motion+to+Reconsider+Order+Staying+Time+for+Speedy+Trial.pdf (amazonaws.com)source:071423+Affidavit+of+Rylene+L+Nowlin.pdf (amazonaws.com)source:072723-Motion-to-Compel-Notice-of-Defense-Alibi-Alt-Bar-Certain-Evidence.pdf (amazonaws.com)

In this episode we get back to the court documents and take a look at the declaration of Anne Taylor in support of Bryan Kohberger third motion to compel discovery. (commercial at 7:29)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:062323+Declaration+of+Anne+C+Taylor+in+Support+of+Defendants+Third+Motion+to+Compel.pdf (amazonaws.com)

In this episode, we are diving into the new batch of court filings and taking a look at the declaration of Stephen B. Mercer in support of Bryan Kohberger's third attempt to compel discovery.(commercial at 11:45)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:062323 Notice of Filing Declaration of Stephen B Mercer in Support of Def Third Motion to Compel.pdf (idaho.gov)

A motion to compel in family law litigation is filed when one party fails to respond to discovery requests (like interrogatories or document requests) or provides incomplete responses. The motion asks the court to order the non-compliant party to answer fully. Judges typically review the responses and may impose deadlines, sustain objections, or award attorney's fees if misconduct is evident. This process helps ensure both parties share the necessary information for divorce or family law cases.This podcast is based on our Family Law Headquarters blog titled: What's a motion to compel in family law litigation? To learn more or to schedule a consultation with our Houston, Texas divorce lawyers, please call 855-805-0595 or email info@stangelawfirm.com.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/family-law-talk--6410781/support.

In United States v. Combs, Case No. 24-cr-542 (AS), Sean Combs's legal team has filed a request for a modification to the Protective Order issued by the court. The current order restricts the defense from receiving electronic copies of video evidence referenced in Paragraphs 12(a) and 12(c) of the indictment, permitting only inspection of the footage. Combs's attorneys argue that this restriction hinders their ability to fully investigate the evidence and demonstrate its exculpatory value. They contend that the videos strongly support Combs's innocence and must be electronically produced for proper evaluation and use in his defense.Citing Rule 16(a)(1)(E), which mandates the government to provide access to relevant evidence, and Rule 16(d)(1), which limits restrictions on such evidence to cases with demonstrated "good cause," the defense asserts that no valid justification exists for withholding electronic copies. They emphasize that the videos are critical to ensuring a fair trial and argue that the government's restrictions undermine the defense's ability to effectively utilize the material alongside other Rule 16 and Brady disclosures. The motion urges the court to modify the Protective Order and allow for standard electronic production of the videos.In United States v. Combs, Case No. 24 Cr. 542 (AS), the government has requested that the court direct Sean Combs's defense team to remove and refile their January 14, 2025, motion to amend the Protective Order. The government argues that the defense's filing violated the existing Protective Order by failing to appropriately redact sensitive information. The motion in question seeks to modify restrictions on video evidence, which is currently limited to inspection by counsel and the defendant, without allowing for electronic production.The government asserts that the defense's incomplete redactions breach the terms of the Protective Order (Dkt. 26), which is designed to safeguard the handling of specific evidence in the case. While acknowledging the defense's request to amend the order regarding the video evidence, the government emphasizes that compliance with the current protective measures is essential. They request the court to ensure the filing is re-submitted with redactions that fully adhere to the established rules.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.126.0.pdf

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, the prosecution filed an objection to the defense's motion to compel discovery under Idaho Criminal Rule 16(b)(7) and for sanctions. The defense had argued that the prosecution failed to provide comprehensive expert reports, hindering their preparation. In response, the state contended that it had fulfilled its discovery obligations by disclosing all pertinent materials in a timely manner. The prosecution emphasized that any outstanding expert reports were either not yet finalized or not applicable to the current stage of proceedings.The state further argued that the defense's request for sanctions was unwarranted, asserting that there was no willful withholding of information or violation of discovery rules. They maintained that ongoing communication between both parties would address any concerns regarding the exchange of information. The prosecution requested that the court deny the defense's motion, allowing the case to proceed without the imposition of sanctions or additional discovery mandates.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:123124-Objection-Defendants-MtC-ICR16b7-Material-Sanctions.pdf

In the case of State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, the defense filed a "Motion to Compel I.C.R. 16(b)(7) Material and for Sanctions" on December 27, 2024. This motion asserts that the prosecution has failed to provide comprehensive expert reports and opinions as mandated by Idaho Criminal Rule 16(b)(7). Specifically, the defense highlights that, out of the 25 experts the state intends to call, only five have submitted their reports. This lack of disclosure, according to the defense, hampers their ability to prepare adequately, especially with a looming deadline of January 23, 2025, for submitting their own expert disclosures.The defense contends that the prosecution's incomplete disclosures violate discovery rules, thereby prejudicing Kohberger's right to a fair trial. They argue that such omissions impede their capacity to confront and counter the state's expert testimonies effectively. As a remedy, the defense requests the court to either exclude the undisclosed expert testimonies or compel the prosecution to provide the necessary reports promptly. Additionally, they seek an extension of the January 23 deadline to ensure sufficient time for their preparations. This motion underscores the defense's concerns about procedural fairness and the necessity for full compliance with discovery obligations in this capital murder case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:122724-Motion-Compel-ICT-16b7-Material-Sanctions.pdf

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, the prosecution filed an objection to the defense's motion to compel discovery under Idaho Criminal Rule 16(b)(7) and for sanctions. The defense had argued that the prosecution failed to provide comprehensive expert reports, hindering their preparation. In response, the state contended that it had fulfilled its discovery obligations by disclosing all pertinent materials in a timely manner. The prosecution emphasized that any outstanding expert reports were either not yet finalized or not applicable to the current stage of proceedings.The state further argued that the defense's request for sanctions was unwarranted, asserting that there was no willful withholding of information or violation of discovery rules. They maintained that ongoing communication between both parties would address any concerns regarding the exchange of information. The prosecution requested that the court deny the defense's motion, allowing the case to proceed without the imposition of sanctions or additional discovery mandates.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:123124-Objection-Defendants-MtC-ICR16b7-Material-Sanctions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, the prosecution filed an objection to the defense's motion to compel discovery under Idaho Criminal Rule 16(b)(7) and for sanctions. The defense had argued that the prosecution failed to provide comprehensive expert reports, hindering their preparation. In response, the state contended that it had fulfilled its discovery obligations by disclosing all pertinent materials in a timely manner. The prosecution emphasized that any outstanding expert reports were either not yet finalized or not applicable to the current stage of proceedings.The state further argued that the defense's request for sanctions was unwarranted, asserting that there was no willful withholding of information or violation of discovery rules. They maintained that ongoing communication between both parties would address any concerns regarding the exchange of information. The prosecution requested that the court deny the defense's motion, allowing the case to proceed without the imposition of sanctions or additional discovery mandates.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:123124-Objection-Defendants-MtC-ICR16b7-Material-Sanctions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case of State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, the defense filed a "Motion to Compel I.C.R. 16(b)(7) Material and for Sanctions" on December 27, 2024. This motion asserts that the prosecution has failed to provide comprehensive expert reports and opinions as mandated by Idaho Criminal Rule 16(b)(7). Specifically, the defense highlights that, out of the 25 experts the state intends to call, only five have submitted their reports. This lack of disclosure, according to the defense, hampers their ability to prepare adequately, especially with a looming deadline of January 23, 2025, for submitting their own expert disclosures.The defense contends that the prosecution's incomplete disclosures violate discovery rules, thereby prejudicing Kohberger's right to a fair trial. They argue that such omissions impede their capacity to confront and counter the state's expert testimonies effectively. As a remedy, the defense requests the court to either exclude the undisclosed expert testimonies or compel the prosecution to provide the necessary reports promptly. Additionally, they seek an extension of the January 23 deadline to ensure sufficient time for their preparations. This motion underscores the defense's concerns about procedural fairness and the necessity for full compliance with discovery obligations in this capital murder case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:122724-Motion-Compel-ICT-16b7-Material-Sanctions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, the prosecution filed an objection to the defense's motion to compel discovery under Idaho Criminal Rule 16(b)(7) and for sanctions. The defense had argued that the prosecution failed to provide comprehensive expert reports, hindering their preparation. In response, the state contended that it had fulfilled its discovery obligations by disclosing all pertinent materials in a timely manner. The prosecution emphasized that any outstanding expert reports were either not yet finalized or not applicable to the current stage of proceedings.The state further argued that the defense's request for sanctions was unwarranted, asserting that there was no willful withholding of information or violation of discovery rules. They maintained that ongoing communication between both parties would address any concerns regarding the exchange of information. The prosecution requested that the court deny the defense's motion, allowing the case to proceed without the imposition of sanctions or additional discovery mandates.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:123124-Objection-Defendants-MtC-ICR16b7-Material-Sanctions.pdf

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, the prosecution filed an objection to the defense's motion to compel discovery under Idaho Criminal Rule 16(b)(7) and for sanctions. The defense had argued that the prosecution failed to provide comprehensive expert reports, hindering their preparation. In response, the state contended that it had fulfilled its discovery obligations by disclosing all pertinent materials in a timely manner. The prosecution emphasized that any outstanding expert reports were either not yet finalized or not applicable to the current stage of proceedings.The state further argued that the defense's request for sanctions was unwarranted, asserting that there was no willful withholding of information or violation of discovery rules. They maintained that ongoing communication between both parties would address any concerns regarding the exchange of information. The prosecution requested that the court deny the defense's motion, allowing the case to proceed without the imposition of sanctions or additional discovery mandates.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:123124-Objection-Defendants-MtC-ICR16b7-Material-Sanctions.pdf

In the case of State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, the defense filed a "Motion to Compel I.C.R. 16(b)(7) Material and for Sanctions" on December 27, 2024. This motion asserts that the prosecution has failed to provide comprehensive expert reports and opinions as mandated by Idaho Criminal Rule 16(b)(7). Specifically, the defense highlights that, out of the 25 experts the state intends to call, only five have submitted their reports. This lack of disclosure, according to the defense, hampers their ability to prepare adequately, especially with a looming deadline of January 23, 2025, for submitting their own expert disclosures.The defense contends that the prosecution's incomplete disclosures violate discovery rules, thereby prejudicing Kohberger's right to a fair trial. They argue that such omissions impede their capacity to confront and counter the state's expert testimonies effectively. As a remedy, the defense requests the court to either exclude the undisclosed expert testimonies or compel the prosecution to provide the necessary reports promptly. Additionally, they seek an extension of the January 23 deadline to ensure sufficient time for their preparations. This motion underscores the defense's concerns about procedural fairness and the necessity for full compliance with discovery obligations in this capital murder case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:122724-Motion-Compel-ICT-16b7-Material-Sanctions.pdf

The Crossing Church

Our climb into the sewers of Jeffrey Epstein's criminal enterprise continues in this episode as we are now taking a look at the unredacted motion made by Viriginia Roberts to compel Maxwell to answer deposition questions filed under seal.(commercial at 11:06)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:epstein-documents-943-pages - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The dive into the court documents continues in this episode as we take a look at The Defendants Second Motion to Compel Discovery and we are also taking a look at the States Objection To Stay Proceedings.(commercial at 9:32)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:061523 Defendants Second Motion to Compel Discovery.pdf (idaho.gov)source:061523 States Objection to Motion To Stay Proceedings.pdf (idaho.gov)

In the lawsuit between Diageo and Combs Wines, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team submitted an opposition to Diageo's motion to compel arbitration or dismiss the complaint. In this opposition, Combs argues that his claims, including requests for equitable relief, are not subject to arbitration under the terms of the joint venture agreement. The agreement's language, which allows for injunctive relief in cases of "irreparable harm," forms the basis of Combs' assertion that these matters should be handled in court.Combs alleges that Diageo discriminated against his brand by limiting its distribution and failing to meet its obligations within their partnership, claims that, according to his team, merit judicial review rather than arbitration. The court agreed with Combs in an earlier ruling, allowing these equitable claims to proceed in court. Diageo, however, maintains that all disputes, including those for damages, should be resolved through arbitration and is appealing the court's decision to deny its motion. The case continues to unfold as both sides contest the interpretation of the arbitration provisions and the scope of equitable relief allowed under the agreement.(commercial at 10:35)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Combs_Wines_and_Spirit_v_Combs_Wines_and_Spirit_MEMORANDUM_OF_LAW_I_69.pdf (digitalmusicnews.com)

Over the last seven decades, some states successfully leveraged the threat of acquiring atomic weapons to compel concessions from superpowers. For many others, however, this coercive gambit failed to work. When does nuclear latency--the technical capacity to build the bomb--enable states to pursue effective coercion? In Leveraging Latency: How the Weak Compel the Strong with Nuclear Technology (Oxford UP, 2023), Tristan A. Volpe argues that having greater capacity to build weaponry doesn't translate to greater coercive advantage. Volpe finds that there is a trade-off between threatening proliferation and promising nuclear restraint. States need just enough bomb-making capacity to threaten proliferation but not so much that it becomes too difficult for them to offer nonproliferation assurances. The boundaries of this sweet spot align with the capacity to produce the fissile material at the heart of an atomic weapon. To test this argument, Volpe includes comparative case studies of four countries that leveraged latency against superpowers: Japan, West Germany, North Korea, and Iran. Volpe identifies a generalizable mechanism--the threat-assurance trade-off--that explains why more power often makes compellence less likely to work. Volpe proposes a framework that illuminates how technology shapes broader bargaining dynamics and helps to refine policy options for inhibiting the spread of nuclear weapons. As nuclear technology continues to cast a shadow over the global landscape, Leveraging Latency systematically assesses its coercive utility. Our guest today is Tristan Volpe, an Assistant Professor in the Defense Analysis Department at the Naval Postgraduate School and a nonresident fellow in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Our host is Eleonora Mattiacci, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Amherst College. She is the author of "Volatile States in International Politics" (Oxford University Press, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Over the last seven decades, some states successfully leveraged the threat of acquiring atomic weapons to compel concessions from superpowers. For many others, however, this coercive gambit failed to work. When does nuclear latency--the technical capacity to build the bomb--enable states to pursue effective coercion? In Leveraging Latency: How the Weak Compel the Strong with Nuclear Technology (Oxford UP, 2023), Tristan A. Volpe argues that having greater capacity to build weaponry doesn't translate to greater coercive advantage. Volpe finds that there is a trade-off between threatening proliferation and promising nuclear restraint. States need just enough bomb-making capacity to threaten proliferation but not so much that it becomes too difficult for them to offer nonproliferation assurances. The boundaries of this sweet spot align with the capacity to produce the fissile material at the heart of an atomic weapon. To test this argument, Volpe includes comparative case studies of four countries that leveraged latency against superpowers: Japan, West Germany, North Korea, and Iran. Volpe identifies a generalizable mechanism--the threat-assurance trade-off--that explains why more power often makes compellence less likely to work. Volpe proposes a framework that illuminates how technology shapes broader bargaining dynamics and helps to refine policy options for inhibiting the spread of nuclear weapons. As nuclear technology continues to cast a shadow over the global landscape, Leveraging Latency systematically assesses its coercive utility. Our guest today is Tristan Volpe, an Assistant Professor in the Defense Analysis Department at the Naval Postgraduate School and a nonresident fellow in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Our host is Eleonora Mattiacci, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Amherst College. She is the author of "Volatile States in International Politics" (Oxford University Press, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

In the lawsuit between Diageo and Combs Wines, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team submitted an opposition to Diageo's motion to compel arbitration or dismiss the complaint. In this opposition, Combs argues that his claims, including requests for equitable relief, are not subject to arbitration under the terms of the joint venture agreement. The agreement's language, which allows for injunctive relief in cases of "irreparable harm," forms the basis of Combs' assertion that these matters should be handled in court.Combs alleges that Diageo discriminated against his brand by limiting its distribution and failing to meet its obligations within their partnership, claims that, according to his team, merit judicial review rather than arbitration. The court agreed with Combs in an earlier ruling, allowing these equitable claims to proceed in court. Diageo, however, maintains that all disputes, including those for damages, should be resolved through arbitration and is appealing the court's decision to deny its motion. The case continues to unfold as both sides contest the interpretation of the arbitration provisions and the scope of equitable relief allowed under the agreement.(commercial at 10:35)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Combs_Wines_and_Spirit_v_Combs_Wines_and_Spirit_MEMORANDUM_OF_LAW_I_69.pdf (digitalmusicnews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Episode 2542 - On this Wednesday show, Vinnie Tortorich welcomes guest co-host Teresa Strasser to discuss the things that compel you in food addiction, creatine, and more. https://vinnietortorich.com/2024/09/the-things-that-compel-you-episode-2542 PLEASE SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS YOU CAN WATCH THIS EPISODE ON YOUTUBE - The Things That Compel You Continuing the conversation from an earlier episode regarding food addiction and GLP-1s. (2:30) How the hormones leptin, ghrelin, cortisol, and insulin work. (6:30) The body can become resistant to these hormones and create hunger even when your stomach is full. Teresa shares news regarding levels of chemicals in certain foods, including dark chocolate. (17:00) Vinnie advises athletes on what to do to bulk up. (22:00) You cannot “pump” fat; you can only “pump” muscle. Athletes need lean muscle, not fat. (23:30) Vinnie doesn't always advise protein powders, but there are a couple that may help with goals. (27:30) Creatine can help, too, but there are some caveats. (30:00) More is not better; if too much is taken over time, the body will downregulate and not produce its own. Other sources that have creatine are red meat and eggs. Creatine can also help with hydration, brain function, and other benefits. Teresa has a book called “,” which is in Vinnie's Book Club. Teresa shares how Cal Ripken Jr came to endorse her book, “Making It Home.” (39:00)   (27:30) It's listed under “Special Interest” with a PG-13 rating. There is nothing in it to have earned a PG-13 rating—it's family-friendly. Buy or rent it, rate it, and review it! Watching, rating, and giving good reviews will help him expand the documentary's reach.   Don't forget about the NSNG® Foods promo code! Use promo code VINNIE at the checkout and get 15% off. The promo code ONLY works on the NSNG® Foods website, NOT Amazon. Vinnie's rumble channel: Vinnie's X/Twitter channel: Vinnie shares an update to his website that you'll want to check out: a VIP section! Go to   to join the waitlist! [the_ad id="20253"] PURCHASE  DIRTY KETO (2024) The documentary launched in August 2024! Order it TODAY! This is Vinnie's fourth documentary in just over five years. Visit my new Documentaries HQ to find my films everywhere: Then, please share my fact-based, health-focused documentary series with your friends and family. The more views, the better it ranks, so please watch it again with a new friend! REVIEWS: Please submit your REVIEW after you watch my films. Your positive REVIEW does matter! PURCHASE BEYOND IMPOSSIBLE (2022) The documentary launched on January 11, 2022! Order it TODAY! This is Vinnie's third documentary in just over three years. Get it now on Apple TV (iTunes) and/or Amazon Video! Link to the film on Apple TV (iTunes):  Then, Share this link with friends, too! It's also now available on Amazon (the USA only for now)!  Visit my new Documentaries HQ to find my films everywhere: REVIEWS: Please submit your REVIEW after you watch my films. Your positive REVIEW does matter! FAT: A DOCUMENTARY 2 (2021) Visit my new Documentaries HQ to find my films everywhere: FAT: A DOCUMENTARY (2019) Visit my new Documentaries HQ to find my films everywhere: